In a recent appeal decision (DCS Number 200-009-570)(same one as cited in A written inquiry) the inspector set out his thoughts on the effects of the Covid-19 pandemic on the borough’s five-year housing land supply figures. It’s an interesting read so we thought we would share. Here’s what he says:
Posts By: dcplatest
As we begin to understand the shape that the new normal might take for the planning profession, it is interesting to read an inspector’s explanation of how he undertook a planning inquiry relating to an outline proposal for residential development in Essex (DCS Number 200-009-570) without the usual gathering of all the main and interested parties in a council office/village hall/community centre:
An inspector has embraced the impending changes to the planning system in a recent appeal decision (DCS Number 400-027-274). This appeal related to the refusal of planning permission for the change of use of a retail unit in a Devon primary shopping frontage to a restaurant.
We found the following paragraph in a recent appeal decision under ‘Preliminary Matters’ (DCS Number 400-027-227):
“I have taken the site address and description of proposed development from the planning application form although I note these are expressed differently on other documents. I have also taken the appellant’s name from the planning application form but note a Christian name has been provided on the planning appeal form.”
Doesn’t the use of the word ‘original’ in planning legislation ever cause some problems? Here’s another instance (DCS Number 400-027-219).
This case concerns an appeal against the refusal of prior approval for a 6m deep rear extension to a mid-terrace house in north London.
An enforcement notice alleging the use of a swimming pool in the garden of a bungalow in Hampshire for commercial, leisure and recreational purposes, not incidental to the lawful use as a single dwelling house, has been upheld notwithstanding the appellant’s contention that swimming lessons are educational rather than recreational or leisure uses (DCS Number 400-027-208).
An inspector has sanctioned the retention of security roller shutters over a shopfront in Derbyshire on the grounds (we might be paraphrasing a bit here) that things couldn’t get any worse (DCS Number 400-027-046).
A couple of recent appeal decisions relating to shipping containers result in confusing guidance.
In the first case (DCS Number 400-027-058), the inspector refused to issue a certificate of lawfulness for a shipping container in Dorset, deeming its siting to be a use of land and therefore not immune from enforcement because it had been there for less than ten years. The inspector reasoned that the case turned on whether the container was a ‘building’ and therefore operational development as defined by section 55 of the Act. He explained that if it was a ‘building’ it was only necessary to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that it had been there for four years from the date of the application, the statutory time limit as set out in section 171B (1) of the Act. If it was not deemed to be a ‘building’ it was necessary to demonstrate, on the balance of probabilities, that it had been on the site for ten years from the date of the application, as set out in section 171B (3) of the Act.
Despite being larger in scale than the existing dwelling a replacement dwelling has been allowed in rural north Wales, an inspector finding it to be of exceptional design (DCS Number 400-027-021).
In determining an appeal against the refusal of a lawful development certificate for a rear extension to a mid terrace house in south London an inspector has found that the council misinterpreted Paragraph A.1(f)(i) in Schedule 2 Part 1 Class A of the GPDO (DCS Number 400-026-137).