Making sense of the various permitted development rights for change of use under Part 3, Schedule 2 of the GPDO is a long way from easy. In particular, many have drawn the conclusion that a local planning authority which fails to determine a prior approval application within the requisite period has granted permission by default. Not so, as we highlighted in No worries.
Posts By: dcplatest
As we celebrate the fiftieth anniversary of the moon landing it appears that planning has made one giant leap backwards. Get this: in Hertfordshire an appeal has been allowed and approval granted for change of use from light industrial to windowless flats under the provisions of Schedule 2, Part 3, Class PA of the GPDO (DCS Number 400-022-545).
If William Morris were still here he might be interested to know that, whilst many of his ideas were considered revolutionary in his lifetime, some have since been absorbed into mainstream planning policy. In particular, he did not share his fellow Victorians’ enthusiasm for turning back the hands of time in relation to the preservation of ancient buildings, and an appeal decision against the refusal of listed building consent for internal alterations to a thatched cottage in Wiltshire (DCS Number 400-022-320) is in line with his philosophy.
Readers who move in certain circles might already be aware that, after his problems with a proposed private chapel on his Suffolk estate, Ed Sheeran does at least now have his wildlife pond sorted out.
An inspector has authorised shorter visibility splays than deemed necessary by the council at the access to six dwellings in Suffolk, finding no particular justification for insisting on visibility splays suitable for a trunk road (DCS Number 400-022-073).
The neighbours might not have thought much of this one (DCS Number 400-022-191) but it gives us an idea how far built development can vary from the approved plans before being deemed unauthorised.
In It ain’t necessarily so we reported an appeal case in which a certificate of lawfulness was issued for a mobile home within a residential curtilage despite the council’s concern that it could be used as a separate unit of accommodation. What if a mobile home were to be built and assembled on site? Surely then it would need planning permission? Still no.
Curtilage caravans which provide all the requirements for independent occupation must require planning permission, right? Not necessarily. Proving the case, an inspector has issued a certificate of lawfulness for the siting of a three-bedroom mobile home within the garden of a house in Essex (DCS Number 400-021-680).
A group of bikers might not be the first image that comes to mind when thinking of the British countryside, but an inspector has allowed a motorcycle café in rural Lincolnshire, pointing out that motorcycling is an activity which can contribute to the rural economy (DCS Number 400-021-913).
In the green belt openness and visual amenity used to be discrete things but it looks like they have merged into one another. For the record, an inspector dealing with an appeal against the refusal of permission for a single dwelling in the green belt in Hertfordshire has set out the relevant court cases (DCS Number 200-008-480).