This case concerns an appeal against the refusal of planning permission for the creation of two additional units at a homeless hostel in west London. The units, the inspector noted, would fall some way below the adopted internal space standards in the local plan and would not be provided with any private external space. He also noted, however, that the local plan was clear that development would be required to meet the demands of everyday life for the intended occupants.
Posts By: dcplatest
There are sixty-eight shopping days till Christmas.
Perhaps it is a bit early to be buying a Christmas tree but readers might be interested to hear that an inspector has granted prior approval for a barn conversion in Gloucestershire after ruling that the growing of Christmas trees falls within the definition of agriculture (DCS Number 400-027-574).
The residential conversion of agricultural barns under Class Q of the GPDO is precluded if the location or siting would make it ‘impractical’ or ‘undesirable’. Conversion is often found to be ‘impractical’, but when might a conversion be considered ‘undesirable’?
Here’s an interesting remark from an inspector who was determining an appeal against an enforcement notice requiring the removal of a timber play structure from the garden of a house in Lincolnshire (DCS Number 400-027-704).
Given the current global pandemic, an inspector found it appropriate to cut some slack for a local planning authority, refusing to award costs against it for failing to determine a change of use planning application within the requisite period (DCS Number 400-027-724).
The quality of planning applications can range from commendable to criminal but there is really never any need for this:
“In response to the Council’s punitive refusal reasons…”
(DCS Number 400-027-567).
Readers might share our disquietude at the following paragraph, taken from an appeal decision relating to the refusal of planning permission for a 60-bedroom care home in Cheshire (DCS Number 400-027-262).
Planning permission has been granted at appeal (DCS Number 400-027-526) for the change of use of a first floor tattoo studio in Norwich to temporary visitor accommodation despite concerns about the small size of the property.
A sculpture of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II’s head profile made from crystals and set within a glass panel measuring 5.6 metres tall by 3 metres wide has been refused a second temporary permission.
We all know that a sitting room is a habitable room and that a bathroom is not a habitable room. But what about a study? According to one inspector, determining an appeal in north London (DCS Number 200-009-576), a study in a neighbouring property could not be assessed as a habitable room: