In denying planning permission for a new bungalow in the Ironbridge Gorge World Heritage site, an inspector made it clear that he was unimpressed with the lack of regard for the historic setting shown by the proposals (DCS Number 400-024-038).
Posts By: dcplatest
The cold within a planning inspector “froze his old features, nipped his pointed nose, shrivelled his cheek, stiffened his gait; made his eyes red, his thin lips blue; and spoke out shrewdly in his grating voice” as the old Scrooge dismissed a recent appeal against the refusal of planning permission for a Christmas market in York (DCS Number 400-024-155).
Well, we are approaching pantomime season.
An appeal against refusal of a lawful development certificate for a loft conversion with dormer windows at a house in south London has been dismissed, the inspector finding that, despite the appellant’s belief that he lived in a detached house, permitted development limits relating to a terrace house applied (DCS Number 400-024-188).
No doubt it is invariably with the best of intentions that planning authorities attach planning conditions to planning permissions, but they do not always pass the scrutiny of planning inspectors. Going by a recent appeal case (DCS Number 400-024-078), the type which requires the retention of specified materials might be one to cross off the standard conditions list, and at the very least merits careful consideration before use.
The first and foremost principle with regard to the care of a listed building must be to not damage it. The second might be to not attach unnecessary accretions. With this in mind we are pleased to report that an inspector has refused to issue a certificate of lawfulness for the attachment of a plaque bearing the words “An English listed building” and a rose motif to a grade II listed farmhouse in Kent (DCS Number 400-023-929).
While our political leaders set out on the campaign trail little appears to be happening to address the situation in which poor-quality housing continues to be sanctioned under permitted development rights. Here is another example:-
Some three years ago we published a blog about How to get an open market dwelling in the countryside. In case you missed it, here is the procedure, exemplified by an appeal case in east Yorkshire (DCS Number 400-023-743):
In a “failure to determine” appeal relating to a proposal for extensions to a house in north London (DCS Number 400-023-846) we found this commentary from an inspector:-
“The Council relies on a Delegated Report as their appeal statement. Most of the report is poorly written and parts are unintelligible.”….”Other parts of the report are incorrect…”…. “It is worth noting… that parts of the report…appear to relate to a different proposed development.”
In determining an appeal against the refusal of planning permission for the redevelopment of a suburban house in Northamptonshire with a care home, an inspector was not persuaded regarding the necessity of a financial contribution to fund increased library provision (DCS Number 400-023-756).
An inspector has deleted a condition requiring a noise attenuation scheme for balconies at a development of flats near a busy thoroughfare, reasoning that flats with balconies provide better living conditions than flats without balconies (DCS Number 200-008-848).