dcplatest | DCP Latest

Lifestyle choices

Posted September 27th, 2019 by dcplatest & filed under Cut-out-and-keep.

An inspector has granted a lawful development certificate for an outbuilding at a house in west London, having overruled the council on the meaning of ‘required’ (DCS Number 400-023-260).

The inspector recorded that the council had refused the application because it considered the operations would not be permitted by Class E of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the GPDO. Class E, he explained, permits the provision within the curtilage of a dwellinghouse of any building required for a purpose incidental to the enjoyment of the dwellinghouse as such, subject to the detailed limitations set out in E.1. The council had reached its conclusion because the “overall size and scale and intended use” of the outbuilding was “not considered to represent a development for a purpose incidental to the enjoyment of the dwellinghouse”.

You had your chance

Posted September 24th, 2019 by dcplatest & filed under Current thinking.

An inspector has granted approval of the details required by conditions attached to a planning permission for the erection of a bungalow in west Sussex, finding no reason not to approve them (DCS Number 400-023-429).

Through the looking-glass

Posted September 20th, 2019 by dcplatest & filed under Opinion.

Looking at a development proposal through the prism of an appellant’s reasoning can often be enlightening, sometimes entertaining, and sometimes even alarming. See what you make of the following appeal case which concerned the redevelopment of a commercial garage in central London with a block of 23 flats (DCS Number 200-008-756).

Read more on Through the looking-glass…

Flour power

Posted September 16th, 2019 by dcplatest & filed under Cut-out-and-keep.

Frequently, the best way to ensure the preservation of a heritage building is to use it, and more often than not the use for which it was designed will be the most suitable. In this regard a recent appeal in Sussex where the functioning of a working windmill was a matter of concern is an interesting case.

Latin is a language….

Posted September 6th, 2019 by dcplatest & filed under Compare and Contrast.

“Latin is a language, dead as dead can be,

First it killed the Romans, and now it’s killing me.”

Despite the claims of this little rhyme, found scrawled in many a Latin textbook, Latin lives on in modern English, as we all know. Bear in mind that the Latin for maidservant is ‘ancilla’ when reading the following and it will help you to remember the distinction between ‘ancillary’ and ‘incidental’, made by the second inspector.

Deeds, not words

Posted September 2nd, 2019 by dcplatest & filed under Opinion.

A statue of Emmeline Pankhurst in Parliament Square near to the Houses of Parliament has been rejected at appeal, the inspector finding no exceptionally good reason to locate the statue in an area identified in a supplementary planning document as a monument saturation zone (DCS Number 400-023-176).

A matter of form

Posted August 30th, 2019 by dcplatest & filed under Compare and Contrast.

Not so long ago we reported an appeal case in which an inspector ruled that a restaurant was a community facility (High on the hog). In that case (DCS Number 400-022-010) the inspector decided that the loss of the restaurant to residential use “…would have a harmful impact on the ability of the community to meet its day to day needs.”

The direction of travel

Posted August 28th, 2019 by dcplatest & filed under Current thinking.

A recent appeal against the refusal of planning permission for eight houses in rural Kent (DCS Number 400-022-777) has allowed us a glimpse of the future, the day when, just maybe, our travel habits are not polluting the atmosphere with noxious gases. Whilst the inspector dismissed the appeal, it is interesting to note the direction of travel.

About the size of it

Posted August 21st, 2019 by dcplatest & filed under Cut-out-and-keep.

From time to time there is debate about the size of a planning unit so we thought it might be useful to report a recent appeal case in which the subject was addressed (DCS Number 400-022-610). In this case the inspector ruled that an enforcement notice which required the cessation of motocross activities at a former quarry in south Yorkshire was not defective, despite the appellant’s claim that the planning unit was not identified correctly.

Ignorance of the law

Posted August 12th, 2019 by dcplatest & filed under Compare and Contrast.

Since when has it been the appellant’s responsibility to educate a planning inspector about planning law?!

In Open all hours? we reported an appeal case in which the inspector cited the relevant planning legislation concerning electronic communications (DCS Number 400-016-112). He recorded that “Paragraph 2(7) of Schedule 1 to the Town and Country Planning (Electronic Communications) (England) Order 2003 and Article 2(9) of the GPDO are clear”….”that communications received outside of normal business hours shall be taken to have been received the next working day. Furthermore, section 336(4A) of the 1990 Act indicates that an electronic communication, used for the purposes of giving a notice, shall be taken to have been received the following day if received outside of that person’s business hours.”

Posts By: dcplatest