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).
Posts By: dcplatest
Some detective work has resulted in a planning inspector deciding that an extension to a house in Derbyshire would not be inappropriate development in the green belt (DCS Number 400-026-608).
The inspector recorded that Paragraph 145 of the Framework sets out a small number of exceptions to inappropriate development in the green belt. One such exception is the extension or alteration of a building, provided that it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building. Local plan policy, he noted, was broadly consistent with the Framework.
An inspector has deleted a condition withdrawing permitted development rights from a new house in the green belt in Essex, pointing out that the GPDO does not differentiate between green belt land and land elsewhere (DCS Number 400-026-655).
In determining an appeal against an enforcement notice directed at an outbuilding in the back garden of a house in Surrey an inspector has set out some useful information relating to the consideration of a fallback situation (DCS Number 400-026-675).
Some 650 metres of quayside railing at a grade II* listed maritime harbour has been approved on appeal at Ramsgate Royal Harbour (DCS Number 400-026-547).
What do you think, is this health and safety gone mad, or is this a prudent undertaking by a responsible local authority? There are no doubt all kinds of rules and regulations concerning public safety, of which planning bloggers might well be unaware, but it seems to us here that the railings will significantly diminish the visual understanding of the operation and historic function of the harbour.
The residential conversion of a vacant shop on the high street of a Gloucestershire market town has been allowed, an inspector judging that a return to retail use was a forlorn hope (DCS Number 400-026-563).
How would you decide which planning approval notice was the authorised version if there were two different versions in existence, both appearing to be legitimate?
This was the question facing an inspector in a recent appeal against the refusal of a certificate of lawfulness for the occupation of a staff dwelling at a caravan park on Dartmoor without complying with a condition restricting occupancy (DCS Number 200-009-504).
Tight site and the council is demanding bike storage? Have a look at this appeal case (DCS Number 400-026-507).
The case concerns a planning condition which required secure cycle parking for a minimum of two cycles for each flat at a site in south London. The council’s concerns, the inspector reported, related to the accessibility of the cycle storage at first floor, which would require the transport of bicycles up a flight of stairs, the type of storage, and that it would require vertical lifting of the bicycle into the unit.
A condition which stated that no signage could be erected at a cattery on Merseyside had a cat in hell’s chance, after an inspector found that it did not satisfy the tests for planning conditions (DCS Number 400-026-450).
There have been reports in the press that the Prime Minister’s Chief Adviser, Dominic Cummings, has pledged to overhaul the nation’s ‘appalling’ planning system. Well, the man might lack a lot of things but he certainly doesn’t lack chutzpah. And, ….we are saying this very quietly…., the system could do with looking at. Even planning inspectors recognize it; note the inspector’s remark in the following paragraph, taken from a recent appeal against the refusal of a certificate of lawfulness for a summerhouse at a house in Dorset (DCS Number 400-026-441).