In allowing an appeal against the refusal of prior approval for conversion of a light industrial unit in west London to eight flats an inspector has determined that “gross floor area” in Class PA of the GPDO does include internal areas such as staircases but does not include external walls (DCS Number 400-024-102).
Posts By: dcplatest
Another appeal case, this time relating to stables in Lancashire (DCS Number 400-024-650), further illustrates the point made in Be reasonable that the period for compliance with enforcement notices must not be unreasonable.
The new year might be a time for the stiffening of resolve but it is important, particularly with regard to enforcement matters, to be reasonable. A recent appeal case (DCS Number 400-023-842) illustrates the point.
In a decision which might not be popular with all of the neighbours an inspector quashed an enforcement notice requiring the removal of work by a noted street artist at a bar and restaurant in London’s Portobello Road, finding no harm to the character and appearance of the conservation area (DCS Number 400-024-502).
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).
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:-