Posts By: dcplatest

Through the looking-glass

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

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.

Read more on Flour power…

Latin is a language….

“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.

Read more on Latin is a language…….

Deeds, not words

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).

Read more on Deeds, not words…

About the size of it

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.

Read more on About the size of it…

Ignorance of the law

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.”

Read more on Ignorance of the law…

A change of gear

A pizza outlet in west London which is prohibited from delivering takeaways by motor vehicle has overcome the constraint by means of some imaginative thinking (DCS Number 400-022-916).

The appeal inspector noted that the condition in dispute did not prevent deliveries from taking place from the premises but restricted the use of motor vehicles which were defined to include motorcycles, mopeds and motor scooters. The appellants sought to use electrically assisted pedal cycles.

Read more on A change of gear…