Children’s rights are not often discussed in appeal decisions but Christmas seems an appropriate time to record the consideration given to the interests of children set out in the planning system.
Posts Categorized: Current thinking
Whilst agreeing with the national park authority that a barn on Exmoor was intentional unauthorised development, an inspector judged that this fact was not, on its own, sufficient to dismiss the appeal against enforcement (DCS Number 400-013-494).
A council in Hertfordshire has threatened a legal challenge to Planning Policy Guidance in respect of barn conversions under the GPDO (DCS Number 400-013-437).
The basis of the council’s refusal of prior approval for the residential conversion of the barn was that it would result in a dwelling in an isolated location. An appeal inspector pointed out, however, that Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) confirms, in relation to the Class Q permitted development rights, that
Readers might wish to note the detailed consideration given by an inspector to an appeal against the refusal of listed building consent for the replacement of a bay window in a Dorset cottage.
In quashing an enforcement notice aimed at the unauthorised change of use of a travel agency (Class A1 use) in central London to a mixed use comprising a retail shop and a café/restaurant an inspector recognised the leisure aspect of shopping trips (DCS Number 400-013-348).
There has been head-scratching here at the DCP Blog about how to recognise a ‘valued landscape’ (Paragraph 109 of the NPPF). Valued by whom?
In Leckhampton, Cheltenham (DCS Number 200-004-992) the secretary of state agreed with his inspector that the site, whilst not designated, had its own intrinsic charm which gave it value and that it was a locally valued landscape.
An appellant whose plans to build a house within 400m of the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area have been thwarted due to the presence of protected birds in the SPA has claimed the country’s impending departure from the European Union in support of the proposal (DCS Number 400-013-119).
Not so long ago the view of inspectors was generally that the impact on openness in the green belt had little to do with whether or not development could be seen. Any physical structure would necessarily reduce openness, it was reasoned. A recent court case appears to have changed things somewhat radically, however.
A recent appeal decision in Shropshire tells us that it is worth comparing affordable housing restrictions on existing property against current local planning policy, an inspector having lifted a planning obligation from a house in the light of changed priorities (DCS Number 400-012-611).
You don’t have to look far to find an example from Donald Trump’s trail of lawsuits, referred to by President Obama in his farewell address in Philadelphia. An inspector has recently cited Trump International Golf Club Scotland v Scottish Ministers  in declining to issue a lawful development certificate for the retention of a rear extension at a house in east London (DCS Number 400-012-343).