A Hampshire resident’s argument that his 2m high perimeter fence was permitted development due to the existence of a hedge between the fence and the highway has been kicked to the kerb by an inspector (DCS Number 400-020-431).
Posts Categorized: Cut-out-and-keep
An inspector dealing with an appeal against the refusal of a lawful development certificate for a dormer extension at a house in east London has ruled that firewall upstands are not part of the roof (DCS Number 400-020-327).
In an appeal against an enforcement notice directed at the residential use of a stable block in County Durham (DCS Number 400-020-325) an inspector found no difficulty in identifying the meaning of ‘residential paraphernalia’.
In deciding that the residential conversion of a barn in Cornwall under permitted development rights was ruled out by a condition attached to the planning permission for the building (DCS Number 400-020-154) an inspector has made reference to the nine principles for conditions set out in Dunnett.
In deciding an appeal against a south London council’s refusal to grant a certificate of lawfulness for a vehicle crossover (DCS Number 400-020-168), an inspector has distinguished between ‘porous’ and ‘permeable’ hard surfacing.
Hot tubs do not require planning permission, a reporter determining a case in southeast Scotland has ruled (DCS Number 400-019-975).
The reporter identified the key factors he needed to assess in relation to whether the eleven hot tubs, sited at park lodges, required planning permission were their size, permanence and degree of physical attachment to the land (Cardiff Rating Authority v Guest Keen Baldwin Iron & Steel Co Ltd  and Skerritts of Nottingham Ltd v SSETR & Harrow LBC ).
A neat summary of the nature of a condition precedent can be found in an appeal seeking an LDC to confirm that a house in Bedfordshire had been erected without planning permission (DCS Number 400-019-565).
An interesting point concerning the “second bite” provision of the Act has arisen in an appeal concerning an enforcement notice directed at the excavation of a trench at a house in Oxfordshire (DCS Number 400-019-599).
In concluding that a 30-dwelling redevelopment of a stable building, arena and hardstanding outside a picturesque village in Hampshire would not harm the setting of the countryside (DCS Number 400-019-585) an inspector referred to a fellow inspector’s definition of ‘setting’.
Q: What do you call Fireman Sam when he is retired?
Somewhat more seriously, an inspector dealing with an appeal against the refusal of planning permission for four flats on a landlocked site reached by an unbound vehicular track in south London (DCS Number 400-019-470) has addressed concerns that fire engines would be unable to reach the site in the event of a fire.