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.
Posts Categorized: Cut-out-and-keep
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.
In deciding an appeal against the refusal of a certificate of lawfulness for the use of an outbuilding at a house in north London as a granny annexe (DCS Number 400-019-266) an inspector has explained that the decisive factor was not whether the building would be used for purposes incidental to the main dwelling. Rather, he determined, it was necessary to assess whether the building would be used as a physically and/or functionally separate dwelling, or would provide living accommodation that was integral to the use of the existing dwelling.
Airport parking at six former agricultural buildings near Gatwick has been denied a lawful development certificate notwithstanding the appellant’s claim that the use was in line with the authorised storage use of the buildings (DCS Number 200-007-675). The go-to court case in these circumstances is Hickmet, referred to by the appeal inspector.
Sometimes the art and science of planning can lie in being able to recognise when something is not quite right. A useful pointer with regard to the assessment of legal evidence can be drawn from a recent appeal against the refusal of a lawful development certificate for the use of adjacent land as a garden extension at a property in County Durham (DCS Number 400-019-049).
An interesting question before an inspector recently was whether the residential conversion of a subterranean water reservoir in Devon would constitute permitted development under Schedule 2, Part 3, Class P of the GPDO (DCS Number 400-019-003).