In Just kidding around we reported an appeal case in which the issue of permanence was debated. Here’s another, not dissimilar, but which draws on some different case law. This appeal (DCS Number 200-007-302) concerns an enforcement notice directed at a freight container, sited in a Kent field, which was used for the storage of equipment associated with the cultivation of Christmas trees.
Posts Categorized: Cut-out-and-keep
An inspector has decided to refuse a certificate of lawfulness for the residential use of two brick and stone buildings in Somerset (DCS Number 200-007-253), after deciding that the residential use had been abandoned. There had been no residential occupation of the buildings since 1958, he noted.
An inspector declined to issue a certificate of lawful development for the construction of an outbuilding in the rear garden of a house in Buckinghamshire, nonetheless finding that the council’s approach to the application was wrong (DCS Number 400-017-686).
You can’t say that planning isn’t a wide-ranging profession. In a recent appeal involving a roof terrace in north London (DCS Number 400-017-876) an inspector made reference to the meaning of life.
Planners working in the countryside will be very familiar with the phrase ‘reasonably necessary for the purposes of agriculture’ from the GPDO. It isn’t always straightforward, though, to judge what is and what isn’t ‘reasonably necessary’. An appeal case has come up involving an animal feeding area which the inspector found could be considered to be ‘reasonably necessary for the purposes of agriculture’ (DCS Number 200-007-212). As it involved a type which we have never come across, we thought it might be helpful to report it.
As planners we strive for clarity and precision when writing committee reports and site appraisals, so it’s useful to keep a mental folder of relevant vocabulary. You might like to file the following from a recent appeal decision (DCS Number 400-017-750).
Councils tend to be a bit cautious in dealing with amendments to planning applications, not unreasonably in our view as it is so easy to be caught out. That said, the planning system ought to be able to accommodate refinements to development proposals without all parties involved having to start again at square one. A recent appeal decision (DCS Number 200-007-183) indicates that amendments ought to be refused consideration as such only if they are substantially different from the original proposal.
As we remember the story of an infant child in need of shelter we might take a charitable view of an inspector’s decision to grant temporary permission for four unauthorised Traveller pitches in the green belt in Yorkshire, after he gave weight to the needs of the children on the site (DCS Number 200-007-139).
Further confirmation that ‘isolated’ in Paragraph 55 of the NPPF means physically isolated comes in the shape of a recent appeal relating to the refusal of outline permission for redevelopment of commercial buildings and a bungalow in the Worcestershire countryside with five dwellings (DCS Number 400-017-468). In this case the inspector usefully quotes the words of the judge in Braintree District Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, Greyread Limited & Granville Developments Limited :
An inspector has upheld an enforcement notice requiring the demolition of a new building on a farm holding on green belt land in Derbyshire, after finding that it had been designed as a residential property (DCS Number 400-017-202).