An ingenious lighting solution has resolved concerns about inadequate lighting in a basement flat in east Sussex, while also conjuring up images of a portal through the back of a wardrobe (DCS Number 400-013-594).
Posts Categorized: Cut-out-and-keep
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.
We have spotted The Wizard of Oz in the telly listings so we feel bound to make a reference to this Christmas TV classic……
It’s worth remembering that whilst Dorothy was pleased to find herself back home in Kansas others might not view former homes in quite the same way. A couple of enforcement notices have been faulted at appeal recently (DCS Numbers 400-013-495 and 400-013-616), the inspectors explaining that an enforcement notice can only require the cessation of the unauthorised use; it cannot require reversion to use as a dwelling.
An inspector has issued a certificate of lawfulness for an extension to a dwelling in Essex (DCS Number 400-013-660) after finding that a reference to the 1988 General Development Order in a planning obligation was no longer binding.
A condition attached to the planning permission for the redevelopment of a site in Buckinghamshire with six flats which sought to nullify an earlier permission for one dwelling has been deleted at appeal (DCS Number 400-013-570).
Judging the amount of works necessary to constitute the implementation of a planning permission can be difficult, although an inspector dealing with an appeal against the refusal of a certificate of lawfulness for a replacement dwelling in Kent (DCS Number 400-013-504) was ‘mindful that very little is needed to implement a permission for operational development’. This tallies with the inspector’s finding in Cemetery firm digs itself out of a hole.
A When it’s not in a roof
See what you think of this one – we’re not sure what to make of it here. An inspector has denied a lawful development certificate for a rooflight to a basement underneath the garden of a house in central London on the basis that it would not be in the roof and would therefore not constitute permitted development (DCS Number 400-013-551).
There is sometimes a degree of uncertainty concerning the application of permitted development rights to houses in multiple occupation. Here is an inspector setting the record straight (DCS Number 400-013-332):
“The appeal property is a mid terrace building currently in use as a small House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) for up to 6 people (Class C4). The proposal seeks approval for a single storey rear extension with a flat roof to 6 metres (m) from the original rear wall of the house. The GPDO allows for such extensions to terraced dwellinghouses. However, it is the Council’s assertion that given the current use of the appeal property as a small HMO, it does not benefit from such permitted development rights under the provisions of the GPDO.
Readers dealing with enforcement matters will know that it is a matter of judgement for a local authority as to whether or not it is expedient to take enforcement action against a breach of planning legislation; the funds to pursue such action are, of course, drawn from the public purse.
In Vertical Sky Component – an explanation the Blog explained how VSC is calculated. Just as an example, here it is in practice in a recent appeal decision relating to a flat block extension in east London (DCS Number 400-013-364)