Judging whether a Class E outbuilding ought to be considered ‘incidental to the enjoyment of the dwelling’ is not always easy, so readers might wish to note an appeal case in which the inspector sets out the considerations which should be taken into account (DCS Number 400-014-199).
Posts Categorized: Cut-out-and-keep
Prior approval for the conversion of two floors of a warehouse in Sussex to nine flats has been turned down at appeal, an inspector finding that the size of the building would exceed the 500 sqm floor space limitation set out in Schedule 2, Part 3, Class P of the GPDO (DCS Number 400-014-157). Whilst the inspector found that external walls must be included in calculations of floor space under this class there appears, nonetheless, to be an unresolved question arising from the absence of reference to cumulative maximum floor space figures.
We thought this snippet was interesting for the considerable (unprecedented?) emphasis placed on the importance of urban grain. The case (DCS Number 400-014-146) concerns an appeal against the refusal of listed building consent to create an off-road parking area at a grade II listed former mill worker’s cottage in an area designated as a World Heritage Site.
After his recent unfortunate brushes with the cycling community the secretary of state for transport might be interested in a planning inspector’s view that a cycle is a vehicle (DCS Number 400-013-998).
Sometimes it is reassuring to note that our planning system has achieved a degree of sophistication such that it can uphold the intention of the law in the face of a literal interpretation of the law, as the appellants found out in (DCS Number 400-014-015).
In considering an appeal against an enforcement notice directed at the residential conversion of a barn on an Essex farm an inspector was called on to apply the principles of the Welwyn judgment which hold that no-one should be allowed to profit from his own wrong: the public policy principle. Readers might wish to cut out and keep paragraphs 29 to 32 of this decision (DCS Number 200-005-982) since they set out the four features of deception which take development outside the scope of immunity from enforcement, and which might involve ‘a spectrum of wrongdoing’.
On realising that a decision notice has been sent out in error it might be tempting to fire off a corrected version in the hope that it will put things right. It won’t – as the council discovered in (DCS Number 400-013-894).
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).
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.