An inspector decided that a cheque payment for a prior approval application failed to start the clock ticking and as a consequence the council had made its decision within 56 days (DCS Number 200-004-820).
Posts Categorized: Opinion
The confusion here in relation to the prior approval procedure continues. Here is a multiple choice quiz:
What should a council do if it does not believe the proposed development notified in a prior approval application is permitted development. Should it:
Two recent cases have set the team wondering about the rationale behind the wording of the GPDO.
In (DCS Number 400-010-438) permission for the residential conversion of a building in Devon under Class P, Part 3, Schedule 2 of the GPDO was denied because it had not been used solely for a storage or distribution centre use. The inspector noted that the building was being utilised for storage purposes in connection with the appellant’s own business, for paid storage purposes by others, and for some minor domestic storage. He held that some of those purposes, such as the storage paid for by others, could be said to fall within Use Class B8. However, other purposes were connected to the appellant’s permaculture activities on the wider site. This would not fall under the ambit of Use Class B8, but was storage which was ancillary to the primary use of the site for the purposes of permaculture. The building was therefore being used for a mixture of purposes and the conversion was not one that is permitted by Class P of the 2015 Order.
An appellant in Middlesex found himself with an unlawful extension after falling foul of the prior application procedure regulations (DCS Number 200-004-604).
The appellant proposed a 6m deep single storey extension to his semi-detached house under the prior application procedure and no objections were received from neighbours. A No Objection response was issued by default once 42 days had elapsed, an inspector recorded, and was therefore permitted development. The appellant then started to build the extension but a neighbour raised a concern about its position in relation to their shared access. Accordingly, the appellant decided to set in part of the side wall of the extension adjacent to the shared drive by some 600mm for a distance of 2.84m from the end elevation. In addition, the internal arrangement was altered, and a window was omitted from the end elevation and was instead inserted into the side elevation facing the shared access. In order to regularize the development the appellant then submitted an application for a certificate of lawful development.
An appeal against a refusal under the prior application procedure for the conversion of a barn in north Yorkshire to two dwellings was dismissed because the building had not been solely in agricultural use (DCS Number 400-010-257).
Outline permission for up to 90 dwellings on the edge of a town in Staffordshire was rejected, the inspector finding that it would have a significant adverse effect on the setting of a conservation area and that this would materially harm the conservation area’s significance (DCS Number 200-004-537). He agreed with both main parties that the resulting effect would amount to less than substantial harm in the terms of the Framework. However, a finding of less than substantial harm, he explained, should not be equated with a less than substantial planning objection.
What does ‘less than substantial harm’ mean to the ordinary man in the street? Not significant harm, maybe. What is indicated if ‘less than substantial harm’ is found to the setting of a heritage asset? That the proposed development is likely to be found acceptable, maybe. No and no.
In the old days when life was simple a householder could start digging the foundations for his extension whilst waiting for written confirmation from the council that it was pd. Not now.
Readers will recall that the NPPF swept away a raft of national guidance on 27 March 2012. Nevertheless, a particular section of PPS 7 is still in regular use. The inspector in (DCS Number 200-004-489) explains why:
Retrospective listed building consent has been refused for the painting of the exterior of a ground floor Glasgow bar in a burgundy colour (DCS Number 400-009-896). The appellant explained that since taking on the lease in 2012 the business had attracted core regulars but had struggled to attract passing trade, customers having indicated that a common problem was identifying the bar as a separate entity from the hotel above (…and that was before they’d had a drink?! Anyway…). Since the burgundy paint was applied business in the bar had increased by about 30 per cent. The reporter took particular exception to the clash between the burgundy colour and the cream colour of the hotel.