An inspector dealing with an appeal against the refusal of a prior approval application for the residential conversion of a redundant agricultural building at a Sussex farm under Schedule 2, Part 3, Class Q, of the GPDO has confirmed that permission is not granted by default if the council fails to determine the application within the requisite 56-day period (DCS Number 400-019-444).
Posts Categorized: Quirks of the system
Unsurprisingly, confusion can arise about the meaning of the reference in Class A, Part 1, Schedule 2 of the GPDO to “the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse”. Does it mean just the extension currently proposed, or should it include previous extensions to the dwelling? The answer is that it used to be the latter, then it was the former but now it’s the latter, as helpfully set out by an inspector in a recent appeal decision (DCS Number 400-019-328).
Before moving too far forward with an amendment to a planning proposal it’s worth remembering that, in planning law, the status of a completed building often differs from that of a partially completed building. The following case in south Wales sets out a bit of relevant case law.
If you told the man in the street that a boat floating on water can entail the change of use of land he’d probably think you had a screw loose, but see what you make of the following ruling.
It’s high summer so it must be time to talk about holiday cottages….
Notwithstanding his determination that a holiday cottage at a golf club in Bedfordshire was a dwellinghouse, an inspector decided that the necessary period for its residential occupation to become immune from enforcement was ten years rather than four (DCS Number 200-007-562).
When a planning inspector finds himself explaining that “We are forced into this somewhat ludicrous situation by the wording of the various Orders and Planning Acts ….” we must be in a serious mess. However, this situation arose in an appeal against an enforcement notice directed at a barn conversion on a farm in Worcestershire (DCS Number 200-007-575). The sequence of events leading to the appeal is this:
A recent appeal case in north Wales addresses an interesting point about the validation of planning applications (DCS Number 400-018-465).
The appellants in this case had made a householder application for ‘alterations and extension to domestic garage to form annexe accommodation’ and they had paid the relevant fee. The planning authority, however, issued a notice of invalidity, with the requirement ‘Please complete and return an application form for planning permission, this type of proposal is not household but the creation of a dwelling, and please note the correct fee is £380.00’.
The change of use of a building in Oxfordshire from B1 office use to nine flats under Schedule 2, Part 3, Class O of the GPDO has been allowed notwithstanding that operational development was required to implement the change of use (DCS Number 200-007-297).
The nature of ‘conditions precedent’ has been exercising the finest minds in planning, as indicated in The order of precedence. When considering whether a permission has been lawfully implemented despite being in breach of a condition precedent a principal consideration is whether or not the details required go to the heart of the matter.
An appeal case involving student accommodation in Surrey (DCS Number 400-016-457) reminds us that planning conditions cannot be varied to the extent that something completely different from the original permission would result.