You would think, after two world wars, that they might have learned that attempts at annexation never end well. But no, they’ve been at it again. We are nonetheless very pleased to report that a gallant inspector has single-handedly foiled a German plot to annexe part of London’s Belgravia (DCS Number 400-014-581).
Posts Categorized: Something to make you smile
Taken from a recent appeal decision (DCS Number 400-014-301):
“At paragraph 10 of the Council’s appeal statement it refers to the “Gelding judgement” [sic]; this has not been queried by the Appellant. However I anticipate that the Council does not wish me to form a sensible opinion about a castrated male horse, but that it is in fact referring to the case of Timmins & Anor v Gedling Borough Council  EWHC 654 (Admin) [my emphasis].”
Taken from a recent appeal decision in which the council is defending a claim for costs (DCS Number: 200-006-036):
“….the first time the Council was put on notice about this was on the Monday before the Inquiry opened when it received Mr Harwood’s skeleton.”
We haven’t seen this excuse for ages:
“At the hearing, the Council explained that, due to computer generated errors, its decision notices …… include references to planning permission whereas they should have referred to listed building consent.” (DCS Number 200-005-795)
Just as we were thinking that telegraph poles were all but redundant along comes an inspector allowing a high tech version.
In (DCS Number 400-013-384) a consortium of telecommunications operators proposed a 10 metre high replica telegraph pole in southeast London. The inspector was aware that there had been a previous application for a 12.5 metre high monopole on the site. He observed that that scheme would have been significantly more prominent due to its greater height and the bulbous nature of the antenna shroud. In re-designing the proposal to a single diameter replica telegraph pole of lesser height he considered that the appellant had shown a readiness to compromise, notwithstanding the fact that the 10-metre scheme would be on the margins of acceptability in terms of the network coverage it would provide.
A footnote from an inspector’s decision relating to an appeal in Dartmoor (DCS Number 400-013-053) raised a smile here on the DCP Blog –
“The development plan for this area includes (I take a metaphorical deep breath here): the Dartmoor National Park Authority Local Development Framework Core Strategy Development Plan Document 2006-2026 (June 2008), and the Dartmoor National Park Authority Development Management and Delivery Development Plan Document (July 2013).”
An inspector determining an appeal against the refusal of a certificate of lawfulness for the residential use of a single storey flat-roofed modular building in Cambridgeshire (DCS Number 200-005-414) has a nice turn of phrase.
Time for some more lavatory humour:
An inspector has modified a condition attached to the permission for a replacement dwelling in Suffolk, thereby authorising the retention of a top-opening ground floor toilet window (DCS Number 400-012-481).
A snippet from an inspector dealing with an appeal against an enforcement notice directed at a house in multiple occupation in a student area of a Sussex town (DCS Number 400-012-129):
The following snippet from an appeal against the refusal of outline permission for a bungalow in rural Hampshire brought a wry smile (DCS Number 400-011-996). The inspector recorded that at the time when the appeal was submitted there was no dispute between the parties that the proposal would require a contribution towards affordable housing in accordance with the requirements of saved core strategy policies. However, the PPG had since been amended to state that contributions should not be sought from developments of 10 units or less, or 5 in designated rural areas, which included the case before her. She continued: