An additional floor to accommodate two flats on a building in mixed residential and retail use in north London (DCS Number 400-009-589) was rejected due to the lack of a contribution towards affordable housing. The application was made in September 2014 and refused in February 2015.
Contrary to the view of the council, the inspector saw nothing untoward in the appellant’s approach in devising an extension of wholly contrasting design to the host property. But….
Core strategy policy required that all sites capable of delivering 10 or more units should provide affordable homes on-site and schemes below this threshold would be required to provide a financial contribution towards affordable housing provision elsewhere in the borough. However, in the light of the Written Ministerial Statement (WMS) of November 2014 and the amendments made to the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) in respect of affordable housing requirements on sites of 10 units or less, the council did not require the financial contribution to be paid. Nevertheless, in its appeal statement the council referred to the successful legal challenge made by West Berkshire and Reading councils to the WMS and revised provisions of the PPG in July 2015 (R on the application of West Berkshire District Council and Reading Borough Council) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government) . Accordingly, the council’s position was that if the inspector were minded to allow the appeal it would expect the decision to be accompanied by an undertaking to secure a financial contribution towards the provision of affordable housing elsewhere in the borough, in accordance with core strategy policy. The appellant, on the other hand, argued that the application had not been refused for this reason, and the original application was not determined in a timely manner, thus depriving the appellant of the short-lived stay on s106 contributions for small-scale developments.
In dismissing the appeal in November 2015 the inspector explained that he was required to make his determination in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicated otherwise, and the provisions of the core strategy policy were clear and unambiguous. Whilst he understood the appellant’s position, he pointed out that the option to appeal on the grounds of non-determination had not been exercised.
That can’t have made the appellant feel any better.
The following DCP chapter is relevant: 7.3
The owner of a semi-detached locally listed cottage in east London who built a three-storey rear extension in non-matching materials failed to convince an inspector that the development would comply with a condition requiring matching materials once he had cleaned up the bricks on the original house (DCS Number 400-009-655). Aside from the fact that the design of the extension did not comply with that granted planning permission, it had been constructed in new yellow stock bricks. The old bricks on the main building were yellow stock bricks but were now well weathered and significantly darker than when they were originally laid, probably well over 100 years ago. The inspector reasoned that if the appellant did manage to clean the old bricks successfully then the materials might match. However, no sample panel of cleaned bricks had been prepared and he simply did not know for sure if it would be an acceptable way forward. He could not, therefore, grant planning permission on this basis, he decided.
In this case the inspector was clear that there had been a breach of planning control, rejecting the argument that the work simply wasn’t finished yet.
The following DCP chapters are relevant: 4.3421 12.2
Planners working in rural areas will be aware that there is a desperate need for more farm dwellings (in the case where a new farmhouse is proposed) and no demand at all for them (in the case where an application is made to lift an agricultural occupancy condition from an existing farmhouse).
One effective strategy for gaining the removal of an agricultural occupancy condition from a farmhouse seems to be to build it in the wrong place thereby nullifying the condition after four years, as the following successful LDC cases illustrate:
County Distance off approved siting Date DCS Number
Worcestershire 8m 28/7/15 400-008-370
East Yorkshire 24m 13/4/15 400-007-090
Carmarthenshire 6-7m 3/12/14 400-005-890
North Yorkshire 6-7m 7/9/12 100-078-702
Somerset Just overlapping 24/7/12 100-078-270
Cash-strapped planning authorities who are worried that they ought to be doing a bit more by way of monitoring the implementation of planning permissions can now …. worry more.
The following DCP chapter is relevant: 9.413
A couple of recent appeals illustrate the difficulty faced by local planning authorities in determining whether or not residential annexes comprise ancillary accommodation.
In the first case (DCS Number 200-003-920) a granny annexe in a west Wales village was accepted as being ancillary to the main house. Here, the house and the annexe would be attached by means of a short glazed link. The council was concerned that the annexe, comprising a living room, kitchen, utility room, conservatory, bedroom with en suite facilities, and space in the roof, could be used as a separate residential unit. The inspector decided, however, that a number of factors which included the proximity of the annexe to the house, and shared garden and parking, pointed to the unit being used as ancillary accommodation. Therefore, it would not conflict with the council’s local needs policy.
On the other hand…
Ancillary accommodation proposed at a house in rural Warwickshire was turned down at appeal, in part due to its distance from the main house (DCS Number 400-008-419). The annexe would comprise a large living, dining and kitchen area together with two bedrooms and two bathrooms. The inspector was concerned that the annexe would be sited 20m from the house, and the appellants were vague as to who would occupy it. A condition limiting occupation of the annexe to ancillary accommodation would be inappropriate, he decided, as it would be next to impossible to detect a breach.
So, both of these proposed annexes would be relatively large but one was allowed, the other dismissed. The greatest difference between them would seem to be the distance from the host dwelling. So all we have to decide is how close is close enough and how far is too far. Simples.
The following DCP chapter is relevant: 10.2
A scheme for a solar farm on high quality agricultural land in Devon (DCS Number 200-003-894) failed the sequential test, the inspector not being satisfied that brownfield opportunities including rooftop schemes had been properly looked at. She recognised that the NPPF and PPG on solar farms did not expressly refer to the need to undertake a sequential test but reasoned that it was self-evident that in requiring an assessment as to whether land of lower quality was available a review of the quality of the land which was available needed to be undertaken. Given the ministerial statement of March 2015 which set out a need for developers to provide a compelling justification for schemes involving high quality land she decided that she had no alternative but to dismiss the appeal.
The second case concerned the orientation of roof-mounted solar panels on 20 houses in Nottinghamshire (DCS Number 400-008-261). The Carbon Trust advises that ideally solar panels should be orientated so that they face within 45˚ of south. The council was concerned that whilst five of the houses would adhere to this advice the remaining 15 would be orientated east-west. The inspector pointed out that if all the houses were orientated within 45˚ of south it would not be possible to get so many houses on the site. Anyway, the panels on west-facing roof slopes would generate electricity in the late afternoon and early evening, when most needed. He decided that the layout and orientation of the houses would provide very good levels of renewable energy generation whilst optimising the development potential of the site.
The first case does seem to set the bar very high. Pity the developer who must ask anyone with a roof in the area if there is any chance of putting solar panels on it.
DCP section 26.536 refers.
An inspector has allowed the placing of life-sized sculptures of a cow, a bull and a calf on a roundabout on the A39 (DCS Number 400-008-305). The sculptures were designed to draw attention to the land-based studies courses available at the local college but the highway authority was concerned that they would prove a distraction to motorists. The inspector decided, however, that the bovine family would not be out of context in its rural setting and would not prejudice road safety.
Those of a certain age will be delighted to hear that Ermintrude will be returning to The Magic Roundabout very soon.
And here is planning doing its bit to save the planet:
A one metre high fence was allowed around part of a field used as an apiary in the southeast London green belt (DCS Number 400-008-325). The land had previously been used as an orchard but this had been grubbed up and the land divided into 700 plots which were offered for sale. The council had removed permitted development rights on the land through an Article 4 Direction and was worried that the fence might prove a precedent for the erection of other structures on the land. The inspector reasoned that bee-keeping was an agricultural activity and that the siting of hives and a shed would not amount to operational development anyway. He concluded that the fence would not have any significant impact on the openness of the green belt or harm the character and appearance of the area.
Kent, the bee-friendly Garden of England.
- Minor material amendments
In a mixed use development in southeast London an inspector sanctioned a raft of changes to a building which had already been constructed as minor material amendments (DCS Number 400-008-304). A number of changes to the building had been carried out during construction ostensibly due to the gradient in the road. These included the re-siting of the access, alteration of the parking layout, architectural alterations, and an increase in floorspace of 66 square metres. The inspector disagreed with the council’s claim that the cumulative effect of the changes was substantial. An interesting point to note is that the inspector compared the scale of the changes against the overall scale of the scheme, noting that the increase in floorspace would be only four per cent of the total.
DCP section 5.1352 refers.
- Residential annexe
An inspector issued a lawful development certificate for the conversion of garaging at a property near York to a residential annexe, notwithstanding that it would have two bedrooms each with en suite facilities, a large living, dining and kitchen area and a cloakroom (DCS Number 400-008-282). He acknowledged that the unit would be substantial and would contain all the facilities necessary for day-to-day living. Nevertheless, he found a number of points in its favour, including that only about half the existing building would be converted to residential use. Again, scale counts.
DCP section 10.2 refers.
- Barn conversion
A barn conversion in Shropshire was ruled not to be permitted development in the absence of a bat survey (DCS Number 400-008-314). The appellant pointed to a decision in December 2014 (DCS Number 400-006-116) in which the inspector had decided that the council was not authorised to ask for ecological information under the GPDO. The inspector in the more recent decision acknowledged the need for consistency …. but nevertheless held that without survey information she could not be satisfied that the requirements of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 would be met. Pick whichever suits.
DCP sections 10.1 and 4.3423 refer.
An inspector has taken a firm line and declined to determine an appeal relating to a single wind turbine in Cornwall (DCS Number: 400-008-067). The appellants claimed that they had met the requirements for pre-application consultation set out in The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015, since the turbine would be of the same height as one proposed in an earlier scheme. The inspector would have none of it, however, invalidating the appeal and ruling that fresh consultation must be carried out.
DCP sections 26.5 and 6.3 refer.