tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8170718846507476773.post8686697978682251348..comments2022-12-13T14:45:12.233+00:00Comments on Martin Goodall's Planning Law Blog: This year’s Seminar - last chance to bookMartin H Goodallhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07079479984296674469noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8170718846507476773.post-76032244808054684622016-11-11T11:22:25.768+00:002016-11-11T11:22:25.768+00:00The claimant themselves very kindly sent me a copy...The claimant themselves very kindly sent me a copy of the transcript of this judgment recently.<br /><br />I have not yet had the chance to look at the judgment in detail, having been out of the office for most of the past week, but my first impression was that it simply confirms the position that is inherent in the wording of the Order itself. The building must be capable, in structural terms, of being converted. Substantial reconstruction is (and always has been) outside the permitted development allowed by Class Q. Where this issue is in dispute between the parties, it will inevitably boil down to “a matter of fact and degree”. This has always seemed to me to be self-evident from the legislative wording, and I said as much in the First Edition of the book.<br /><br />Where I still take issue with the ‘official’ view (as expressed in the revised wording in the online PPG, as published in March 2015) is with regard to the permissibility of purely internal alterations which should in principle (and in practice) be exempt from the definition of development by virtue of section 55(2)(a). I have analysed this issue in detail in the new <i>Appendix D</i> in the Second Edition of the book.<br /><br />This judgment comes too late for the Second Edition of the book but we will certainly refer to it at next week’s seminar. However, as I have indicated above, I am under the impression (subject to my looking at the case in more detail when I have a chance to do so over the coming weekend) that it is focused on the basic issue of ‘convertability’, but does not appear to address the precise extent of purely internal alterations that can be carried out in connection with a residential conversion, in reliance on section 55(2)(a).<br />Martin H Goodallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07079479984296674469noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8170718846507476773.post-77167789314123729282016-11-11T10:22:09.300+00:002016-11-11T10:22:09.300+00:00Hello Martin,
Not strictly related to this post, ...Hello Martin,<br /><br />Not strictly related to this post, but I was wondering if anybody had brought your attention the recent High Court Judgement in Hibbitt & Anr v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anr. Case Number: CO/3360/2016. I think this could dramatically change the way LPAs are determining a lot of Class Q applications. Where before we have only been looking at the soundness of the structure of the building, particularly on steel portal frame buildings, we are now going to be far more interested in the amount of rebuilding necessary in terms of walls and roofs. I thought the implications of this judgement may be an area you are interested in commenting on in a future blog post.<br /><br />Kind regards,<br /><br />Dominic Heath-Coleman<br />South Somerset District Council Dominic Heath-Colemannoreply@blogger.com