000			01819naa a22001697a 4500
008			240813e20240809xxk||||os||||o00| 0 eng d
041			_aeng
245			_aRichmond upon Thames LBC v R. (on the application of Ariyo)
260			_a[2024] EWCA Civ 960 _bCourt of Appeal _c9 August 2024
520			_aJudges: Lewison LJ; Moylan LJ; Males LJ. The property in question is part of a parade of shops with residential accommodation above. In this case where the judge decided that a local authority had unlawfully granted planning permission for a pergola at the rear of a restaurant, where permission had previously been granted for a change of use from a shop to a restaurant, the judge had erred in holding that the change of use had only covered the ground floor of the building and not the garden to the rear. The concept of an ancillary use is also a well-established part of planning law; and where a change of use is permitted it will generally extend to land used as ancillary to the changed use, if part of the same planning unit. Here it is clear that the inspector regarded the rear area (used for growing plants for sale in the shop) and the garage at the rear of the site as part of the same planning unit as the shop itself and as ancillary to that use. The interpretation of ‘ground floor’ as given in the original permission was discussed as to whether that included the garden. The Council failed properly to consider the issue of noise and that, for that reason, the grant of planning permission must be quashed. The judge's decision was upheld. Appeal dismissed
650			_aPLANNING
650			_aPLANNING PERMISSION
650			_aNOISE NUISANCE
650			_aJUDGMENT
651			_aUnited Kingdom
856			_uhttps://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2024/960.html _zAvailable from BAILII
999			_c121982 _d121982