000			01708cab a2200265 4500
001			ABS45333
008			090401t1991 xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
035			_a(Sirsi) u52398
041			_aeng
245			_aRichmond upon Thames LBC v SoS for the Environment and Neale
260			_c1991
350			_a0
490			_aProperty and Compensation Reports _v(1991) 62 P&CR 350-354(3)
520			_aQBD 12 March 1991. The second respondent, N, was occupier of a mid-terrace house, extended to the rear, creating a flat roof on which had been erected a parapet wall a metre high. An enforcement notice was served in respect of the wall. On appeal against the notice the inspector found that the development comprised enlargement of the dwelling and alteration of its roof. It therefore fell to be assessed under the General Development Order 1988 Sched 2 Part 1 Class B. He held that there was no breach of planning control since erection of the wall fell within permitted development. The council appealed. To be an enlargement of a dwelling house there must be an increase in the volume of usable space within the dwelling rather than it being made to appear larger from the outside. Appeal dismissed on the grounds that the correct approach was to proceed on the external appearance of the house. Planning restrictions were to do with external appearances and not on internal practicalities or r
650			_aENFORCEMENT NOTICES
650			_aEXTENSIONS
650			_aEXTERNAL APPEARANCES
650			_aGDO 1988 SCHED 2 CLASS B
650			_aPARAPET WALL
650			_aPLANNING CONTROL
650			_aROOF
690			_aPLANNING LAW AND PRACTICE-CASE LAW
942			_n0
948			_c04/03/1997
999			_c32473 _d32473