Planning permission refused due to diminution of light to artists’ studios

” … The owner of a pub in East London has won a Court of Appeal battle over the grant of planning permission for a three-storey building on the site of a former nightclub next door.

The case of Forster v The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Ors [2016] EWCA Civ 609 centred on a planning inspector’s grant of permission to a housing association for the demolition of a single storey building in Stepney – previously home to Stepney’s Nightclub – and the erection in its place of a three storey building with commercial uses on the ground floor and six flats on the floors above. Tower Hamlets Council had previously refused permission.

In August 2015 Mr Justice Lindblom (as he then was) dismissed a claim brought by the appellant under s. 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

The appellant, the owner of the George Tavern, took her case to the Court of Appeal, where she argued:

There was a risk, unacknowledged by the inspector, that complaints from residents of the new flats might ultimately lead to the revocation of her late night music licence or the grant of an injunction in a private nuisance claim. This would curtail the activities that kept the George going;

There would be reduced sunlight and daylight at the George, which was used as a studio for artists and photographers and as a film location.

Giving the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Lord Justice Laws allowed the appeal on the light issue, but not on the noise issue. …”

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=27553%3Apub-owner-wins-court-of-appeal-battle-over-housing-association-development&catid=63&Itemid=31

Political paralysis – and no plan, or at least not a viable one

” … The root problem here, and the real reason why Britain looks increasingly ungovernable, is that the referendum allowed the public to give the thumbs down to the status quo, without providing assent for anything to go in its place. Indeed, if there was a “leave proposition” it was mendacious, involving the pretence that we could simultaneously, bolt the door, stop paying all EU fees, but continue to trade with it as advantageously as now. In the days since the vote, Angela Merkel has confirmed that it is simply not possible to have all three at once. One way or another, Britain is going to have to choose here, and it may very well be that there is no majority – among the public, or in parliament – for any of the realistic options.

If so, the UK will be snookered – condemned by the referendum to being out of Europe, but without any agreement on a way forward. It is a situation that cries out for serious leadership, to win popular assent for one imperfect path or another. Without it, the country could end up paralysed, and the people feeling betrayed. At Westminster, however, many politicians seem too consumed with betraying each other to care.

http://gu.com/p/4nb2d

Brexit and housing

From Daily Telegraph Money/Property:

“What does it mean for the supply crisis?

While we don’t know whether immigration will be curbed, if there are fewer people allowed to work in the UK’s construction industry, it will exacerbate the already acute skills shortage. About 12 per cent of construction workers across the country are from abroad, and in London that rises to 23 per cent.

Construction costs could jump 12 per cent as a result of the vote to leave, according to Ted Macdougal, development director for Forrest, a housebuilder.

Our housing supply-demand imbalance will not be solved any time soon: the Government’s pledge to build 200,000 homes per year is still way off target. Investment in house building is on hold and until there are enough homes built, the lack of supply could cushion house prices, regardless of Brexit.”

https://t.co/xgEUvuoaHs