	Casebook
	Cases from this week's Casebook section of Planning magazine and PlanningResource. To download the full decision for any case, you will need to create an account on Compass Online.

SOUTH NORTHAMPTONSHIRE

LAND OFF STOCKWELL WAY, MILTON MALSOR, NORTHAMPTON

In dismissing an appeal involving a housing development in Northamptonshire an inspector decided that the local planning authority was making a significant effort to address the shortage of residential land. The appeal site lay on the edge of a village containing approximately 750 people. The appellants stated that the council could not demonstrate a five year supply of housing land and, although under normal circumstances planning policies supported rejecting the development of a greenfield site, the undersupply was so severe as to justify granting permission. They highlighted the fact that the village contained a church, a chapel and a primary school together with a shop and two public houses with hourly bus services to Northampton and Milton Keynes. They therefore concluded that an additional 25 houses would assist in reducing the under-supply of dwellings in a sustainable location. The inspector noted that the council had been aware of the need to increase the supply of housing land and had adopted an interim policy in 2009 which allowed for some residential development on sites adjoining village boundaries. However, the policy did not support additional housing development on the appeal site because the village was judged to have insufficient facilities. Since the council’s adoption of the policy there had been a reduction in the shortfall of housing, effectively reducing the deficit of approximately 900 dwellings by half, she noted. In addition, it seemed likely that other sites which the council had not included would deliver some housing within the next five year period. In her opinion, although the council could still not demonstrate a five year supply, its interim policy was reducing the deficit. With regard to the site’s location, the village did contain a range of facilities. However, occupiers of the houses would still be dependent on cars to undertake their main weekly shop, for work and entertainment. It lay some distance from the main bus stops, she observed, and therefore the council was correct in seeking to limit any additional housing to infill sites within the settlement boundary. In her opinion, the site was not sufficiently sustainable to justify releasing the land for development notwithstanding the shortfall in housing land overall.

102-106 EASTFIELD ROAD, PETERBOROUGH PE1 4AX

A claim by an appellant that national guidance in PPS4 dealing with economic development did not apply to professional and financial uses such as a betting shop was rejected by an inspector who held that it did. The scheme involved the change of use of a vacant doctor’s surgery and the property lay outside any district or local centre. The appellant claimed that Class A2 uses did not comprise a main town centre use and therefore PPS4 policies relating to the sequential approach and impact did not apply. The council disagreed, claiming that the use should be located within an existing centre. The inspector noted that Class A2 encompassed any use which was appropriate to provide in a shopping area. Circular 03/2005, relating to the change of use of buildings, stated that A2 uses were very much part of the established shopping scene. Accordingly, national guidance in PPS4 regarding the sequential approach to site selection did apply. Notwithstanding this conclusion the inspector noted that at 123m2 the development would be small in scale and would be sited opposite a public house, a pharmacy and another bookmaker’s office. In her opinion, the appeal proposal would provide an additional local facility which was within walking distance of two local centres. PPS4 encouraged the re-use of vacant buildings and the scheme would generate employment opportunities, she held. In allowing the appeal she imposed a condition preventing the change of use to retailing.

WINDSOR & MAIDENHEAD

OPTIONS UTILITY SERVICES LTD, SILCO DRIVE, MAIDENHEAD SL6 1ET

A pipe laying firm in Berkshire which started to recycle spoil from trench excavation was allowed to continue for twelve months to assess the effectiveness of environmental mitigation measures. An inspector considered that the operation conformed well to Government policy on waste and sustainable development as set out in PPS10. He noted, however, that there was a history of complaints about noise from neighbours. The recycling activities included the crushing of rubble, the use of excavators and loading shovels, screening of arisings and truck deliveries and collections. He held that the development would be unacceptable without mitigation and although various measures looked promising they were surrounded by uncertainty over their full effectiveness. A twelve month trial run would therefore be appropriate, he decided. The parties accepted that dust was a problem and the inspector watched a video of dust drifting over nearby houses. The appellants proposed a water misting system which would be in continuous operation to address the matter. The inspector’s conclusion on this issue was the same as that for noise, that there was a reasonable possibility of dust being effective but that it could not be guaranteed. The site was in a protected area for groundwater abstraction. The inspector considered, therefore, that there was a need to demonstrate that recycling operations would not cause pollution of controlled waters. He decided that a condition could secure effective drainage and prevent pollution. On traffic generation he reasoned that there would be sustainability benefits in respect of a reduction in the number of heavy lorry miles driven. This would arise from a reduced need to travel to landfill or other specialist recycling sites, and the reduced demand for aggregate deliveries. The inspector decided to give permission for a twelve month trial run, paving the way for a possible subsequent permission that would take up the remainder of the lease on the site until the yard was acquired for the Crossrail project, estimated to be early in 2013.

GLEBE HOUSE, CHURCH LANE, WORPLESDON, GUILDFORD, SURREY, GU3 3RU

The owners of a dwelling in the Surrey green belt failed to persuade an inspector that they should be allowed to erect a two storey extension despite offering not to implement a planning permission for a double garage. The proposal involved a side extension which would include a three bay garage together with a conservatory. They had submitted a unilateral undertaking which would revoke an extant permission for a double garage. Accordingly, they claimed that the net increase in the size of the original dwelling would be approximately 73 per cent. They also stated that the property could be extended under permitted development rights and produced plans showing the erection of a three bay garage and a building comprising a swimming pool and gym in the rear garden. They stated that the proposed development would prevent these developments from occurring because permitted development rights could be removed. The inspector noted that the proposed development involved approximately 187m2 and this would result in a 104 per cent increase on the floorspace within the original dwelling. In his opinion, this was a substantial addition, the increase in floorspace giving a better indication of the scale and bulk of the proposal compared with just the footprint. The offer to revoke the existing permission was of limited value, he opined, because it would simply prevent the increase from exceeding the 104 per cent figure and in any event a net increase of 73 per cent was still substantial, he opined. With regard to the possible fall-back position, he accepted that the possible extensions taken as a whole would have a greater impact on the openness of the green belt compared with the appeal proposal. However, he expressed doubts as to whether there was a real prospect of such development in its entirety being undertaken if the appeal were to be dismissed. The proposed pool and gym went well beyond the aspiration of the appellants for an enlarged house and the possible extensions to the dwelling under permitted development rights would not provide the type of accommodation sought in the appeal. Consequently, he attached limited weight to the fall-back position and held that the scheme would not address any deficiencies in the design of the dwelling so this matter did not count in favour of allowing the appeal.

NORTH YORK MOORS N.PK

HOWDALE FARM, FYLINGDALES, ROBIN HOODS BAY, WHITBY Y022 4UL

The conversion of a modern farm office in the North York Moors national park to an agricultural dwelling was rejected, an inspector deciding that there was no essential need for an additional dwelling to serve the business. There were two existing houses serving the three farms, with another under construction. The inspector observed that the appeal building bore a close resemblance to a three-bedroom house and the appellants stated that a change of use could be effected by simply moving furniture in. The inspector accepted that there was a need for an additional stockman to look after the cattle but held that the question was whether it was necessary for him to live on site. He found that for the majority of the year the animals could be left unsupervised overnight and that the need for a continual presence was limited to the calving season. The park authority suggested that the stockman could use the appeal building as a temporary shelter while working with the cattle overnight during the calving season. The inspector saw that it had ample room with a kitchen and a bathroom. The appellants argued that this arrangement would be unacceptable because the stockman would be separated from his family. The inspector did not accept this, however, pointing out that there were many occupations that involved working night shifts or occasional periods away from home.

LAND ADJACENT TO 47 SURREY ROAD, SEAFORD, EAST SUSSEX BN25 2NR

An inspector acknowledged that a terrace of 10 earth sheltered eco-homes in east Sussex was an innovative approach to urban housing but found that it would not be as inconspicuous as claimed. The site was within a settlement but the inspector opined that the site had an unspoilt natural character and provided an important visual, undeveloped break between two areas of residential development. He noted that previous inspectors had found conspicuous development unacceptable. However, he acknowledged that the dwellings would be built below a new finished ground level and reasoned that the main issue was the degree to which the development would maintain the features and functions of the site. It appeared to him that there would be very limited open space and what there was would be hemmed in and lacking much view or even sunlight. He anticipated that land above ground would be used for garden activities such as clothes drying and sitting out. A condition could be attached to prevent such use but would need to be rigorously policed and would be of little use in deterring a child wishing to play on the inviting expanse of roof, he held. He was therefore concerned that conspicuous physical barriers would be necessary to prevent access and to guard the abrupt drops. The inspector concluded that there were fundamental questions unanswered in the outline application but on the information before him concluded that the character and appearance of the buffer zone would be compromised.

PEAR PADDOCK, SYMONDS LANE, YALDING, KENT, ME18 6HA

In the absence of alternative sites an inspector granted a temporary permission for two adjacent gypsy sites in the Kent countryside despite opposition by public authorities for almost ten years. The sites had a long planning history which included failed appeals and injunction proceedings. The inspector observed that works at the sites had contributed to their urbanisation and judged that the developments stood out because of their sporadic nature and position away from other buildings. He considered that both individually and collectively the residential use of the sites harmed the character and appearance of the area. The previous inspector had concluded that the continued use of the access points would present a considerable threat to the safety of road users. However, the current inspector considered that this threat had been reduced as a result of improvements. In addition, he noted that the subsequent publication of Manual for Streets had set a different context for assessing the adequacy of visibility splays. He took the view that the level of risk was quite low. He remarked that the sites were on a dry island surrounded by land at risk of flooding. He acknowledged that during significant flood events the roads leading to the sites would be impassable. He reasoned, however, that the families could just sit it out for the typical 24-48 hour period for flooding to persist. The appellants indicated that they had had more difficulties during recent snow and the inspector found that this provided some perspective about the risk from flooding. The inspector set the need for gypsy sites in the area, as well as the wider need for sites in the county and nationally, against the harm identified. Positive steps were being made to provide for sites through the development plan document, he noted. He concluded that it made sense for the families to remain where they were until the plan-making process was complete and alternative gypsy sites identified.

LAND AT 115 MANOR GREEN ROAD, EPSOM, SURREY KT19 8LW

An enforcement notice directed at block paving at a house in Surrey was upheld after an inspector found that it was not permitted development. The hardstanding was larger than the drive that had existed previously and was more than 5m2. However, the parties disagreed as to whether or not it was porous. The inspector remarked that the amended GPDO did not define what was meant by porous, but noted its dictionary definition of permitting the movement of fluids or gases by way of pores or other cavities. He also took into account CLG’s advice in Guidance on the permeable surfacing of front gardens. The appellant advised that the sub-base was 200mm of Type 1 hardcore. The guidance described this as impermeable as it contained a lot of fine material that prevented water passing through it easily, the inspector noted. He arranged for a porosity test to be undertaken so that he could see for himself what happened. He observed that water collected in the holes where blocks had been removed and took several minutes to drain away. The guidance advised that water poured onto a permeable sub-base would soak in straight away within a small area, he remarked. The test also showed that when water was sprayed onto the drive it tended to flow along the gaps. He reasoned that this suggested that the blocks themselves did not absorb water readily whilst the gaps between them were not wide enough or were filled with a material that was not sufficiently coarse to allow water to sink in quickly. He judged that this was of limited consequence anyway because the sub-base itself would prevent water draining through. The inspector concluded that the works did not comply with the limitations specified in the GPDO. They therefore did not constitute permitted development and planning permission was required for them.

HINCKLEY & BOSWORTH

STANMAUR FARM, BREACH LANE, EARL SHINTON, LEICESTER LE9 7FB

The provision of a temporary dwelling at a farm in Leicestershire was supported by an inspector who decided that operating a kennels required a person to live on site. The farm provided stabling for six horses, a small fishing lake, accommodation for 10 free range chickens, 24 breeding ewes and a manège. The appellant also had planning permission to change the use of a building into a boarding kennels. He stated that the latter required an on-site presence to tend to sick animals and respond to any emergencies. The council, in contrast, stated that this need could be met by people working in shifts. The inspector noted that the appellant would not be able to obtain a licence from the council to operate the kennels unless a person lived on site. Although the council also disputed the need on the basis that the kennels were not operating, national advice in PPS7 accepted that a new enterprise did not need to be operational. Rather, there needed to be clear evidence of an intention to develop the enterprise and that it had been planned on a sound financial basis. In his opinion, the business plan relating to the whole farm showed that a £38,000 profit could be generated in the third year. He judged that there was a clear functional need and the business had been planned on a proper financial basis. In so ruling the inspector decided that the council had acted unreasonably in refusing permission. It had excluded the income from the boarding kennels in assessing whether the business was viable. However, the proposal was no different from many other rural enterprises where one or more licences or permissions were required before the business could proceed. Had the council considered the farm as a whole it would have realised that the financial and functional tests were met and this had triggered an appeal which should have been unnecessary.

153 COSTONS LANE, GREENFORD, UB6 9AD

A LDC was issued confirming that a rear extension could be erected at a dwellinghouse in West London after an inspector decided that the eaves and gutter should not be included when assessing the overall length of the development. The council claimed that the scheme complied with Class A of Part 1 to Schedule 2 of the GPDO 1995 except for two things. Firstly, the council claimed that when the eaves and gutter were included the rear extension would project more than the three metres permitted under the order. The second argument was that the scheme did not specify the external materials and therefore there was no certainty that it would match the existing property. The inspector noted that the amendments to the GPDO in 2008 adopted an impact based approach. The three metre limit imposed by the order for extensions at the rear referred to the main body of the extension and was not intended to take into account any width associated with the eaves and guttering. In his opinion, the projection due to the eaves and gutters was de minimis and should be disregarded in assessing the length of the extension from the rear wall. In addition, there was no reason to assume that the extension would not be built with materials which matched the existing house and the appeal was allowed.

OUTLANE GOLF CLUB LTD, SLACK LANE, OUTLANE, HUDDERSFIELD, HD3 3FQ

The siting of a portable toilet at a golf course within the West Yorkshire green belt was approved because it involved an essential facility which was directly associated with the recreational use. The structure would have a floor area of just over one square metre and would be sited next to a wooden tea hut adjacent to one of the greens. The club stated that many players took five hours to complete a round of golf. They claimed that the distance from many of the holes to the clubhouse prevented players in mid round from using a toilet. An inspector agreed that the toilet was an essential facility and involved a use which preserved the openness of the green belt. The tea hut assisted in screening the plastic structure from many views, he concluded, such that it did not adversely affect the moorland setting of the course.

REAR GARDEN TO ELESA, BETWEEN ELESA AND THE COTTAGE, HEATH ROAD, ELSING, DEREHAM, NORFOLK

The desire of an appellant to erect a low energy, carbon neutral dwelling in Norfolk failed to enthuse an inspector who concluded that the design was not of outstanding quality and the carbon reduction measures were not exceptional or innovative. The inspector noted that national advice in PPS7 supported new houses in the countryside which were truly outstanding in terms of their design. The appeal proposal did not fit into this category. Information on construction materials and energy saving devices was sketchy and the passive design features were often the norm in well-designed schemes, she concluded. Accordingly, it would not enhance the setting of the area and did not involve an innovative, low energy dwelling of sufficient quality to justify development in the countryside.

VALE OF GLAMORGAN

SUNRISE RESIDENTIAL HOME, 11 PORTHKERRY ROAD, BARRY, VALE OF GLAMORGAN CF62 7AY

The installation of a two storey lift shaft at a residential care home in south Wales was ruled unacceptable because of its adverse appearance. An inspector decided that the two storey flat-roofed extension would result as a tall, boxy addition which would have an awkward relationship to the existing building. This impact would be compounded by the prominent and elevated siting of the property and the height and scale of the proposal. Landscaping the site would not offset this harm, he decided.

WEAVERTHORPE ROAD, BRADFORD, WEST YORKSHIRE, BD4 6SX

The erection of a 2.3MW wind turbine at a factory in West Yorkshire failed to be approved with an inspector raising concerns about its visual impact, potential noise levels and risk that it would undermine highway safety. The site occupied part of an industrial estate and the turbine would have a hub height of 85 metres and blade tip height of 121 metres. The inspector also noted that the nearest dwelling would be 165 metres away and, in her opinion, given the absence of any intervening buildings, the turbine would have an overbearing and oppressive impact on the outlook of residents. In addition, the inspector undertook a careful assessment of the potential noise impact. She noted that obtaining an accurate assessment of the background noise levels was not always straightforward and the results could be sensitive to minor alterations to the location of the equipment and prevailing meteorological conditions. The predicted noise levels at the nearest residential property only just fell within nationally prescribed limits, she noted, and the predictions at other dwellings where actual noise levels were not known suggested that the limits might be exceeded. On this basis, imposing conditions prescribing maximum noise levels was unsatisfactory where the predicted margins were tight. Potential breaches would involve lengthy investigation and the matter might not be capable of being resolved. In addition to these conclusions the inspector decided that the turbine had the potential to distract drivers along a nearby road. A further concern was the potential for part of the blade to become detached and this could injure workers in a nearby factory. While this risk was small it was nonetheless possible, she opined. Shadow flicker might also harm pupils at a nearby school, some of whom suffered from epilepsy and autism, she noted. Adding to these concerns was the potential harm to local bat populations.

THE WHITE HART, OLD CROSS ROAD, CROSS BS26 2EE

The conversion of a grade II listed building trading as a public house in Somerset was rejected after an inspector refused both planning permission and listed building consent. The inspector noted that the building dated from the 18th century and a number of changes had been made both internally and externally. The scheme would remove some of the unattractive additions including a skittle alley. Its conversion to create two dwellings with modern extensions would improve the external appearance. However, the works would necessitate the removal of the historic layout together with fixtures and fittings related to its operation as an inn. The pub continued to operate and in the absence of any clear evidence that this position would alter, the harm to its special character should not be sanctioned, he held.

LAND ADJACENT TO NO 54 COPELANDS ROAD, DESBOROUGH NN14 2QF

A council’s decision to take enforcement action against a dwelling in Northamptonshire was overturned by an inspector who concluded that there had not been a breach of planning control. The council had granted permission in 2007 for the erection of a two storey dwelling. However, it stated that a condition imposed on the permission had not been discharged. This condition stated that a noise mitigation scheme should be approved before development commenced and, because it had not been met, the entire development was unlawful. The inspector decided that it was necessary to review judicial authority on the matter. In Whitley & Sons v Secretary of State for Wales and Clwyd County Council (1992) the court of appeal held that where development had commenced before a condition prohibiting the development from proceeding had been discharged, then the entire scheme was unauthorised. However, in Hart Aggregates Ltd v Hartlepool Borough Council [2005] the court held that a distinction should be made between those cases where there was a planning permission where no details whatsoever had been submitted and those where there had been a failure to obtain approval for one particular aspect of development. The latter included cases where failure to comply did not go to the heart of the development but rather related to ancillary or peripheral matters which, while important in themselves, were not fundamental to the erection of, say, a dwelling or building, he concluded. The condition in dispute, while clearly necessary and relevant to the permission in order to protect future occupiers from noise associated with a railway line, did not affect the ability of the appellant to erect a dwelling in accordance with the plans which had already been approved. Provided the noise protection measures were implemented before occupation of the dwelling the primary purpose of the condition would be met, he ruled. Accordingly, the permission granted by the council went well beyond an agreement in principle to erect a dwelling on the land and included the external appearance and materials to be used in its construction. Accordingly, failure to obtain approval for the noise mitigation scheme had not rendered the entire dwelling unlawful and the notice was quashed.

37 DOWNSIDE END, HEADINGTON, OXFORD OX3 8JF

The concern of a local authority in Oxfordshire about the oversupply of smaller properties was rejected by an inspector who held that the provision of two flats within a dwellinghouse should be approved. The council stated that it had published a supplementary planning document regarding the need to achieve a balanced supply of dwellings of different sizes. It claimed that its area was experiencing a mismatch between need and supply with an overabundance of one and two bedroom flats. This was at the expense of maintaining a supply of family houses, it asserted. Its SPD therefore sought to encourage the supply of larger properties and the appeal site fell within an area judged to be experiencing considerable and growing pressure for smaller units. The inspector noted that the neighbourhood area within which the site fell comprised two components. In that part of the area which contained the appeal site, over 90 per cent of the housing stock had three or more bedrooms. It had a considerable degree of homogeneity, he concluded. Therefore, while it would lead to the loss of a three bedroom dwelling, this harm was outweighed by the broadening of the mix of properties in the area.

76 ASHBOURNE ROAD, EALING, LONDON, W5 3DJ

The owner of a semi-detached house in west London was refused permission to replace three Crittall metal windows with aluminium windows because it would harm the character and appearance of the conservation area. An inspector observed that there was an interesting mix of architectural styles on the estate where much of the housing was influenced by the modern movement. The design guide for the area stated that a feature of many houses was their curved, streamlined shape, with a horizontal emphasis, as exemplified by Crittall windows. It identified the loss of traditional fenestration patterns as a key factor in the deterioration of the special character of the area. An Article 4(2) direction reflected the council’s strict policy stance in relation to unsympathetic development. The inspector noted that the proposed aluminium replacement windows could not replicate the distinctive curves on the bays of the windows. The proposal would therefore be contrary to development plan policy which expected development to have regard to its historic and architectural context. The appellant complained that curved double glazed windows were not readily available. The inspector remarked, however, that the design guide advised that double glazing could be provided by secondary glazing and that it was possible to obtain modern Crittall windows which were double glazed as direct replacements.

FLAT A, REGIS HOUSE, 49 BEAUMONT STREET, LONDON, WIG 6DN

The owners of a flat in west London succeeded in overturning an enforcement notice requiring them to cease using one of the rooms as a dental surgery. The appellants stated that the principal use of the building was as a flat where they both lived. In addition, one of the appellants was a specialist in prosthodontics. This involved seeing four patients a week, with the surgery in use up to 20 hours per week. No staff were employed and on approximately eight occasions every year an anaesthesiologist would be present, they stated. The inspector referred back to previous guidance in PPG4 on commercial development and small firms together with information published by government on a guide to the planning system for businesses. This had made clear that working from home did not necessarily require planning permission and the use of a single room might not change the character of the residential use. In the case before him the property retained its primary use as a private residence with both appellants living on site. The surgery occupied 30 per cent of the floorspace and was confined to a single room. The number of visitors had not affected parking or overall levels of activity within the street or in the block of flats, he decided. Furthermore, the hours of use were limited and no complaints had been made. Under these circumstances there had not been a breach of planning control and the notice was quashed.

15 MICKLEHAM ROAD, ORPINGTON, KENT BR5 2TF

An inspector decided that the owner of a commercial vehicle should be allowed to park it at a dwellinghouse in Kent. The appellant worked for a company selling double glazing and stated that his van was parked on his drive when not in use. He claimed that there was a need for the vehicle to be parked within the curtilage and this would have less impact compared with parking it on the street. The council claimed that the van undermined the character and appearance of the area. The inspector sided with the appellant. Parking the vehicle on the street was more visually damaging, he held. Parking it on the front driveway would enable it to be partially screened from views by the slope of the land and a front wall thereby reducing views of the vehicle by passers-by and others living in houses opposite the site. It would also make it easier for residents to manoeuvre out of and into their driveways and prevent partial obstruction of a footpath, she opined.

REDCAR & CLEVELAND

UNIT B2, COMMERCE WAY, SOUTH BANK TS6 6UR

The change of use of employment premises on a business park on Teesside was subject to successful enforcement action with an inspector ruling that despite the goods sold, it should be located within an existing shopping area. The appellants stated that the shop provided employment for five people and had been operating for more than four years. They stated that the appeal site was ideal because obtaining a licence for a sex shop was virtually impossible to obtain in traditional retail areas, given the nature of the business and a restriction preventing those aged less than 18 years old from entering. Enforcing this restriction in a town centre would be difficult, they claimed, and the appeal site offered a discreet location where customers could visit with some anonymity. They highlighted survey evidence which suggested that many customers would not visit premises in a high street or shopping parade. The inspector noted these points and agreed that there were potential difficulties in obtaining a licence in traditional centres and to this extent the sequential approach to site selection had less relevance in the unusual circumstances of the case. However, this did not justify allowing the appeal which involved the change of use of employment premises. In his opinion, a suitable site which was not contrary to employment land policies could potentially be found.

PALL MALL HOUSE, 12-16 CHURCH STREET, MANCHESTER M4 1PN

The retention of an automated telling machine operated by Tesco Stores Ltd at premises in Greater Manchester failed, with an inspector expressing his concerns about its ability to be used easily by disabled people and its potentially adverse impact on public safety. The inspector noted that the design and access statement provided little information. Although two bollards were proposed on the footpath in front of the machine, this was intended to protect it from ram raiding rather than to afford protection for users of the machine. No knee space below the machine was provided so that wheelchair and electric scooter users would have to approach it from the side and not the front. The reduced convenience and accessibility of the facility might also be reduced by the bollards, he concluded. Accordingly, he held that the development had not delivered a good standard of accessibility for disabled people. In relation to crime and public safety, the development incorporated a CCTV camera and light. However, in his opinion this did not overcome the risk of users being robbed because the camera was aimed at identifying the user of the machine rather than to deter people loitering in the vicinity. There was no natural surveillance of the machine and therefore it would not maintain or improve community safety.

21 WEST MAITLAND STREET, EDINBURGH EH12 5EA

A claim by the owner of a flat in Edinburgh that an enforcement notice requiring the removal of a satellite dish had no relevance to him was rejected by a reporter who ruled that the council could still take such action. The owner stated that he could not comply with the terms of the notice because he did not own the satellite dish. However, the reporter noted that over 20 copies of the notice had been served on a range of individuals and business premises within the building. The fact that the appellant claimed to have no control over whether the dish was removed did not prevent the council from seeking its removal, he ruled.