Planning Appeals Won

Just Some Of Our Planning Case Studies

AFA Planning Consultants have a long and successful history of winning planning cases throughout the UK. Click the below headings to view our recently won cases.

PLANNING APPEAL, CINDERFORD, GL14 3EY
SINGLE DWELLING OF NEW HOUSE, AMENITY SPACE AND PARKING

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for erection of a single dwelling with associated amenity space and parking at Land off St John’s
Square, Cinderford.

Planning Inspectorate ref: APP/P1615/W/16/3165944

PLANNING APPEAL, KENT TN29 0ET
DEMOLISH OF OLD BUILDINGS AND BUILDING OF NEW HOUSE

The appeal is allowed and permission is granted for the construction of a new dwelling, demolition of existing outbuildings and provision of new double garages for the new and existing properties.

Planning Inspectorate ref: APP/L2250/W/16/3165605

PLANNING APPEAL, BROMYARD HR7 4JQ
X3 DETACHED HOUSES

We were approached by the client to see if it was worth appealing the Councils decision. We successfully appealed against refusal and planning was granted to build 3 detached houses and associated gardens.

Planning Inspectorate ref: APP/W1850/W/17/3176625

PLANNING APPEAL, SHEFFORD, BEDFORDSHIRE
NEW SINGLE STOREY DWELLING.

Successful appeal against refusal of planning permission to build a new single storey dwelling.
Reason for refusal overturned on our appeal. Successfully argued against the impact on the character and appearance of the area. The LPA also had a short fall on its 5 year housing supply which we also included in the appeal case.

Planning Inspectorate ref: APP/P0240/W/15/3127863

PLANNING APPEAL, LONDON NW3, BELSIZE SQUARE
GARDEN HOUSE IN CONSERVATION AREA.

Our clients wanted to erect a single storey garden house in the garden of their home which is in a conservation area.
However Camden Council refused to grant Planning Permission as they considered that the proposal would not preserve & enhance the character & appearance of the conservation area; they were also concerned about setting a precedent. In addition some local residents were concerned that the new building would function as an additional domestic room leading to noise & light pollution, as well as overlooking & loss of outlook. For several reasons therefore the prospects for a successful appeal did not appear strong when our clients first came to us for help. However on examination we felt that it would be possible to mount a good case on appeal and that we would be able to present counter arguments to support the appeal. Our clients therefore asked us to appeal for them. The final result was that the Planning Inspector agreed with us and granted planning permission.

Planning Inspectorate ref: APP/X5210A/10/2142052

PLANNING APPEAL GRANTED FOR 2 BEDROOM BUNGALOW, BIRCHINGTON, CT7 9SS.

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the erection of a two bedroom bungalow with off street parking space at land to the rear house, Birchington CT7 9SS.

Planning Inspectorate ref: Ref APP/Z2260/W/16/3166327

PLANNING APPEAL, SOUTH WALES
NEW HOUSES GRANTED PLANNING PERMISSION ON APPEAL

Our client had been refused planning permission for new residential housing and a large garage block. The Council’s reasons for the refusal stated that the highways which would serve the site were unsuitable and that the proposed development would have an adverse impact on the landscape quality of the wooded hillside which is subject to tree protection orders.

Our client then turned to us for help. Having carried out a review of the case, we advised our client that the Council’s refusal was open to challenge and there would be a good prospect that an appeal to the Planning Inspectorate would succeed. Our client then asked us to conduct the appeal on her behalf.

At the appeal, the Planning Inspector having considered the case we advanced on behalf of our client, agreed with us and granted planning permission. However the appeal was not straightforward and we had to present careful arguments relating to the highways problems and the landscape issue as specified by the Council in their refusal.

Consequently although the Planning Inspector agreed with the Council that highway network serving the site was substandard, he nevertheless found that on balance the proposal would not cause any material increase in the risk to highway safety or conflict with the objectives of the relevant Council policy. In addition regarding the issue of the landscape and the attractive woodland area, the Inspector agreed with us that the new houses would be a logical extension to the existing development pattern and would not be a significant intrusion into the woodland area.

Planning Inspectorate ref: APP/K6920/A/09/2114965

PLANNING APPEAL, WHATTON, NG13 9EW.

Permission granted for a change of use to a mixed use, comprising of a dwelling house and commercial, recreational fishery, two fisherman holiday lets and car park.

Planning Inspectorate ref: Ref APP/W3005/A/12/2175719

PLANNING APPEAL, GRAYS, RM16 6DW.

The appeal has been granted to convert an existing garage into premises for a small ‘by appointment’ business (dog grooming salon).

Planning Inspectorate ref: Ref 16/00462/FUL

PLANNING APPEAL, BOGNOR REGIS, WEST SUSSEX.

Appeal granted against refusal of planning permission to allow chance of use from warehouse to gymnasium

Reason for refusal overturned on appeal – reduction in supply of Class B8 (storage and warehouse) properties. Inspector persuaded that the business requirements for use of the building for 5 years merited temporary change of classification for 6 years to allow the gymnasium use

Planning Inspectorate ref: APP/C3810/W/15/3135864

PLANNING APPEAL GRANTED FOR A SINGLE STOREY REAR CONSERVATORY- London SW16

The planning appeal granted for a single storey conservatory at the rear of the property- London SW16 4RE
Planning Inspectorate ref: APP/L5240/D/17/3170825

PLANNING APPEAL GRANTED FOR A SINGLE STOREY REAR CONSERVATORY- High Wycombe

The appeal allowed and planning permission granted for a single storey conservatory on the rear of the property.

Planning Inspectorate ref: APP/K0425/D/16/3151378

PLANNING APPEAL, CHISWELL GREEN, ST.ALBANS
SINGLE STOREY CONSERVATORY

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for new single storey conservatory on rear elevation, in accordance with the terms of the
application.

Planning Inspectorate ref: APP/B1930/D/15/3135960

PLANNING APPEAL, HAYES, UXBRIDGE
CONSERVATORY ALREADY HAD BEEN BUILT

Our clients had been wrongly advised by their builders that their new and expensive conservatory did not require planning permission. However after it was built they discovered that this advice was incorrect and so they applied retrospectively for permission. That application was refused by Hillingdon Council. Our clients were then in the extremely unfortunate position of having to demolish the conservatory or face enforcement action by the Council. They then turned to us to appeal to the Government’s Planning Inspectorate for them.

The outcome was that the Planning Inspector dealing with the appeal, having carefully considered our arguments as to why the conservatory should remain, agreed with us and granted retrospective planning permission.

Our client emailed:

“Thank you very much for your help ….. it has been a great pleasure to work with Neill, his professional insight and intervention into our very difficult case helped greatly to reach this outcome. His logical reasons were well acknowledged by the Planning Inspector in the decision letter.”

Planning Inspectorate ref: APP/R5510/D/11/2151426

RETROSPECTIVE PLANNING APPEAL, GLASGOW, SCOTLAND
LOCAL PLANNING REVIEW COMMITTEE ALLOWS NEW CONSERVATORY

Scotland’s planning appeal system differs significantly from that in England and Wales. The Scottish system means that appeals against a refusal issued by a planning officer can only be made to the Council’s own Local Planning Review Committee.

Following a refusal to grant retrospective planning permission for a fairly small but quality new conservatory, we were appointed by Everest to appeal on behalf of their client. Working with Everest’s architects, one of our experienced Scottish Chartered Town Planners skilfully handled the case which if lost would have meant that the householder Mr R, may well have had to demolish his new conservatory.

The background to the case was very unfortunate indeed. In February 2010, Mr R had started to build a conservatory to enhance the family living accommodation of his house, this was following the receipt of a building warrant from Glasgow City Council. At that time Mr R was led to believe that because of the small size of the conservatory it would not need planning permission as it was “permitted development” under planning law.

It was not until the construction of the conservatory was well underway that the Council’s enforcement officer (following a complaint) visited the property and advised our client that planning permission would also be required in addition to the building warrant, this being because the permitted development rights which would normally apply had been removed by the Council at the time of the original planning permission for the property many years before.

Our client then submitted a planning application for the conservatory for retrospective planning permission. In the meantime, however, given the apparent small scale of the development, he was not asked to stop construction pending a decision on the application. As a result, the conservatory was completed in good faith, in the expectation of planning permission being forthcoming.

However, to Mr R’s shock, the planning application was refused which meant that if it was not reversed, he would be faced with the prospect of enforcement action and the demolition of the conservatory with all the upheaval and cost ramifications which this would involve.

The background was clearly very unfortunate, but the planning system throughout the UK is such that it is not in fact directly relevant to whether an appeal should be granted. Our task therefore was to make a strong and robust case that the appeal should be allowed and permission now granted. Clear arguments based on relevant planning grounds rather than sympathy were required.

Consequently our planner skilfully addressed the two reasons for the refusal, i.e. that the conservatory would result in lack of useable private garden space and would also detrimentally affect the daylight to a neighbouring property. Using various relevant arguments based on planning policies, including the Council’s own Design Guide, our planner was able to convince the Local Planning Review Committee that retrospective planning permission should be granted for the conservatory. This of course means that Mr R does not now have to demolish the conservatory.

Glasgow City Council’s ref: 10/00725/DC

PLANNING APPEAL, MANCHESTER
CONSERVATORY ALREADY BUILT – COUNCIL RELIED ON OUTDATED GUIDELINES

Our clients were refused planning permission by the Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council for the retention of a conservatory they had already built further to an earlier planning permission. However on completion the conservatory was found to be significantly closer to a boundary than shown on the approved plans. When our clients applied for another (retrospective) planning permission, the Council turned it down. It seemed therefore that the conservatory would have to be rebuilt, clearly a costly exercise.

However our clients then approached us for advice. Having carried out an initial assessment of the case, we advised that the case should be taken to the Government’s independent Planning Inspectorate for an appeal.

Our clients took the advice we gave and so we then appealed on their behalf. In the appeal we argued that there were good reasons why the Council’s decision should be overturned, this basically being that the Government’s national permitted development rules had changed and that the Council had relied on their own outdated rules when making their refusal decision. Mr Graham Garnham, the Planning Inspector appointed to deal with the appeal, whilst making it clear that it was unsatisfactory that the conservatory was not built in accordance with the approved plans, stated that it was also unsatisfactory that the Council had relied on planning guidance that was significantly out of date. He therefore reversed the Council’s refusal and granted planning permission for the conservatory as built.

Interestingly, in his appeal Decision, the Inspector made it very clear that the fact that the conservatory had already been built, did not affect his consideration of the planning merits of the case.

However we would point out that it is certainly not a good idea to build anything that requires planning permission, without first obtaining that permission. The worse case scenario is that the local planning authority could legally require the removal of the unauthorised structure and failure to comply could lead a criminal prosecution.

The Planning Inspectorate Ref: APP/Q4245/A/08/2086216

PLANNING APPEAL, WORCESTERSHIRE, WYRE FOREST
SUBSTANTIAL CONSERVATORY ALLOWED IN LANDSCAPE PROTECTION AREA

Our clients’ home is an isolated and detached house on a very large plot, screened by mature woodland and only visible to the public from the front. Yet despite this the Council refused planning permission for a conservatory, stating that it would be a substantial structure in its own right and that the house had already been considerably extended. It was also very relevant the Council felt, that the house is in the Wyre Forest designated Landscape Protection Area.

However in our appeal to the Planning Inspector we argued that the conservatory would not have any harmful effect on the character and appearance of the house or on the surrounding landscape and would therefore actually comply with the Councils relevant policies. The Planning Inspector agreed with us and therefore reversed the Council’s refusal and granted our clients planning permission.

Planning Inspectorate Ref: APP/R1845/A/08/2070954

PLANNING APPEAL, GLOUCESTERSHIRE
NEW PRESTIGIOUS EVEREST CONSERVATORY

Everest had applied for planning permission for a new conservatory at the home of one of their clients in South Gloucestershire. The local Council however had refused their application and so Everest turned to us for assistance.

Having examined the circumstances including the refusal notice, the plans and drawings, we advised Everest’s Planning Manager that there was a good prospect that the Council’s decision would be overturned on appeal. Consequently we were commissioned by Everest to launch an appeal on their behalf.

Our argument to the Planning Inspector included that there would be no material harmful effect on the conditions and privacy of the neighbours and a substantial area of garden would remain for the house even with a fairly large conservatory. In addition we contended that for various reasons there would be no conflict with the Council’s design and development objectives.

Having considered the arguments which we put before him, the Planning Inspector Mr Andrew Seaman agreed with us that the Council’s refusal should be overturned. Consequently he granted planning permission on appeal for the new Everest conservatory.

The Planning Inspectorate ref: APP/P0119/A/09/2102327.

PLANNING APPEAL, LONDON NW3, BELSIZE SQUARE
GARDEN HOUSE IN CONSERVATION AREA.

Our clients wanted to erect a single storey garden house in the garden of their home which is in a conservation area.

However Camden Council refused to grant Planning Permission as they considered that the proposal would not preserve & enhance the character & appearance of the conservation area; they were also concerned about setting a precedent. In addition some local residents were concerned that the new building would function as an additional domestic room leading to noise & light pollution, as well as overlooking & loss of outlook. For several reasons therefore the prospects for a successful appeal did not appear strong when our clients first came to us for help. However on examination we felt that it would be possible to mount a good case on appeal and that we would be able to present counter arguments to support the appeal. Our clients therefore asked us to appeal for them. The final result was that the Planning Inspector agreed with us and granted planning permission.

Planning Inspectorate ref: APP/X5210A/10/2142052

PLANNING APPEAL, SUFFOLK
SINGLE STORY GROUND FLOOR EXTENSION ON GRADE II LISTED BUILDING

Suffolk council refused our clients application for a single story rear extension. After submitting both a planning appeal and listed building consent our client was granted permission on their grade II listed building

Planning Inspectorate ref: APP/D3505/a/12/2172533
Listed Building Consent ref: APP/D3505/E12/2172544

PLANNING APPEAL, CAMBRIDGESHIRE
NEW HOUSE WITHIN VILLAGE CONSERVATION AREA

The Council had refused planning permission to our clients to build a new Potton style house on a plot they owned in a very attractive Cambridgeshire village. The grounds cited by the Council for the refusal were based on the scale, design and position of the proposed dwelling and its impact on the village’s Conservation Area. They stated that the proposal was ‘ill considered’ and ‘discordant’ with the street scene and the character of the Conservation Area. However the Planning Inspector, having considered the case we put forward on behalf of our clients, disagreed with the Council and concluded that the proposal would not harm the character and appearance of the locality or the Conservation area. He therefore reversed the Council’s refusal and granted planning permission.

Planning Inspectorate ref: APP/H0520/A/07/2058511

PLANNING APPEAL, LEICESTERSHIRE
NEW HOUSE IN VILLAGE CONSERVATION AREA

The Council refused planning permission for a new detached house on land owned by our client in a village Conservation Area. The refusal was issued despite the fact that the Council had earlier granted planning permission for a house of a different design on the plot and despite a recommendation from one of their own planning officers that the different design of house was acceptable and should be approved.

Nevertheless the Council still considered that the new house would be detrimental to the character of the Conservation Area as well as to some nearby listed buildings and so they refused the application. However in our appeal to the Planning Inspector we challenged the Councillors’ concerns and explained why they were not well founded. The Inspector agreed with us and therefore she reversed the Council’s refusal and granted our client planning permission for the house he wanted.

Planning Inspectorate Ref: APP/F2415/A/08/2070960

PLANNING APPEAL, AMPTHILL ,BEDFORDSHIRE
LISTED THATCHED COTTAGE IN THE CONSERVATION AREA – LARGE TWO STOREY EXTENSION ALLOWED

The Council had refused planning permission for a two storey rear extension to an 18th century listed thatched cottage owned by our clients in the conservation area at Ampthill, Beds. The Council had refused the proposed extension because they objected to its length, width and height. However the Planning Inspector agreed with our arguments why the extension should be built. He therefore reversed the Council’s refusal and granted planning permission.

Planning Inspectorate Ref: APP/JO215/E/06/2018298

PLANNING APPEAL, BELSIZE PARK, LONDON
REPLACEMENT WINDOWS AND DOORS

The main reason for initial refusal was down to the impact the replacement windows and door would have on the character and appearance of the property especially as it is within a conservation area. The planning inspectorate agreed our reasons for appeal and that the windows and door could be exchanged . He therefore reversed the Council’s refusal and planning permission was given.

The Planning Inspectorate: APP/X5210/A/12/2176051.

PLANNING APPEAL, BUCKINGHAMSHIRE
TWO STOREY SIDE & ONE STOREY REAR EXTENSIONS

The Council had cited four reasons when they refused planning permission to allow enlargements to our client’s home. The Council stated that the extensions would not respect the scale of the original house, would be visually intrusive and have a detrimental impact on the adjoining Conservation Area and nearby listed buildings, plus it would be overbearing in relation to a neighbouring house. In addition to all of that the Council stated that the access was substandard because of poor visibility. However having considered the case we put forward for our client which carefully addressed all of these issues in turn, the Planning Inspector agreed with us that none of the reasons merited the Council’s refusal. He therefore reversed the refusal and granted planning permission.

Planning Inspectorate Ref: APP/JO405/A/07/2033463

PLANNING APPEAL, AMPTHILL, BEDFORDSHIRE
LISTED THATCHED COTTAGE IN THE CONSERVATION AREA – LARGE TWO STOREY EXTENSION ALLOWED

The Council had refused planning permission for a two storey rear extension to an 18th century listed thatched cottage owned by our clients in the conservation area at Ampthill, Beds. The Council had refused the proposed extension because they objected to its length, width and height. However the Planning Inspector agreed with our arguments why the extension should be built. He therefore reversed the Council’s refusal and granted planning permission.

Planning Inspectorate Ref: APP/JO215/E/06/2018298

PLANNING APPEAL, HARPENDEN, HERTFORDSHIRE
DORMER & LOFT CONVERSION WITH TWO STOREY EXTENSION

St Albans Council had refused planning permission to our client for a loft conversion and dormer with a two storey rear and side extension as they were concerned about the effect on the character and appearance of the house and the wider street scene. They were also concerned about the effect of the extension on the living conditions of a neighbour.

Our client then turned to us for help. For several reasons, our advice was that there was a good chance that an appeal would succeed. Consequently our client asked us to handle the appeal for him. Having considered the case that we advanced in favour of the project and having visited the site, Mr Huntley, the Planning Inspector agreed with our assessment of the refusal. He noted that one of the houses next door had recently been extended in a similar way with planning permission from the Council, and the house on the other side was currently having an extension built, also with permission from the council.

He also noted various other relevant facts that we set out in our submission to him, including that although our client’s extension would be somewhat wider than the first neighbour’s extension, a terraced effect would not occur. In view of all the circumstances, he did not agree with the Council’s concerns and decided to reverse their refusal and grant planning permission.

Planning Inspectorate ref: APP/B1930/A/09/2104845

REVERSE COUNCILS DECISION AND GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION
TULSE HILL, LONDON
BASEMENT & GARDEN BUILDING EXTENSIONS FOR ART DECO HOUSE

Our clients own an interesting and distinctive art deco house in fashionable Tulse Hill. They wanted to build a basement extension under the house and enlarge an existing building in the rear garden. They felt that this would considerably enhance the amenity of their home whilst retaining its essential art deco character.
However when they applied to Lambeth Council for planning permission, the application was refused.

Our clients then turned to us for advice about a possible appeal. Our initial assessment was that the Council’s primary concern seemed to be about overlooking of, and impact on, the adjoining property as this was specifically mentioned in two of the reasons for refusal. In our view there were various ways that the anticipated problems could be solved.

In addition there was a reason for refusal which was more about the overall scale and form of the building, but we considered that that there were certain arguments that could be put forward on appeal to show that the proposals were not inappropriate and would not harm the character and appearance of the house and the area.

In view of this we advised our clients that there was a reasonably good chance that an appeal would succeed.

Our clients took our advice and asked us to handle an appeal for them. In the event we were proved correct as the Planning Inspector, having considered the arguments we advanced on our clients’ behalf and having visited the site, decided to reverse Lambeth Council’s decision and to grant planning permission.

The Planning Inspectorate ref: APP/N5660/A/09/2100041

PLANNING APPEAL, SURREY
TRADITIONAL SEMI-DETACHED HOUSE, TWO STOREY SIDE EXTENSION ALLOWED ON APPEAL

Our clients own a traditional semi-detached house with a garage at the side in Surrey. They wanted to demolish the garage and build a two storey side extension as well as raise the rear patio. The extension would include a new garage, cloakroom, utility room and extended kitchen on the ground floor, with an en-suite bedroom above.

However the London Borough of Croydon Council refused the application as they felt that the proposal was detrimental to the character and appearance of the area.

Our clients therefore asked us to carry out an initial assessment for the prospects of an appeal. Having considered the relevant factors, we advised our clients that in our view for various reasons, the proposal would not detract from the appearance of the house nor be detrimental to the area and that the prospects for a successful appeal were good. Consequently they asked us to handle an appeal to the Planning Inspectorate for them.

Having considered our arguments in favour of the proposal and having visited the site, the Planning Inspector Mr Lyman disagreed with the Croydon Council and granted planning permission. The Council then wanted the Inspector to impose a condition on his permission relating to a detailed landscaping scheme. However he considered that such a condition was unnecessary and unreasonable.

Planning Inspectorate Ref: P/L5240/A/09/2104418

PLANNING APPEAL, HERTFORDSHIRE
TWO STOREY SIDE EXTENSION – NOT ‘OVER-DEVELOPMENT’

The Council had refused planning permission for our client’s extension of his house. Our client wanted to demolish an existing garage and construct a two storey side extension comprising of a bedroom and shower room over a new garage.

The Council had refused planning permission stating that the proposal would be ‘overdevelopment of the site’. The Planning Inspector had little sympathy with the Council’s concerns and agreed with our arguments that there was adequate space and that the extension would actually be in keeping with the rest of the house and the surrounding area. He therefore reversed the Council’s refusal and granted planning permission.

Planning Inspectorate Ref: APP/W0530/A/06/2028018

PLANNING APPEAL, HAMPSHIRE
RETROSPECTIVE PLANNING PERMISSION GRANTED FOR EXTENSION

The Council had earlier granted planning permission to our clients for an extension and a double garage. However the garage was then erected but on a larger scale than what had been permitted. This was done in order to allow for more living accommodation, i.e. the creation of a bedroom above the garage and a bathroom.

The Council refused to grant retrospective planning permission for the development as built, citing three reasons for doing so. These were that the cumulative size and bulk would now visually detract from the scenic quality of the countryside and that the building was now disproportionate to the main dwelling house. They were also concerned that the building would be tantamount to the creation of a new dwelling within the countryside.
However the Planning Inspector agreed with the case we put forward on behalf of our clients that the building should be allowed as it had been built. He therefore reversed the Councils refusal and granted planning permission retrospectively. This meant that our clients were allowed to keep what they had built.

Planning Inspectorate Ref: APP/H1705/A/07/2059760

PLANNING APPEAL, CAMBRIDGESHIRE
TWO STORY SIDE EXTENSION

The Council had refused planning permission for a large two storey side extension owned by our client at a village in South Cambs. The Planning Inspector recognised that the extension would just about double the size of the house and would be at odds with the Council’s Local Plan policies. However he agreed with our arguments why the extension should be built. He therefore reversed the Council’s refusal and granted planning permission.

Planning Inspectorate Ref: APP/W0530/A/06/2028018

PLANNNING APPEAL, CHALFONT ST.GILES, SOUTH BUCKINGHAMSHIRE
GREEN BELT LAND – TWO STOREY SIDE & SINGLE STOREY FRONT EXTENSION

The Council had refused planning permission for our clients’ extensions to their detached 4 bedroom house in the green belt near Chalfont St. Giles. Their principal concern was with the proposed two storey side extension which would provide additional living rooms and two en-suite bedrooms projecting to both the front and rear of the house. However the Planning Inspector took note of our arguments concerning the positioning of the house in relation to the road. We also argued that when taken together with other additions to the house, the proposals would not be out of scale or at odds with neighbouring properties. The Inspector agreed with us and therefore reversed the Council’s refusal and granted planning permission.

Planning Inspectorate Ref: APP/X0415/A/08/2073762

PLANNING APPEAL, CHESHAM, BUCKINGHAMSHIRE
EXTENSION WITHIN GREEN BELT LAND

Our clients wanted to build a substantial extension to their house which is in the Green Belt, near Chesham, Bucks. The proposed development which the Council had turned down was for a two storey side extension, an extension to the garage block and a single storey link between the extension and the garage. The Planning Inspector agreed with us that the development would not be disproportionate or detract from the openness of the Green Belt countryside. He therefore reversed the Council’s refusal and granted planning permission.

Planning Inspectorate Ref: APP/X0415/A/05/1195500

PLANNING APPEAL, SUFFOLK
LOFT CONVERSION WITH IMPORTANT CHANGE OF ROOF SHAPE

The Council had refused planning permission for a loft conversion which included changing the present hipped roof to a gable in order to provide more internal space. The Council’s refusal was based on their belief that the nature and design of the extension would have a detrimental impact on the appearance of the house and the character of the street scene.

However the Planning Inspector agreed with the case we put forward on behalf of our client that the extension should be allowed and that the change of roof shape would not be out of character with other properties in the road or detrimental to the street scene. He therefore reversed the Council’s refusal and granted planning permission.

Planning Inspectorate Ref: APP/VO510/A/07/2048594

PLANNING APPEAL, CAMBRIDGESHIRE
BUNGALOW CONVERTED INTO A HOUSE, CONTRARY TO COUNCIL POLICY

The Council had refused planning permission to allow the addition of a first floor to a bungalow (thus turning it into a five bedroom house) as well as other enhancements to the property. They felt that this substantial extension and the other enhancements would be out of scale and character. On behalf of our client however, we drew the Planning Inspector’s attention to relevant Government Planning Policy Statements and local policies as well as relevant published documents on urban design all of which seek to encourage improvements to the design of buildings. The Planning Inspector agreed with us that the extension would not be harmful to the surrounding area and would enhance the building. He therefore decided to allow the project, even though the increase in height and the change in the character of the dwelling, as well as its impact on its surroundings, were all in conflict with the Council’s policies. He concluded that the departure from policy was justified and therefore reversed the Council’s refusal and granted planning permission.

Planning Inspectorate Ref: APP/VO510/A/07/2048594

PLANNING APPEAL, ESSEX
TWO STOREY SIDE EXTENSION ALLOWED CONTRARY TO DESIGN GUIDELINES

The Council had refused planning permission for a two storey side extension that also involved moving the main entrance of the house from the side to the front. Their reasons included that the extension would not be set back from the rest of the house and that it would have a ridge height that would be the same as the rest of the house. This continuous façade, they believed would be out of character with the street scene and would be contrary to their policies and design guidance. They also stated that the extension would be too close to a neighbour’s property, contrary to their relevant policy.

However having considered the case we put forward on behalf of our client which carefully addressed all of these issues, the Planning Inspector agreed with us that none of the reasons merited the Council’s refusal. Nevertheless he did recognise that the extension did not actually comply with a number of Council’s design guidelines, but despite this he still reversed the refusal and granted planning permission.

Planning Inspectorate Ref: APP/W1525/A/07/2051495

PLANNING APPEAL, SUFFOLK
LOFT CONVERSION WITH IMPORTANT CHANGE OF ROOF SHAPE

The Council had refused planning permission for a loft conversion which included changing the present hipped roof to a gable in order to provide more internal space. The Council’s refusal was based on their belief that the nature and design of the extension would have a detrimental impact on the appearance of the house and the character of the street scene.

However the Planning Inspector agreed with the case we put forward on behalf of our client that the extension should be allowed and that the change of roof shape would not be out of character with other properties in the road or detrimental to the street scene. He therefore reversed the Council’s refusal and granted planning permission.

Planning Inspectorate Ref: APP/VO510/A/07/2048594

PLANNING APPEAL, HARPENDEN, HERTFORDSHIRE
DORMER & LOFT CONVERSION WITH TWO STOREY EXTENSION

St Albans Council had refused planning permission to our client for a loft conversion and dormer with a two storey rear and side extension as they were concerned about the effect on the character and appearance of the house and the wider street scene. They were also concerned about the effect of the extension on the living conditions of a neighbour.

Our client then turned to us for help. For several reasons, our advice was that there was a good chance that an appeal would succeed. Consequently our client asked us to handle the appeal for him. Having considered the case that we advanced in favour of the project and having visited the site, Mr Huntley, the Planning Inspector agreed with our assessment of the refusal. He noted that one of the houses next door had recently been extended in a similar way with planning permission from the Council, and the house on the other side was currently having an extension built, also with permission from the council.

He also noted various other relevant facts that we set out in our submission to him, including that although our client’s extension would be somewhat wider than the first neighbour’s extension, a terraced effect would not occur. In view of all the circumstances, he did not agree with the Council’s concerns and decided to reverse their refusal and grant planning permission.

Planning Inspectorate ref: APP/B1930/A/09/2104845

PLANNING APPEAL, WESTMINSTER, LONDON
ROOF TERRACE

Our clients have a flat at the top of a mid-terrace residential property in the City of Westminster.
They wanted to use the roof of the flat below as a terrace thus considerably enhancing the amenities and value of their own flat. The area is characterised by residential properties predominantly made up of 3-4 storey terraced houses converted into flats with rear wings and the top floors of several of these wings are used as roof terraces; some are in immediate proximity to our clients’ flat.

However the application was refused by the Council as they considered that the proposed rear roof terrace would lead to an unacceptable loss of privacy for people in neighbouring properties.

Our clients therefore turned to us for advice. Our initial assessment was that there would be a reasonably good chance that an appeal would succeed in this case. In the event we were proved correct as the Planning Inspector, having considered the arguments we advanced on our clients’ behalf and having visited the site, decided to reverse Westminster Council’s decision and to grant planning permission.

The Planning Inspectorate: APP/X5990/A/09/2097016.

RETROSPECTIVE PLANNING APPEAL, DARTFORD, KENT
FENCING THAT ALREADY HAD BEEN ERECTED

After a previous retrospective planning application was refused, we were appointed to appeal the decision by Dartford Borough Council. Our client was initially refused an application to replace the fencing to the boundary line at the rear of the property. After a successful appeal, permission was granted for the erection of a 2.3m high featheredge close boarded fence on both side boundaries in rear garden.

Planning Inspectorate ref:APP/T2215/D/12/2185297

RETROSPECTIVE PLANNING APPEAL, HAYES, UXBRIDGE
CONSERVATORY ALREADY HAD BEEN BUILT

Our clients had been wrongly advised by their builders that their new and expensive conservatory did not require planning permission. However after it was built they discovered that this advice was incorrect and so they applied retrospectively for permission. That application was refused by Hillingdon Council. Our clients were then in the extremely unfortunate position of having to demolish the conservatory or face enforcement action by the Council. They then turned to us to appeal to the Government’s Planning Inspectorate for them.

The outcome was that the Planning Inspector dealing with the appeal, having carefully considered our arguments as to why the conservatory should remain, agreed with us and granted retrospective planning permission.
Our client emailed: “Thank you very much for your help ….. it has been a great pleasure to work with Neill, his professional insight and intervention into our very difficult case helped greatly to reach this outcome. His logical reasons were well acknowledged by the Planning Inspector in the decision letter.”

Planning Inspectorate ref: APP/R5510/D/11/2151426

RETROSPECTIVE PLANNING APPLICATION
GLASGOW, SCOTLAND
LOCAL PLANNING REVIEW COMMITTEE ALLOWS RETROSPECTIVE CONSERVATORY

Scotland’s planning appeal system differs significantly from that in England and Wales. The Scottish system means that appeals against a refusal issued by a planning officer can only be made to the Council’s own Local Planning Review Committee.

Following a refusal to grant retrospective planning permission for a fairly small but quality new conservatory, we were appointed by Everest to appeal on behalf of their client. Working with Everest’s architects, one of our experienced Scottish Chartered Town Planners skilfully handled the case which if lost would have meant that the householder Mr R, may well have had to demolish his new conservatory.

The background to the case was very unfortunate indeed. In February 2010, Mr R had started to build a conservatory to enhance the family living accommodation of his house, this was following the receipt of a building warrant from Glasgow City Council. At that time Mr R was led to believe that because of the small size of the conservatory it would not need planning permission as it was “permitted development” under planning law.

It was not until the construction of the conservatory was well underway that the Council’s enforcement officer (following a complaint) visited the property and advised Mr R that planning permission would also be required in addition to the building warrant, this being because the permitted development rights which would normally apply had been removed by the Council at the time of the original planning permission for the property many years before.

Mr R then submitted a planning application for the conservatory for retrospective planning permission. In the meantime, however, given the apparent small scale of the development, he was not asked to stop construction pending a decision on the application. As a result, the conservatory was completed in good faith, in the expectation of planning permission being forthcoming.

However, to Mr R’s shock, the planning application was refused which meant that if it was not reversed, he would be faced with the prospect of enforcement action and the demolition of the conservatory with all the upheaval and cost ramifications which this would involve.

The background was clearly very unfortunate, but the planning system throughout the UK is such that it is not in fact directly relevant to whether an appeal should be granted. Our task therefore was to make a strong and robust case that the appeal should be allowed and permission now granted. Clear arguments based on relevant planning grounds rather than sympathy were required.

Consequently our planner skilfully addressed the two reasons for the refusal, i.e. that the conservatory would result in lack of useable private garden space and would also detrimentally affect the daylight to a neighbouring property. Using various relevant arguments based on planning policies, including the Council’s own Design Guide, our planner was able to convince the Local Planning Review Committee that retrospective planning permission should be granted for the conservatory. This of course means that Mr R does not now have to demolish the conservatory.

Glasgow City Council’s ref: 10/00725/DC

PLANNING APPEAL, MANCHESTER
CONSERVATORY ALREADY BUILT – COUNCIL RELIED ON OUTDATED GUIDELINES, RETROSPECTIVE

Our clients were refused planning permission by the Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council for the retention of a conservatory they had already built further to an earlier planning permission. However on completion the conservatory was found to be significantly closer to a boundary than shown on the approved plans. When our clients applied for another (retrospective) planning permission, the Council turned it down. It seemed therefore that the conservatory would have to be rebuilt, clearly a costly exercise.

However our clients then approached us for advice. Having carried out an initial assessment of the case, we advised that the case should be taken to the Government’s independent Planning Inspectorate for an appeal.

Our clients took the advice we gave and so we then appealed on their behalf. In the appeal we argued that there were good reasons why the Council’s decision should be overturned, this basically being that the Government’s national permitted development rules had changed and that the Council had relied on their own outdated rules when making their refusal decision. Mr Graham Garnham, the Planning Inspector appointed to deal with the appeal, whilst making it clear that it was unsatisfactory that the conservatory was not built in accordance with the approved plans, stated that it was also unsatisfactory that the Council had relied on planning guidance that was significantly out of date. He therefore reversed the Council’s refusal and granted planning permission for the conservatory as built.

Interestingly, in his appeal Decision, the Inspector made it very clear that the fact that the conservatory had already been built, did not affect his consideration of the planning merits of the case.

However we would point out that it is certainly not a good idea to build anything that requires planning permission, without first obtaining that permission. The worse case scenario is that the local planning authority could legally require the removal of the unauthorised structure and failure to comply could lead to a criminal prosecution.

The Planning Inspectorate Ref: APP/Q4245/A/08/2086216

PLANNING APPEAL, HAMPSHIRE
RETROSPECTIVE PLANNING PERMISSION GRANTED FOR EXTENSION

The Council had earlier granted planning permission to our clients for an extension and a double garage. However the garage was then erected but on a larger scale than what had been permitted. This was done in order to allow for more living accommodation, i.e. the creation of a bedroom above the garage and a bathroom.

The Council refused to grant retrospective planning permission for the development as built, citing three reasons for doing so. These were that the cumulative size and bulk would now visually detract from the scenic quality of the countryside and that the building was now disproportionate to the main dwelling house. They were also concerned that the building would be tantamount to the creation of a new dwelling within the countryside.

However the Planning Inspector agreed with the case we put forward on behalf of our clients that the building should be allowed as it had been built. He therefore reversed the Councils refusal and granted planning permission retrospectively. This meant that our clients were allowed to keep what they had built.

Planning Inspectorate Ref: APP/H1705/A/07/2059760

PLANNING APPEAL, SURREY, THAMES DITTON
SUMMERHOUSE IN A GARDEN ON THE BANKS OF THE RIVER THAMES

Our client owns a lovely bungalow in Thames Ditton with a substantial plot which borders the south bank of the River Thames opposite a small island.

Earlier he had been refused planning permission by Elmbridge Council for a summerhouse near the river’s bank. He then turned to us as planning specialists for help.

Our assessment was that there was a fairly good, but not a strong chance that an appeal would be successful. However at our client’s request we provided him with advice regarding an alternative scheme for a summerhouse and this was then submitted to the Council but also refused. On examination of the Council’s reasons for this refusal, we advised our client that the prospects for an appeal were now good. In view of this he asked us to take the revised proposal to appeal with the Planning Inspectorate.

At appeal the Planning Inspector noted the objections from neighbours and that the summerhouse would be located some 7m back from the water’s edge whereas the Council’s policy stated that the distance should be at least 9m. However we pointed out that there were several good reasons why the summerhouse should be allowed despite the objections and the conflict with policy. The result was that the Inspector agreed with us and overturned Council’s refusal and granted planning permission.

Planning Inspectorate ref: APP/K3605/D/10/2133191

PLANNING APPEAL, TENTERDEN, KENT
GARDEN GRABBING & DENSITY – COALITION GOVERNMENT’S NEW PPS3 RULES NO BAR TO NEW HOUSES

Undoubtedly there have been cases of planning permission being granted for new homes in the gardens of large houses which has been insensitive and deserving the description ‘garden grabbing’.

Consequently there has been a lot of recent media publicity about the coalition Government’s new planning rules for garden land and housing density requirements. Unfortunately some of the publicity has been very misleading giving the impression that there is now a total ban on building new houses in gardens.

The background of the appeal is that our client had been refused planning permission for a new residential housing development which had attracted a certain amount of local opposition. The site which is at Tenterden, Kent lies in an area of residential garden within the cutilage of a large house. The Council’s reasons for the refusal included that in their opinion the new houses would be an overdevelopment of the site at odds with the character of the locality, also they had some problems with the design of the houses and furthermore they had concerns about the access to the site.

Our client then turned to us for help. One of our experienced senior planners carried out a review of the case and was able to advise our client that the Council’s refusal was open to challenge and there would be a good prospect that an appeal to the Planning Inspectorate would succeed. Our planner felt that the scheme was sensitive and that the houses were very well designed despite what the Council had stated. Our client consequently asked us to conduct the appeal on his behalf.

At the appeal, we pointed out to the Planning Inspector that there was a wide range of types of dwellings and architectural styles on plots of varying styles in the area. Separation distances also differed substantially between the properties and contrary to the Council’s view the street scene was not characterized by undeveloped land. We also pointed out that the design of the proposed houses was actually of a very good quality and that the appeal site currently contributed little to the value of the townscape being almost completely screened by fencing and hedging.

The Inspector also took very much into account the Governments new planning rules as stated in Planning Policy Statement 3 (PPS 3) which omit a stated national minimum density for housing and exclude private residential gardens from the definition of previously developed (or ‘brown’) land. The Inspector noted however that PPS 3 does not introduce a blanket protection for gardens. This site lies within the confines of the town which was identified in the Council’s Development Plan as suitable in principle for small-scale development.

Having considered the arguments we advanced on behalf of our client including those related to the access, the Inspector granted planning permission overturning the Council’s refusal concluding that the appeal site is well suited to the proposed development and the design of the houses would enhance rather than detract from the street scene. He stated that the development would not be in conflict with the relevant Council policies or PPS 3.

We are very happy to point out that the architect concerned (www.fluid-design.co.uk) made a major contribution to the appeal’s success due to the quality of the design of the houses.

Planning Inspectorate ref: APP/E2205/A/10/2121176

GRANTED PLANNING PERMISSION, CAMBRIDGESHIRE
VALUABLE BUILDING PLOT IN GARDEN

Our clients had applied to the Council for permission to build a new house on a valuable plot within their garden on the edge of a village in Cambridgeshire. The Council however had refused planning permission because they felt that the proposal would have an adverse impact on the character of the area and because of highway safety reasons.

Having considered the case, we advised our clients that the refusal was certainly challengeable and that there was a reasonably good prospect that an appeal would succeed. Our clients then asked us to handle the appeal for them. Having considered our grounds for the appeal and why the Council’s refusal was not justified, the Planning Inspector agreed with us and granted planning permission.

The result is that our clients now own a very valuable building plot which they can sell if they wish.

Planning Inspectorate Ref: APP/D0515/A/09/2100079

BUSINESS PLANNING APPEAL, AYLESBURY, BUCKINGHAMSHIRE
PUBLIC ENQUIRY APPEAL, INDUSTRIAL BUILDING, ENFORCEMENT NOTICE QUASHED & PERMISSION GRANTED

This was a very serious enforcement case which could have forced our client to demolish an important new building used for his engineering firm which in turn may have put him out of business.

Our client had applied for planning permission to retain the new building but this had been refused and the Council had issued an Enforcement Notice requiring the demolition of the new building and the removal of materials from the land.

The background was that our client has operated an engineering business at a site near Aylesbury for many years. Fairly recently he replaced most of the firm’s main building with a new structure which is somewhat taller and has a greater footprint than the original building. However this new building did not benefit from planning permission, our client assuming that it was not necessary to apply for such permission as the new building was a replacement for the original.

Our client turned to us for help and asked us to act for him at appeal, firstly against the Council’s decision to refuse planning and secondly against their Enforcement Notice.

Both appeals were recently dealt with by way of a Public Enquiry, this being the most formal type of planning appeal normally reserved for the more serious planning matters. As this was a Public Enquiry appeal, Shaun Greaves our Chartered Town Planner dealing with the case gave instructions to Josef Cannon, an experienced planning Barrister who then presented the case over the two days which the enquiry took. Mr Cannon skilfully conducted the appeal calling evidence from various witnesses which was given on oath. This included Shaun Greaves’ evidence as an expert planning witness as well as the evidence of an expert highways witness.

The result was that the Planning Inspector quashed the Council’s Enforcement Notice and granted planning permission for the retention of the building thus overturning their earlier refusal.

Planning Inspectorate ref: APP/JO405/C/10/2122481.

BUSINESS PLANNING APPEAL, NOTTINGHAMSHIRE
QUASHED ENFORCEMENT NOTICE, 66 LODGE STYLE HOLIDAY HOMES

This was a complicated planning enforcement case which our client asked us to take on for him following the issue of an enforcement notice by the Council.

The background was that in 2006 our client had obtained planning permission for 66 lodge style holiday homes on a 6.6 hectare site. Subsequently the Council alleged that the planning permission had not been lawfully implemented and so the whole development was unlawful.

The Council then issued a formal enforcement notice the requirements of which included that the land should cease being used for residential accommodation units and that all the units should be removed as well as their footings and hard surfaces. Clearly there was a lot at stake for our client who had invested significantly in the scheme. In addition failure to comply with the enforcement notice could have led to prosecution in the criminal court and a substantial fine.

However at appeal the Planning Inspector agreed with our submissions on behalf of our client, concluding that the enforcement notice did not correctly specify the alleged breach of planning control and that the 2006 permission was not unlawfully commenced as the Council had alleged. He therefore quashed the Council’s enforcement notice.

Planning Inspectorate ref: APP/A3010/C/09/2118486

BUSINESS PLANNING APPEAL, SHEFFIELD
BUSINESS PREMISES – VARIATION OF HOURS CONDITION OF PLANNING PERMISSION WON ON APPEAL

Our clients own a successful Class A3 business in Sheffield. The Council had previously granted planning permission for the business but with a condition attached restricting the hours of operation. Our clients realised that adhering to the restriction would cause them to lose a valuable additional income stream and so they made an application to the Council for the restriction to be varied. However the application was refused and so they turned to us for help.

We advised our clients that there were good reasons to appeal to the Planning Inspectorate as the Council had not taken various important matters sufficiently into account when issuing their refusal.

The planning Inspector Mr Keith Hill carefully considered the planning reasons which we advanced as to why the previous restrictive hours of operation should be considerably extended. As a result of this, he granted the requested variation of hours.

Planning Inspectorate ref: APP/J4423/A/09/2107941

BUSINESS PLANNING APPEAL, AYLESBURY, BUCKINGHAMSHIRE
PUBLIC ENQUIRY APPEAL, INDUSTRIAL BUILDING, ENFORCEMENT NOTICE QUASHED & PERMISSION GRANTED

This was a very serious enforcement case which could have forced our client to demolish an important new building used for his engineering firm which in turn may have put him out of business.

Our client had applied for planning permission to retain the new building but this had been refused and the Council had issued an Enforcement Notice requiring the demolition of the new building and the removal of materials from the land.

The background was that our client has operated an engineering business at a site near Aylesbury for many years. Fairly recently he replaced most of the firm’s main building with a new structure which is somewhat taller and has a greater footprint than the original building. However this new building did not benefit from planning permission, our client assuming that it was not necessary to apply for such permission as the new building was a replacement for the original.

Our client turned to us for help and asked us to act for him at appeal, firstly against the Council’s decision to refuse planning and secondly against their Enforcement Notice.

Both appeals were recently dealt with by way of a Public Enquiry, this being the most formal type of planning appeal normally reserved for the more serious planning matters. As this was a Public Enquiry appeal, Shaun Greaves our Chartered Town Planner dealing with the case gave instructions to Josef Cannon, an experienced planning Barrister who then presented the case over the two days which the enquiry took. Mr Cannon skilfully conducted the appeal calling evidence from various witnesses which was given on oath. This included Shaun Greaves’ evidence as an expert planning witness as well as the evidence of an expert highways witness.

The result was that the Planning Inspector quashed the Council’s Enforcement Notice and granted planning permission for the retention of the building thus overturning their earlier refusal.

Planning Inspectorate ref: APP/JO405/C/10/2122481.

BUSINESS PLANNING APPEAL, NOTTINGHAMSHIRE
QUASHED ENFORCEMENT NOTICE, 66 LODGE STYLE HOLIDAY HOMES

This was a complicated planning enforcement case which our client asked us to take on for him following the issue of an enforcement notice by the Council.

The background was that in 2006 our client had obtained planning permission for 66 lodge style holiday homes on a 6.6 hectare site. Subsequently the Council alleged that the planning permission had not been lawfully implemented and so the whole development was unlawful.

The Council then issued a formal enforcement notice the requirements of which included that the land should cease being used for residential accommodation units and that all the units should be removed as well as their footings and hard surfaces. Clearly there was a lot at stake for our client who had invested significantly in the scheme. In addition failure to comply with the enforcement notice could have led to prosecution in the criminal court and a substantial fine.

However at appeal the Planning Inspector agreed with our submissions on behalf of our client, concluding that the enforcement notice did not correctly specify the alleged breach of planning control and that the 2006 permission was not unlawfully commenced as the Council had alleged. He therefore quashed the Council’s enforcement notice.

Planning Inspectorate ref: APP/A3010/C/09/2118486

OCCUPANCY RESTRICTION AND LIFTED,
CHIPPING NORTON, OXFORDSHIRE
MODIFICATION OF OCCUPANCY RESTRICTION, COSTS WON

The Council had refused planning permission to our client who had applied for a modification to an occupancy condition of the planning permission for his farmhouse near Chipping Norton, Oxfordshire. The modification sought to allow occupation by persons employed in equestrian activities as well as farming. The Inspector found that the Council’s refusal was not justified and also awarded substantial costs against them.

Planning Inspectorate Ref: APP/D3125/A/06/2020137

PLANNNING APPEAL, SOUTH HARTING GU31 5RG
CONVERSION OF BARN TO TWO SEMI DETACHED AGRICULTURAL COTTAGES

Our client had been refused planning permission by the Council to convert a barn into two semi-detached agricultural cottages. Our planner successfully appealed the decision and the application was granted. The appeal was sweetened by the fact this was within the South Downs National Park.

PLANNNING APPEAL, SHREWSBURY, SHROPSHIRE
CONVERSION TO RESIDENCE OF OLD COACH HOUSE

Our client had sought planning permission for the conversion of an old coach house in his grounds into residential use, thus creating a new dwelling. The local Council however refused permission citing three reasons. These were (a) effect on the character of the area, (b) overlooking (c) effect on the free flow of traffic on the main arterial road outside the property.

Not satisfied with this, our client asked us to carry out an initial assessment as to his options. Having studied the case we advised our client that there were good grounds to appeal in this case and consequently he asked us to lodge an appeal on his behalf.

Having considered the arguments which we put before him, the Planning Inspector Mr Martyn Single agreed with us that the Council’s refusal should be overturned and planning permission granted for the coach house’s conversion.

The Planning Inspectorate ref: APP/B3220/A/08/2091848.

PLANNING APPEAL, SOUTH WALES, PEMBROKSHIRE, NATIONAL PARK
BUILD STABLE BLOCK

Our clients wanted to build a stable block for their horses about 600m from their home which is in the Pembrokeshire Coast National Park. The site also lies on the edge of land designated as a ‘Landscape of Historic Interest’. However when they applied for planning permission to the National Park Authority (NPA), permission was refused.

In their decision the NPA referred to a number of policies which were aimed at safeguarding the character of the National Park.

Our clients were not at all happy with the refusal as their horses were being kept in an inadequate livery in terms of animal welfare and security about a mile away. In view of this, they then turned to us for help.

Following an initial assessment of the case, our advice was that there would certainly be merit in taking the matter to appeal and that the grounds for refusal cited by the NPA were open to challenge for a number of reasons, for example one NPA policy does specifically allow recreational facilities in certain circumstances. Although of course no guarantee of success could ever be given, we considered that there would be a reasonably good chance of success at appeal in this case. Consequently our clients instructed us to appeal on their behalf.

Mr Geraint Rees, the Planning Inspector appointed to deal with the appeal considered the arguments which we advanced for the refusal to be overturned and agreed with us that planning permission should be granted. He stated that in his opinion the proposal would only represent a minor encroachment into the countryside, which would be minimised by various landscaping measures. He also felt that the stable block would not have a significant visual impact on the locality and that it would respect the character of the area in terms of its scale and the use of traditional materials.

The Planning Inspectorate Ref: APP/L9503/A/08/2085055

Summary:

  • Planning appeals are decided by the Planning Inspectorate, not your local Council.
  • Planning inspectors can and often do reverse the decisions made by local councils.
  • AFA Planning Consultants consistently achieved a very high success rate for appeals throughout the UK.