At the start of the appeal decision letter the Planning Inspector summarises the main issues that have led to the reason for refusal. This reflects the refusal notice and any other issues raised through the statements produced by the appellant and the Council. Quite often the Planning Inspector might not agree with all of the grounds of appeal and it might be the case that there is only one aspect of the proposal that results in the appeal being dismissed. It is important to discuss the Inspector's reason for dismissing the appeal to see if the application can be amended to overcome the reasons why the appeal was dismissed.
PLANNING APPEALS NORTH WEST
Planning Consultancy specialising in appeals against the refusal of planning permission, enforcement notices and unreasonable planning conditions.
Chartered Town Planners with a high success rate
About
Welcome to Planning Appeals North West
Our planning business started in January 2012 as part of Mark Jones Planning Consultancy, a customer friendly planning consultancy based in Saddleworth. If you need help with a planning proposal please have a look at our other website www.mjonesplanning.co.uk
Over the last few years our planning business has steadily grown and we have noticed that there is greater demand by our clients to appeal against the refusal of planning permission. Planning Appeals North West was formed to meet this increased demand.
Being Chartered Members of the Royal Town Planning Institute we are specialists in overturning planning refusals for both domestic and commercial clients. We also advise and assist individuals who have completed developments without planning consent and are threatened with enforcement.
Our planning business started in January 2012 as part of Mark Jones Planning Consultancy, a customer friendly planning consultancy based in Saddleworth. If you need help with a planning proposal please have a look at our other website www.mjonesplanning.co.uk
Over the last few years our planning business has steadily grown and we have noticed that there is greater demand by our clients to appeal against the refusal of planning permission. Planning Appeals North West was formed to meet this increased demand.
Being Chartered Members of the Royal Town Planning Institute we are specialists in overturning planning refusals for both domestic and commercial clients. We also advise and assist individuals who have completed developments without planning consent and are threatened with enforcement.
Services
PLANNING APPEALS
Learn MoreENFORCEMENT NOTICE APPEALS
Learn MoreADVERTISEMENT APPEALS
Learn MorePLANNING CONDITION APPEALS
Learn MoreContact
F.A.Q
What is involved in lodging a written representation planning appeal?
If planning permission is refused by the Council and you feel that the decision has been unfairly made then you may wish to lodge an appeal to the Planning Inspectorate. Please contact us to see if we can help. Our initial over the phone consultation is FREE.
Our comprehensive planning appeal service includes:
Our comprehensive planning appeal service includes:
- Visit to the property to undertake a planning assessment of the proposal
- Research planning history and Council planning policy relating to the property and other properties in the locality.
- Prepare a detailed written representation appeal statement outlining the case.
- Submit the appeal via the Planning Portal.
- Respond to the Council’s written case.
- Respond to all communication from the Council.
- Keep you informed as to the progress of the appeal.
How much does it cost to lodge a written representation planning appeal?
Lodging an appeal with the Planning Inspectorate is currently free of charge.
Our fee depends on the complexity of the appeal and this is agreed in writing beforehand.
As a general guide our charges for preparing and lodging an appeal starts at around £1450.
We are not VAT registered, so this is not charged.
There are other types of appeal including Informal Hearings and Public Inquiries and these are charged on a case by case basis.
Our fee depends on the complexity of the appeal and this is agreed in writing beforehand.
As a general guide our charges for preparing and lodging an appeal starts at around £1450.
We are not VAT registered, so this is not charged.
There are other types of appeal including Informal Hearings and Public Inquiries and these are charged on a case by case basis.
Rplacement dwellinghouse in Billinge, Wigan
We are delighted to report that we have been successful at appeal to demolish an outdated bungalow and replace it with a two storey house with dormers to the rear and an entrance feature with the Billinge area of Wigan. The Council felt the proposed house represented overdevelopment of the plot and would result in unacceptable overlooking of the neighbour's garden. It was also considered to be detrimental to the outlook and living conditions of the occupiers of another neighbouring house.
The Planning Inspector disagreed with the Council and did not consider it to have a harmful effect on the character or appearance of the area. He stated that it “could perhaps be said to reflect the character whilst also improving the street scene.”
With regards to the loss of privacy to the neighbour’s garden the Inspector found that the rear dormers were far enough away to avoid any loss of privacy and the dormer windows were in accordance with the Council’s published guidelines.
In terms of the loss of outlook from another neighbouring house the Inspector felt that the topography of the area; the subservient design of the house and position of windows serving primary and non-habitable windows would not appear over-dominant or significantly detrimental to outlook.
The Planning Inspector disagreed with the Council and did not consider it to have a harmful effect on the character or appearance of the area. He stated that it “could perhaps be said to reflect the character whilst also improving the street scene.”
With regards to the loss of privacy to the neighbour’s garden the Inspector found that the rear dormers were far enough away to avoid any loss of privacy and the dormer windows were in accordance with the Council’s published guidelines.
In terms of the loss of outlook from another neighbouring house the Inspector felt that the topography of the area; the subservient design of the house and position of windows serving primary and non-habitable windows would not appear over-dominant or significantly detrimental to outlook.
Front elevation found to be the 'Principal Elevation' - Milnrow, Rochdale
This is another successful appeal against a Local Planning Authority that disagreed the front elevation of this mid terraced house was the ‘principal’ elevation. They unsuccessfully argued the rear elevation was the principal elevation because it has a recessed entrance and it fronted onto a highway. The Council was intent on taking enforcement action against the rear dormer despite it being clearly not the principal elevation.
The top photograph was found to be the 'Principal Elevation'.
The Planning Inspector agreed with our view that the front elevation that fronted a footpath was the principal elevation. The Inspector concluded:
“The main doors to the properties along this section of Turbary Walk are on what is perceived as the ‘front’ elevations. Furthermore, as referred to above, the numbering system, as well as the only letter boxes, are at these ‘front door’ locations. I agree with the contention put forward on behalf of the Appellant that, taking into account the definition contained in the PPDHT, the ‘front’ elevation (south-west) facing Turbary Walk is the one that sets the postcode to the house.
As a matter of fact, and degree, I conclude that the Turbary Walk elevation is the main or ‘principal’ elevation of No 27.”
The dormer on the rear elevation will be permitted development once it is slightly made smaller and clad in matching materials as the roofing material.
The top photograph was found to be the 'Principal Elevation'.
The Planning Inspector agreed with our view that the front elevation that fronted a footpath was the principal elevation. The Inspector concluded:
“The main doors to the properties along this section of Turbary Walk are on what is perceived as the ‘front’ elevations. Furthermore, as referred to above, the numbering system, as well as the only letter boxes, are at these ‘front door’ locations. I agree with the contention put forward on behalf of the Appellant that, taking into account the definition contained in the PPDHT, the ‘front’ elevation (south-west) facing Turbary Walk is the one that sets the postcode to the house.
As a matter of fact, and degree, I conclude that the Turbary Walk elevation is the main or ‘principal’ elevation of No 27.”
The dormer on the rear elevation will be permitted development once it is slightly made smaller and clad in matching materials as the roofing material.
SMALL FRONT EXTENSION TO END TERRACED HOUSE, CHEVIOT AVENUE, OLDHAM
We often get asked to submit appeals for small householder extensions. We undertook an initial assessment of this front extension that had recently been completed despite it being refused planning permission. We felt that it was subservient addition to the main house that had recently been extended and the use of perfectly matching brickwork made it acceptable. Whilst there were no other similar extensions in the row of houses the Planning Inspector agreed with our findings and concluded:
"Due to the projecting ground floor front window, and the side extension which also projects forward of the original front elevation, the development appears physically contained, and relatively unobtrusive with a slight step forward. Visually the porch as constructed provides a proportionate and subordinate link between the original property and the extension."
"Due to the projecting ground floor front window, and the side extension which also projects forward of the original front elevation, the development appears physically contained, and relatively unobtrusive with a slight step forward. Visually the porch as constructed provides a proportionate and subordinate link between the original property and the extension."
DETACHED HOUSE GRANTED ON STABLE SITE IN GREEN BELT AND FULL AWARD OF COSTS AWARDED IN CALDERDALE
Following the previous appeal success a further application for all Reserved Matters was submitted to the Council. The Council failed to engage during the process and did not acknowledge receipt of amended highway plans. The Appellant appealed against the Council's failure to make a decision within the prescribed time as time was running out to lodge an appeal. The Planning Inspector granted permission for all Reserved Matters and once again granted a further Full Award of Costs against the Council on the following ground:
"Taking the above matters into consideration, I find that the Council by not acknowledging receipt of amended plans which would likely have overcome highway objections and was the only point of dispute between the parties combined with not engaging with the applicant during the application process has resulted in the wasted time and expense of lodging an appeal for the applicant."
Permission having been granted and a full award of costs granted against Calderdale MBC for the replacement of a stable building to a house in the Green Belt.
The Council agreed that a stable fell within the definition of a previously developed site, but for it to be accepted as one of the permitted Green Belt exceptions the Council’s approach was confused and referred to a requirement for the proposed building ‘to be in the same use and not materially larger than the one it replaces’. The Inspector agreed that the Council had wrongly assessed the proposal against the relevant exception of the Framework.
The Inspector acknowledged that some domestication of the site’s appearance would doubtless arise, including that from parked vehicles and domestic paraphernalia, any effect on openness would be negligible on account of the scale of the accommodation that could be provided. The site’s raised position above the road is such that close views would be restricted. In longer views it would be seen in the context of the existing group of adjacent dwellings. Furthermore, any such effects would be of such a scale that they could be assimilated to preserve visual openness through suitable landscaping within the site.
In granting permission a full award of costs was granted on the grounds that the Council has failed to substantiate its refusal of planning permission. It has provided vague assertions about the development’s impact which are unsupported by any objective analysis. I find this constitutes unreasonable behaviour contrary to the guidance in the Framework and the PPG and the appellant has been faced with the unnecessary expense of lodging the appeal.
PERMISSION GRANTED TO convert and extend outbuilding to a dwellinghouse at bunkers, saddleworth
Permission has been granted to convert an outbuilding into a dwellinghouse with a single storey front extension. The Council argued the extension was a disproportionate addition to the original building and was harmful to the traditional character and appearance of the immediate area, which was in close proximity to Listed Buildings.
The Planning Inspector disagreed with the Council and considered the extension to not amount to a disproportionate addition. In his assessment the Inspector concluded:
"The proposed extension would project less than the depth of the original outbuilding and would be approximately half the width of the existing elevation. It would comprise noticeably less volume than the original outbuilding. Moreover, its reduced roof height and position to one side would ensure that it appears as a subordinate addition, where the scale of the original outbuilding would remain dominant. As such, having regard to the comparatively low volume and footprint of the proposed extension and my above reasoning, I am satisfied that it would not amount to a disproportionate addition over and above the size of the original outbuilding."
In terms of the impact of the development on the character and appearance of the area the Inspector was mindful of several nearby extensions and concluded:
"In my view, the proposed dual pitched gabled extension would be of an overall traditional design, finished in sympathetic materials that would integrate well with the simple form of the outbuilding. Although altered the building would retain a relatively simple footprint and form. Due to its modest proportions, reduced ridge height and location to one side of the front elevation, it would clearly read as a subordinate rather than dominant addition. The overall linear form of the original building would also remain apparent. Whilst the proposed alterations would render the building more akin to the appearance of a bungalow than a simple, rural outbuilding, there is no evidence before me to suggest that alterations could not be made to the existing outbuilding that would result in a similar outcome."
The Planning Inspector disagreed with the Council and considered the extension to not amount to a disproportionate addition. In his assessment the Inspector concluded:
"The proposed extension would project less than the depth of the original outbuilding and would be approximately half the width of the existing elevation. It would comprise noticeably less volume than the original outbuilding. Moreover, its reduced roof height and position to one side would ensure that it appears as a subordinate addition, where the scale of the original outbuilding would remain dominant. As such, having regard to the comparatively low volume and footprint of the proposed extension and my above reasoning, I am satisfied that it would not amount to a disproportionate addition over and above the size of the original outbuilding."
In terms of the impact of the development on the character and appearance of the area the Inspector was mindful of several nearby extensions and concluded:
"In my view, the proposed dual pitched gabled extension would be of an overall traditional design, finished in sympathetic materials that would integrate well with the simple form of the outbuilding. Although altered the building would retain a relatively simple footprint and form. Due to its modest proportions, reduced ridge height and location to one side of the front elevation, it would clearly read as a subordinate rather than dominant addition. The overall linear form of the original building would also remain apparent. Whilst the proposed alterations would render the building more akin to the appearance of a bungalow than a simple, rural outbuilding, there is no evidence before me to suggest that alterations could not be made to the existing outbuilding that would result in a similar outcome."
PERMISSION GRANTED TO delete and vary planning conditions and a full award of costs granted, Glossop
Working with Creative Architects Ltd and after several long months working with High Peak Borough Council, planning permission has been granted to demolish a single storey stable building with a three bedroom bungalow. The Council agreed that the proposal accorded with Government guidelines with regards to the redevelopment of previously developed land in the Green Belt. The bungalow allows the applicant to downsize from a nearby property and for her family to live close.
Despite ongoing discussion about the proposed planning conditions the Council imposed fifteen planning conditions which in our opinion many failed to meet the six planning tests. An appeal against some of the planning conditions was lodged.
APPEAL UPDATE
A Full Award of Costs has been awarded and permission granted to vary and delete planning conditions relating the bungalow.
Environmental Health conditions relating to dust, fires and emissions were not considered reasonable as they are more appropriately dealt with under other legislation. A condition relating to an asbestos survey was withdrawn by the Council.
Conditions were amended to ensure that development could start without any pre-development conditions and some were amended for precision.
As is so often the case the Council imposed a condition that removed permitted development rights for extensions, alterations and outbuildings on the basis of its impact on the openness of the Green Belt and on the basis of protecting the character of the area. Such a condition is contrary to Government advice which states that planning conditions should not be used to restrict national permitted development rights unless there is clear justification to do so.
The Inspector concluded:
“I note that the approved dwelling resulted in a reduction in floor area and volume compared to the existing buildings, thus it was determined that it did not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt than the existing development. However, extensions and other alterations/additions which could be carried out to the approved dwelling under PD rights would be relatively limited in this instance, given its setback positioning within the site and its close relationship to the side and rear boundaries. My attention has not been drawn to any specific extensions or alterations which could occur and any harm that may subsequently result. As such, I am not convinced that the removal of the PD rights included within the condition are necessary to preserve the openness of the Green Belt.”
In respect of the Full Award of Costs the Inspector came to the following conclusion:
“Paragraph 049 of the PPG sets out a list of types of behaviour which may give rise to a substantial award of costs against a local planning authority. This includes imposing conditions which are not necessary, relevant to planning and to the development to be permitted, enforceable, precise and reasonable in all other respects.
My findings above lead me to conclude that the imposition of the aforementioned conditions, either in their entirety or their specific wording, were against national guidance in that they were either unnecessary, unreasonable or not precise."
Accordingly, the Council behaved unreasonably which resulted in the applicant incurring unnecessary and wasted expense through the subsequent appeal to challenge this decision and the expense of making the costs application. A full award of costs is therefore justified.”
Despite engagement with the Planning Officer about the suggested conditions during the course of the application none of the conditions were amended and this resulted in the planning appeal.
This is a case where the Council was unwilling to enter into negotiations regarding draft planning conditions and did not assess each condition against the strict criteria imposed through paragraph 049 of the PPG.
Despite ongoing discussion about the proposed planning conditions the Council imposed fifteen planning conditions which in our opinion many failed to meet the six planning tests. An appeal against some of the planning conditions was lodged.
APPEAL UPDATE
A Full Award of Costs has been awarded and permission granted to vary and delete planning conditions relating the bungalow.
Environmental Health conditions relating to dust, fires and emissions were not considered reasonable as they are more appropriately dealt with under other legislation. A condition relating to an asbestos survey was withdrawn by the Council.
Conditions were amended to ensure that development could start without any pre-development conditions and some were amended for precision.
As is so often the case the Council imposed a condition that removed permitted development rights for extensions, alterations and outbuildings on the basis of its impact on the openness of the Green Belt and on the basis of protecting the character of the area. Such a condition is contrary to Government advice which states that planning conditions should not be used to restrict national permitted development rights unless there is clear justification to do so.
The Inspector concluded:
“I note that the approved dwelling resulted in a reduction in floor area and volume compared to the existing buildings, thus it was determined that it did not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt than the existing development. However, extensions and other alterations/additions which could be carried out to the approved dwelling under PD rights would be relatively limited in this instance, given its setback positioning within the site and its close relationship to the side and rear boundaries. My attention has not been drawn to any specific extensions or alterations which could occur and any harm that may subsequently result. As such, I am not convinced that the removal of the PD rights included within the condition are necessary to preserve the openness of the Green Belt.”
In respect of the Full Award of Costs the Inspector came to the following conclusion:
“Paragraph 049 of the PPG sets out a list of types of behaviour which may give rise to a substantial award of costs against a local planning authority. This includes imposing conditions which are not necessary, relevant to planning and to the development to be permitted, enforceable, precise and reasonable in all other respects.
My findings above lead me to conclude that the imposition of the aforementioned conditions, either in their entirety or their specific wording, were against national guidance in that they were either unnecessary, unreasonable or not precise."
Accordingly, the Council behaved unreasonably which resulted in the applicant incurring unnecessary and wasted expense through the subsequent appeal to challenge this decision and the expense of making the costs application. A full award of costs is therefore justified.”
Despite engagement with the Planning Officer about the suggested conditions during the course of the application none of the conditions were amended and this resulted in the planning appeal.
This is a case where the Council was unwilling to enter into negotiations regarding draft planning conditions and did not assess each condition against the strict criteria imposed through paragraph 049 of the PPG.
Condition restricting permitted development rights in Green Belt removed at appeal – Royal Oak Delph
Planning permission was granted to convert the Royal Oak Public House into a dwellinghouse with garden curtilage. In granting planning permission the Council imposed a planning condition that removed all permitted development rights for the newly formed dwellinghouse.
The Council’s objections were based on the impact of permitted development extensions on the openness of the Green Belt and the potential impact on the setting of the neighbouring Heights Chapel, a Grade II Listed Building.
The property is located in a remote location and the applicant was intending to build a detached garage under permitted development for the parking of his vehicles and other equipment associated with the property. He was mindful that being in the Green Belt it would raise issues if he was to apply for planning permission for a detached garage as it would not generally meet the exceptions of paragraph 149 and 150 of the Framework. His only option was to lodge a planning appeal seeking the removal of the condition.
The Council was concerned that the removal of the condition could result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building. The Planning Inspector disagreed and considered the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (GPDO) does not seek to limit such rights for properties in the Green Belt. Paragraph 54 of the Framework sets out that national permitted development rights can be restricted using planning conditions but on the provision that there is a clear justification for doing so. He came to the conclusion that the planning permission would result in the change of use from a business use to a dwellinghouse which would then benefit from permitted development rights, but this in itself is not a justification for removing such rights.
The Inspector was also concerned that the Council failed to explain why extensions, buildings or alterations would be harmful to the openness of the Green Belt.
In respect of the neighbouring heritage asset the Council stated that permitted development rights would enable a considerably sized outbuilding to be erected, and that there is a need to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the listed asset’s architectural or historic interest or setting. The GPDO does allow, under Class E, the erection of buildings within the curtilage of a dwellinghouse that are incidental to the enjoyment of it. Such a building would be subject to certain limits and conditions and key amongst these are height restrictions and a limit that such a building within the curtilage. The Inspector concluded that given the height and prominence of the nearby listed building and the two-storey form of the appeal property, such a building, erected under Class E of the GPDO would not detract from the significance of either the listed building or the non-designated heritage asset.
The Inspector concluded that the condition would not meet the tests of being reasonable or necessary and as such the appeal was successful.
Many Councils impose planning conditions that remove permitted development rights on developments within the Green Belt as a matter of course without taking into account paragraph 54 of the Framework which clearly states that planning conditions should not be used to restrict national PD rights unless there is a clear justification to do so. If such a planning condition is imposed seek advice to see whether there are grounds to appeal against such a planning condition.
The Council’s objections were based on the impact of permitted development extensions on the openness of the Green Belt and the potential impact on the setting of the neighbouring Heights Chapel, a Grade II Listed Building.
The property is located in a remote location and the applicant was intending to build a detached garage under permitted development for the parking of his vehicles and other equipment associated with the property. He was mindful that being in the Green Belt it would raise issues if he was to apply for planning permission for a detached garage as it would not generally meet the exceptions of paragraph 149 and 150 of the Framework. His only option was to lodge a planning appeal seeking the removal of the condition.
The Council was concerned that the removal of the condition could result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building. The Planning Inspector disagreed and considered the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (GPDO) does not seek to limit such rights for properties in the Green Belt. Paragraph 54 of the Framework sets out that national permitted development rights can be restricted using planning conditions but on the provision that there is a clear justification for doing so. He came to the conclusion that the planning permission would result in the change of use from a business use to a dwellinghouse which would then benefit from permitted development rights, but this in itself is not a justification for removing such rights.
The Inspector was also concerned that the Council failed to explain why extensions, buildings or alterations would be harmful to the openness of the Green Belt.
In respect of the neighbouring heritage asset the Council stated that permitted development rights would enable a considerably sized outbuilding to be erected, and that there is a need to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the listed asset’s architectural or historic interest or setting. The GPDO does allow, under Class E, the erection of buildings within the curtilage of a dwellinghouse that are incidental to the enjoyment of it. Such a building would be subject to certain limits and conditions and key amongst these are height restrictions and a limit that such a building within the curtilage. The Inspector concluded that given the height and prominence of the nearby listed building and the two-storey form of the appeal property, such a building, erected under Class E of the GPDO would not detract from the significance of either the listed building or the non-designated heritage asset.
The Inspector concluded that the condition would not meet the tests of being reasonable or necessary and as such the appeal was successful.
Many Councils impose planning conditions that remove permitted development rights on developments within the Green Belt as a matter of course without taking into account paragraph 54 of the Framework which clearly states that planning conditions should not be used to restrict national PD rights unless there is a clear justification to do so. If such a planning condition is imposed seek advice to see whether there are grounds to appeal against such a planning condition.
Appeal and FULL award of costs success against leeds City council for a single storey rear extension
In upholding the appeal the Planning Inspector granted an Award of Costs to the client. The Inspector was of the opinion that the Local Planning Authority refused a scheme which was clearly approvable and the lack of a site visit was a significant contributor to the refusal. He therefore considered that the Local Planning Authority has acted unreasonably in this respect.
Appeal success - side extension with dormers to front and rear in rochdale
Permission has been granted for a side and rear extension to a chalet style bungalow in Rochdale with dormers to the front and rear. The Council refused consent on the basis that the extension was 12.5 metres from the rear of neighbouring houses instead of the required 14 metres as specified in the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance.
The Planning Inspector agreed that the extension would increase the size and scale of the gable close to the side boundary, but after undertaking a planning assessment concluded the overall separation distance, the orientation and relationship of the site to its neighbours and the existing situation was not considered to cause an unacceptable or harmful loss of light, outlook or result in an overbearing impact. The Inspector went on to say that any reduction in light and outlook, particularly at ground floor level would be minimal and therefore acceptable.
The original planning decision was based on the inflexible interpretation of a guideline included within a Supplementary Planning Document, rather than a detailed planning assessment on the ground.
The Planning Inspector agreed that the extension would increase the size and scale of the gable close to the side boundary, but after undertaking a planning assessment concluded the overall separation distance, the orientation and relationship of the site to its neighbours and the existing situation was not considered to cause an unacceptable or harmful loss of light, outlook or result in an overbearing impact. The Inspector went on to say that any reduction in light and outlook, particularly at ground floor level would be minimal and therefore acceptable.
The original planning decision was based on the inflexible interpretation of a guideline included within a Supplementary Planning Document, rather than a detailed planning assessment on the ground.
APPEAL SUCCESS - RIDGE HEIGHT INCREASED AND REAR DORMER in Leeds
Working with Tice and Co Architects we have obtained a successful appeal against Leeds City Council to raise the ridge height of the house and build a large rear dormer. Planning Inspector agreed with our assessment that:
“The proposal would increase the ridge line of the appeal property. However, the existing ridge line is lower than the neighbouring dwellings and, as such, the proposed increase of 0.9m would not be unduly dominant. Given the distinctive nature of the host property in its design and positioning near the entrance to the street, raising the ridge height by a small amount would not, on this particular property, set a precedent for other dwellings in the street.”
In terms of the rear dormer the Inspector concluded:
“The rear flat roof dormer would be a large box like structure and would be prominent to the rear. However, the host property is a large, detached dwelling and the proposed dormer would be set in from all sides leaving parts of the roof slope exposed. In this context it would not appear unduly obtrusive or excessive in scale in relation to the host property, even though it would be a prominent feature on the roof. Moreover, large box like dormers do form part of the existing character to the rear of neighbouring properties and in this regard, it would not appear incongruous on the slope.”
“The proposal would increase the ridge line of the appeal property. However, the existing ridge line is lower than the neighbouring dwellings and, as such, the proposed increase of 0.9m would not be unduly dominant. Given the distinctive nature of the host property in its design and positioning near the entrance to the street, raising the ridge height by a small amount would not, on this particular property, set a precedent for other dwellings in the street.”
In terms of the rear dormer the Inspector concluded:
“The rear flat roof dormer would be a large box like structure and would be prominent to the rear. However, the host property is a large, detached dwelling and the proposed dormer would be set in from all sides leaving parts of the roof slope exposed. In this context it would not appear unduly obtrusive or excessive in scale in relation to the host property, even though it would be a prominent feature on the roof. Moreover, large box like dormers do form part of the existing character to the rear of neighbouring properties and in this regard, it would not appear incongruous on the slope.”
GREEN BELT - EXTENSION TO ORIGINAL 1980S GARAGE BUILDING NOT DISPROPORTIONATE
2 storey side extension to already extended house in rochdale
"The appeal property, the design of both the existing property and in its extended form, being divided into bays of varying depths, adds interest to the frontage and means that the frontage width has less impact than a flat fronted property of similar size."
The Inspector went on to say that the relationship with the neighbouring bungalow would not be dominant or visually awkward.
APPEAL SUCCESS AND FULL AWARD OF COSTS GRANTED FOR CONVERSION OF HOUSE INTO FIVE BEDROOM HMO, Eccles
Salford Council have a blanket Article 4 Direction which removes normal permitted development rights for changes of use from Class C3 to Class C4 in order to manage amenity and character impacts associated with HMOs, as well as to ensure that balanced communities are maintained within the City.
Planning Inspector Nigel Harrison noted the Council’s licensing team confirmed the scheme would fully comply with its HMO standards with appropriate accommodation being provided. He also confirmed that all bedrooms would be laid out so that they could accept a single or double bed, other necessary furniture, and some storage space. Bedroom sizes exceeded the Council’s Standards for HMOs. Whilst the Council’s HMO Guidance does not form part of the development plan, it is a Council document that has been prepared to ensure HMOs adhere to acceptable standards.
The Framework sets out three overarching objectives to achieving sustainable development. One of these, the social objective, seeks to support strong, vibrant, and healthy communities by ensuring that a sufficient number and range of home types is provided to meet the needs of present and future generations. The appeal proposal was considered to play a part in meeting these objectives.
The Planning Inspector also granted a Full Award of Costs in favour of the appellant on the grounds of the unreasonable behaviour of Salford Council resulting in unnecessary or wasted expense.
Permission granted for contemporary house in green belT with part exposed basement IN OLDHAM
Work started on implementing the 2018 planning permission through the demolition and clearance of the building that previously occupied the site and the start of ground works.
In 2020 planning permission was submitted for a more contemporary designed house with a part exposed basement that would be hidden by a retaining wall and landscaped earth mound. At that point the Council Planners raised objection to the scheme despite local Councillors being supportive. Minor changes were made the scheme, but Officers were not supportive.
The Council failed to issue a decision and we advised the client to appeal against the Council’s failure to determine the application within the prescribed time limits.
As part of the appeal the 'Council argued the proposal constituted poor design' and was 'inappropriate development in the Green Belt' and no very special circumstances existed to overcome the demonstrable harm.
The Planning Inspector disagreed with the Council and agreed that the ‘proposed development comprises a well-considered contemporary scheme that responds better to the site than the previous scheme”. The Inspector concluded that the proposal would constitute inappropriate development as it would result in a considerably greater built form on the site than at present as the original building had been removed.
In considering the planning balance the Inspector agreed with our case that the previous planning approvals should be given significant weight in the determination of the appeal as there was a very real possibility that the fall-back scheme would be implemented. In conclusion, the Inspector was of the opinion that the extant planning consent, the improvements in design and other associated benefits, clearly outweighed the identified harm to the Green Belt and the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development exist in this instance.
This case demonstrates the importance of delivering good design and always putting forward a strong fall-back situation.
Outline planning permission granted at infill green belt site in tameside
Whilst only outline planning permission was being sought indicative layout plans were included with the submission and the Inspector concluded that whilst the site was quite narrow a house could be accommodated subject to it being set back from the highway and following a fairly regular building line with parking to the front.
When considering planning conditions the Inspector did not consider a need for a land contamination risk assessment due to its former telephone exchange use. Likewise the Inspector did not agree that the removal of permitted development rights was necessary as there was no compelling reason for such a condition. A condition restricting working hours was also not considered necessary for a single dwelling as the construction period is likely to be short.
Mixed use hot food takeaway/shop granted on appeal in Oldham
Oldham Council argued that the introduction of an additional hot food takeaway within the commercial terrace would result in a danger to highway safety due to additional parking demand and associated vehicle manoeuvres within the highway. It was also argued that an additional hot food takeaway will increase noise, disturbance, smells and litter to the detriment of the living conditions of nearby residents.
The Inspector established that the existing retail use can operate at the same time as the nearby hot food takeaway and other retail units within the parade. Therefore, when in use, existing customers and staff already utilise on street parking and the hot food takeaway will continue to do the same as existing. The Inspector noted parking restrictions nearby and also good visibility within the highway, to allow for good inter-visibility with pedestrians.
The Inspector considered a restrictions to opening hours 11:00 to 22:00 and a scheme for extraction of cooking odours would make the proposal acceptable.
Proposed roofing material accepted following appeal IN HIGH PEAK
The Inspector found that the site was located within a housing estate which was 'neither attractive nor unattractive and had no particular architectural merit'. It was found that the Council hadn't followed its own adopted Residential Supplemental Planning Document when making its decision.
The SPD criteria states that flat, dark coloured, concrete roof tiles will be accepted in non-sensitive locations where the use of high ranking materials is not warranted.
The Inspector concluded that the roofing material would not appear unduly out of place as it would respect the existing dark roofing materials and the existing roofscape within the local area.
Side extension was not disproportionate in green belt and full award of costs granted, harrogate
The fact that a larger extension could be built under permitted development rights was found to be a valid and realistic probability.
The Inspector found the SPD was not consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework regarding the extension of buildings within the Green Belt. It was found that the Council prevented development which should reasonably have been permitted and as such the Council acted unreasonably.
A Full Award of Costs was duly awarded to the appellant.
Rear extension granted on appeal contrary to Council's design guidelines in Rochdale
The purpose of the SPD was to prevent rear extensions from being overbearing to neighbouring occupiers and to prevent undue loss of light and privacy rather than to rigidly comply with a set of rules and standards.
The Inspector duly assessed the impact of the extension in terms of site specific considerations such as the surrounding land uses, topography, boundaries, levels and the size of the neighbour's ground floor windows. The Inspector concluded that the extension did not form a prominent or dominant feature on the outlook for the neighbour or have an overbearing effect upon the rear garden. The Inspector noted that the Council had failed to substantiate its claim that a loss of light would occur, but concluded that the orientation of the extension is unlikely to affect light or sunlight reaching the rear rooms and gardens of the neighbouring properties.
Extension was not a disproportionate addition to a building within a Green Belt location, Oldham
Planning consent has been granted for a two storey side extension that was a 39% increase in the volume of the original house. The Council calculated the volume to be a 48% increase in the volume of the original house..
Oldham Council argued that if an extension was greater than 33% of the volume of the original house then it results in a disproportionate addition and is therefore inappropriate development within the Green Belt. The Inspector noted that the guideline figure of 33% is not contained within an adopted policy and there is no explanation of how it has been derived, and as such limited weight was attached to this guideline.
The Inspector considered the Framework refers to size, which, as well as volume, involves looking at increases in floorspace and external dimensions. The sideways projection of 3.7 metres, its substantial set-back and lowering the ridge height by 0.5 metres concluded that it was not a disproportionate extension.
Interestingly, it was considered that openness did not need to be taken into account as the development was one of the exceptions contained within the Framework within paragraph 89.
Many Councils have adopted informal guidelines in terms of percentage volume increases of the original house to assess whether an extension to a building is disproportionate, even though such an approach is not defined in the Framework.
Inspectors undertake an objective assessment of the scheme taking into account the scale, massing, volume, design, volume and floorspace of the extension in relation to the original house when assessing whether an extension is disproportionate.
The above successful appeal demonstrates how Planning Inspectors consider a range of issues, including volume, when considering whether an extension is disproportionate, but this is not the only measure.
If you have a similar issue please get in touch.
Oldham Council argued that if an extension was greater than 33% of the volume of the original house then it results in a disproportionate addition and is therefore inappropriate development within the Green Belt. The Inspector noted that the guideline figure of 33% is not contained within an adopted policy and there is no explanation of how it has been derived, and as such limited weight was attached to this guideline.
The Inspector considered the Framework refers to size, which, as well as volume, involves looking at increases in floorspace and external dimensions. The sideways projection of 3.7 metres, its substantial set-back and lowering the ridge height by 0.5 metres concluded that it was not a disproportionate extension.
Interestingly, it was considered that openness did not need to be taken into account as the development was one of the exceptions contained within the Framework within paragraph 89.
Many Councils have adopted informal guidelines in terms of percentage volume increases of the original house to assess whether an extension to a building is disproportionate, even though such an approach is not defined in the Framework.
Inspectors undertake an objective assessment of the scheme taking into account the scale, massing, volume, design, volume and floorspace of the extension in relation to the original house when assessing whether an extension is disproportionate.
The above successful appeal demonstrates how Planning Inspectors consider a range of issues, including volume, when considering whether an extension is disproportionate, but this is not the only measure.
If you have a similar issue please get in touch.
Permission granted on appeal for side extension in close proximity to protected trees in Warrington
The Inspector concluded that the proposed extension would not have any physical contact with the canopy or main stems of a protected Horse Chestnut tree. It was accepted that the extension would result in physical conflict with a minor lower limb of a nearby protected Beech tree to facilitate the development, but these works would be of a minor scale such that they would not prejudice the integrity of the tree or significantly affect its appearance or contribution to the character of the wider area.
Due to canopy heights of the larger trees the outlook form the houser would be substantially unobstructed from the proposed windows with clear views below the canopy levels. Consequently, whilst large parts of the site will inevitably be overshadowed during growing months, this is countered to some measure by the vertical extension and large areas of glazing within the design of the house.
It was concluded that the living conditions provided within the proposed extension would be comparable to those in the existing dwelling and therefore any increased pressure for significant future works beyond those necessary in conjunction with good management practice would be unlikely to arise.
Listed Building Consent and planning permission granted for 12 bedroom HMO, Denton, Tameside
Permission has been granted on appeal for the conversion of a 3-storey Georgian town house, a derelict Grade II Listed Building that was formerly an office into a twelve bedroom HMO.
The Inspector took into account the current semi-derelict condition of the property and its proximity to commercial uses and town centre location stating that he 'favours a pragmatic approach'. He concluded that the development would not result in an over-intensive form of development that would add to parking stress or compromise highway safety in the area. Furthermore, he considered the proposal would accord with the aims of national and local planning policy to create balanced communities having regard to the level of shared housing in the area and other material considerations.
In terms of the heritage asset the Inspector concluded that the proposal is a sensitive one that demonstrates that the heritage value would not be undermined by the proposed changes. He also gave considerable weight to the level of investment that would be committed in order to secure a viable future use for the building consistent with its conservation. The proposal was considered to represent an acceptable solution that would preserve the special architectural and historic interest o f the listed building, causing no harm to its significance.
The Inspector took into account the current semi-derelict condition of the property and its proximity to commercial uses and town centre location stating that he 'favours a pragmatic approach'. He concluded that the development would not result in an over-intensive form of development that would add to parking stress or compromise highway safety in the area. Furthermore, he considered the proposal would accord with the aims of national and local planning policy to create balanced communities having regard to the level of shared housing in the area and other material considerations.
In terms of the heritage asset the Inspector concluded that the proposal is a sensitive one that demonstrates that the heritage value would not be undermined by the proposed changes. He also gave considerable weight to the level of investment that would be committed in order to secure a viable future use for the building consistent with its conservation. The proposal was considered to represent an acceptable solution that would preserve the special architectural and historic interest o f the listed building, causing no harm to its significance.
Outline planning permission granted for residential development on backland site, Rochdale
The Inspector also accepted an amended plan that removed a detached garage from the scheme could be accepted as it did not cause prejudice to any other party and this resulted in the development not causing any loss of outlook to neighbouring properties.
Planning Appeals
Household Planning Appeals
Enforcement Notice appeals
WHAT HAPPENS IF MY PLANNING APPEAL IS UNSUCCESSFUL?
When an appeal is unsuccessful read the appeal decision carefully to see if the Planning Inspector has offered any guidance to overcome the reasons for refusal.
Read More
Award of Cost
Can an Award of Costs be granted to cover the cost of appealing?
Local planning authorities, appellants and interested parties who have taken part in the process, including statutory consultees, may apply for costs, or have costs awarded against them. A party applying for costs may have costs awarded against them, if they themselves have behaved unreasonably.
What type of behaviour may give rise to a procedural award against a local planning authority?
Local planning authorities are required to behave reasonably in relation to procedural matters at the appeal, for example by complying with the requirements and deadlines of the process.
What type of behaviour may give rise to a substantive award against a local planning authority?
Learn More
Case Study 1 - Change of use to restaurant in a Conservation Area and shared use of car park with nearby offices
Officers of the Council recommended approval of the scheme, but the Council's Planning Committee refused planning permission on the grounds that the shared use of the car park in the evenings and at weekends was unenforceable. A full award of costs was justified.
Learn More
Case Study 2 - Two infill houses
The Council's Planning Committee refused planning consent on the grounds of highway safety and accessibility to key services against Officer's recommendation and a partial award of costs was justified.
Learn More
Case Study 3 - Imposition of planning condition restricting B1 office to be connected to farming business and restrictions on hours of use
Planning Officers recommended approval of a planning application to convert a barn into an office, but recommended restricting its use to the farm activities an to restrict hours of use. The Council declined a request to remove the restrictions. A full award of costs was justified.
Learn More
Case Study 4 - Removal of restrictive use condition to allow building to be used as dwellinghouse
The Council failed to substantiate its decision that the proposal would result in inappropriate development in the Green Belt and a partial award of costs was justified.
Learn More
Case Study 5 - Assessed development against out of date Supplementary Planning Guidance
The Inspector concluded Harrogate Borough Council had assessed the proposal against an outdated Supplemental Planning Document (SPD) that did not have development plan status instead of the Framework and the Harrogate Local Plan policies. The SPD was adopted in 2005. The Council prevented development which should have been permitted and a Full Award of Costs was granted.
Learn More
Case Study 6 - Costs award on the basis that the proposed development should reasonably have been permitted
The case involved the change of use of dwellinghouse to a five person HMO. The Council had removed permitted development rights for such conversions. The Council did not have any detailed planning policies regarding how to assess HMOs, but did have a Council adopted HMO Standards, throughs its Licensing Department. The Inspector concluded that the proposed development should reasonably have been permitted and a Full Award of Costs was justified.
Learn More
Case Study 7 - Full Award of Costs - Detached house in Green Belt Location -Council failed to substantiate its refusal reasons
In granting permission a Full Award of Costs was granted on the grounds that the Council has failed to substantiate its refusal of planning permission. It has provided vague assertions about the development’s impact which are unsupported by any objective analysis. I find this constitutes unreasonable behaviour contrary to the guidance in the Framework and the PPG and the appellant has been faced with the unnecessary expense of lodging the appeal. Update - Sept 2023 Following the previous appeal success a further application for all Reserved Matters was submitted to the Council. The Council failed to engage during the process and did not acknowledge receipt of amended highway plans. The Appellant appealed against the Council's failure to make a decision within the prescribed time as time was running out to lodge an appeal. The Planning Inspector granted permission for all Reserved Matters and once again granted a further Full Award of Costs against the Council on the following ground: "Taking the above matters into consideration, I find that the Council by not acknowledging receipt of amended plans which would likely have overcome highway objections and was the only point of dispute between the parties combined with not engaging with the applicant during the application process has resulted in the wasted time and expense of lodging an appeal for the applicant."
Learn More
Case Study 8 - Award of Costs granted due to failure to undertake a site visit
The case involved a proposed rear extension to a semi-detached house. The Council Planning Officer was unable to visit the site due to workload pressures and asked the Architect to supply photographs without visiting the site. From the photographs and Google aerial views the Council came to the conclusion that the scheme was unacceptable and caused harm. The Planning Inspector concluded: "As a result, the LPA refused a scheme which was clearly approvable and the lack of a site visit, in my opinion, was a significant contributor to the refusal. I therefore consider that the LPA has acted unreasonably in this respect."
Case study 9 - Full Award of Costs - Conditions did not meet the necessary planning tests - unnecessary, unreasonable or not precise.
Environmental Health conditions relating to dust, fires and emissions were not considered reasonable as they are more appropriately dealt with under other legislation. A condition relating to an asbestos survey was withdrawn by the Council. Conditions were amended to ensure that development could start without any pre-development conditions and some were amended for precision. As is so often the case the Council imposed a condition that removed permitted development rights for extensions, alterations and outbuildings on the basis of its impact on the openness of the Green Belt and on the basis of protecting the character of the area. Such a condition is contrary to Government advice which states that planning conditions should not be used to restrict national permitted development rights unless there is clear justification to do so.
Case study 10 - Award of Costs - Enforcement Notice flawed and should not have been served without more diligent investigation
The Council served an enforcement notice which contained a number of errors. The errors were brought to the Council’s attention shortly after the notice was served, but it was not immediately withdrawn. Instead, the Council only withdrew the notice almost a month later and after the appellant lodged an appeal against the notice. The Planning Inspectorate found that the Council should have carried out more diligent investigation and ensured that the notice was accurate in all respects before serving it in the first place. The Inspectorate found that this amounts to unreasonable behaviour with the scope of paragraph 048 of the costs guidance. The result of the Council’s actions was to cause the appellant to incur wasted time in submitting an unnecessary appeal.
Planning condition appeals
Testimonials
I contacted Mark Jones due to our planning permission being declined. The overall service we received was first class - from his prompt visits to his reassuring communication.
I would recommend his services to anyone who is need of his expertise at a very stressful time when planning permission has been declined.
Mr CaddResident of Woodland Park After obtaining refusals of planning for our extension we appointed Mark Jones of Planning Appeals North West to lodge an appeal. Using his knowledge and expertise we won our appeal and it is in the process of being built. We cannot thank Mark and his team enough.
Mr TaylorResident of Brookmount I am very pleased with the advice and guidance which you provided and the successful outcome to my appeal.
Mr John Kay - SolicitorLandowner of Kings Road
