Dacorum Borough Council refused this application 1st April after originally validating it on 2nd December. There reasons were stated as; The raised platforms constructed at the rear of the application property would result in a significant loss of privacy to neighbouring properties and their private amenity spaces. In addition given their height, size, form, design and elevated position the terraces are visually intrusive and overbearing to the rear garden areas of surrounding properties particularly No. 134 and harmful to the character and appearance of the application site and wider area. The proposed scheme therefore fails to comply with Policies CS11 and CS12 of the Core Strategy (2013), Saved Appendices 3 and 7 of the Local Plan (2004) and Section 12 of the NPPF (2021). The Appeal Statement for this case that is being shown in the video and was produced specifically to overcome the refusal reasons issued by Dacorum Borough…
Posts published in “Planning Appeals Case Studies”
Dorset Council refused this application on 31st May after originally validating on 22nd February. There reasons were stated as; 1. The development is overly prominent, incongruous and without precedent in the area. The prominence is due to its elevated position against the original roof, the incongruity being due to the mix of roof types, the harsh box shape, the choice of materials and bulk of the flat roofed element and its juxtaposition with the gables. As such it would be contrary to policies ENV10 and ENV12 of the West Dorset and Weymouth & Portland Local Plan 2015. 2. By reason of the development’s location adjoining the boundary with No. 4, its elevated position, bulk, boxy design and dark colour finish, it is overbearing to that neighbouring dwelling which has windows serving habitable rooms and an external yard area below. As such the development is contrary to policy ENV16 of the…
Canterbury City Council refused this retrospective application on 1st March after originally validating on 8th December. There reasons were stated as; By reason of its hight and location, the fence is considered to have an overbearing impact on neighbouring properties and in conflict with several local policies and the national planning policy framework. The Appeal statement for this case that is detailed in the video, was produced specifically to overcome the refusal reasons issued by Canterbury City Council for this application. As with many of these types of refusals, the reasons are very subjective and as such require a comprehensive and robust detailed appeal statement. Never under-estimate the level of detail needed, covering policies both locally and nationally and where possible brining other approvals and appeals into the argument. I explain later in the video what and how to achieve this. The Planning Inspectorate visited the site on 4th October…
Shropshire Council refused this application 19th May after originally validating it on 10th March. There reasons were stated as; The proposed structure located forward of the principle elevation would interrupt the openness of the site resulting to a significant visual impact on the designed and approved landscape plan of the immediate surrounding environment. In addition, it is considered the scheme would have a negative impact by way of loss of natural skylight to the living room of the dwelling consequently, having an impact on future occupiers’ residential amenity. The erection of the garage would not respond appropriately to the locality and therefore contrary to Local Development Core Strategy Policy CS6, SAMDev Plan Policy MD2 as well as the overall aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework in requiring sustainable development. The Appeal Statement for this case that is shown in the video, was produced specifically to overcome the…
Rother District Council refused this application on 1st March after originally validating it on 21st May the previous year. There reasons were stated as; 1 – The proposed annexe with ground floor sleeping accommodation situated within a flood zone 3 is classed as a ‘more vulnerable’ use by the Planning Practice Guidance. There was no flood risk assessment or details submitted to evaluate the risk from the development and the proposal would be contrary to Policy EN7 of the Core Strategy and paragraph 171 of The National Planning Policy Framework. 2 – The proposal fails to demonstrate why the annexe could not be an extension to the main dwelling, failing to satisfy the sequential approach taken to annexe proposals. Other options for providing annexe accommodation do not appear to have been considered and the current location forward of the building line appears as a dominant presence on the street scene.…
North Northamptonshire Council refused this application 19th November after originally validating it on 15th June. There reasons were stated as; The By reason of the size, massing and bulk of the proposal the application is considered to result in overdevelopment and an adverse impact on residential amenity of neighbouring residents as a result of loss of light and being overbearing. As such the proposal results in detrimental harm to the residential amenity of neighbouring properties contrary to Policy 8 of the North Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy. The Appeal Statement for this case that is shown in the video, was produced specifically to overcome the refusal reasons issued by North Northamptonshire Council for this application. As with many of these types of refusals, the reasons are very subjective and as such require a comprehensive and robust detailed appeal statement. Never under-estimate the level of detail needed, covering policies both locally and…
Dacorum Borough Council refused this application 16th February after originally validating it on 10th November. There reasons were stated as; The hip-to-gable roof extension and dormer constructed without consent, by virtue of the massing and bulk, positioning and height, causes significant harm to the residential amenity of No.7 Nettlecroft. The works have resulted in an overbearing and dominant appearance when viewed from the patio of this neighbour, which is also subject to a significant loss of sunlight due to the orientation of the development. Furthermore, the addition of windows at second floor level has resulted in the garden of No.7 being significantly overlooked thereby reducing their amenity to levels below that which they could reasonably expect to enjoy. The proposal is therefore contrary to policy CS12 of the Core Strategy (2013), Saved Appendix 3 of the Dacorum Borough Local Plan (2004) and contrary to paragraph 130 of the National Planning…
The London Borough of Hackney refused this application 10th December after originally validating it on 14th October. There reasons were stated as; The proposed development by virtue of its position, massing and detailed design, would disrupt an unspoiled roofline and would result in an incongruous and unsympathetic addition that would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the application dwelling and wider street scene. The Appeal Statement for this case that is shown in the video and was produced specifically to overcome the refusal reasons issued by London Borough of Hackney for this application. As with many of these types of refusals, the reasons are very subjective and as such require a comprehensive and robust detailed appeal statement. Never under-estimate the level of detail needed, covering policies both locally and nationally and where possible brining other approvals and appeals into the argument. We will explain in the video later…
Stockport Metropolitan Council refused this application 22nd February after originally validating it on 15th December. There reasons were stated as; The proposal for a two-storey side extension, by virtue of its design and massing, would have an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area. As such, it is considered to be contrary to the provisions of Policies SIE-1 “Quality Places” of the adopted Core Strategy DPD, Saved Policy CDH1.8, “Residential Extensions” of the Stockport Unitary Development Plan Review, the Extensions and Alterations to Existing Dwellings SPD and the National Planning Policy Framework. The Appeal Statement for this case is shown in the video and, was produced specifically to overcome the refusal reasons issued by Stockport Metropolitan Council for this application. As with many of these types of refusals, the reasons are very subjective and as such require a comprehensive and robust detailed appeal…
Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council refused this application 25th February after originally validating it on 25th January. There reasons were stated as; The proposed extension would detract from the amenities of neighbouring residential property by reason of loss of light. The proposed extension would appear unduly prominent and out of keeping with both the application and neighbouring property in terms of its scale and massing resulting in the over-intensification of the property. This is contrary to policies ENV3 ‘Design Quality’ of the Black Country Core Strategy and SDE OS 9 ‘Urban Design Principles’ of the Site Allocations and Delivery Development Plan Document and the Revised Residential Design Guide 2014 SPD. The Appeal Statement for this case that is being shown in the video and was produced specifically to overcome the refusal reasons issued by Sandwell Metropolitian Borough Council for this application. As with many of these types of refusals, the reasons…