This planning application was originally validated by Melton Borough Council on the 7th April and refused on the 9th February for a Replacement of a flat roof with a pitched roof. This type of appeal is a householder appeal and as such has 12 weeks for the appeal to be submitted from the decision notice date. We always recommend leaving at least a whole clear month from instruction to appeal deadline in-case additional investigations are needed, but the more time available the better, we are often unable to accept any appeals that have less than 2 weeks left to appeal, as this would provide insufficient time to produce the appeal to the standard we work to. The refusal reasons given by Melton Borough Council were that The Local Planning Authority considered that; The proposed development is, as a result of its design including by nature of the increased height and…
Posts published in “Planning Appeals Case Studies”
This planning application was originally validated by Arun District Council on the 27th January and refused on the 7th April for a Rear, Side and Front Extension and Erection of a Detached Garage and Store. This type of appeal is a householder appeal and as such has 12 weeks for the appeal to be submitted from the decision notice date. We always recommend leaving at least a whole clear month from instruction to appeal deadline in-case additional investigations are needed, but the more time available the better, we are often unable to accept any appeals that have less than 2 weeks left to appeal, as this would provide insufficient time to produce the appeal to the standard we work to. The refusal reasons given by Arun District Council were that The Local Planning Authority considered that; The extension by reason of its scale, design and positioning on site has a…
This planning application was originally validated by Liverpool City Council on the 1st August and refused on the 3rd December for a Lawful Development Certificate to legalise the Change of Use of a small HMO in an area that an Article 4 direction was subsequently introduced. This planning appeal was classed as a Lawful Development Use appeal and was not restricted by time scales to appeal. Due to the nature of the refusal and without the permission the client would be in breach of planning control and the local authority would move to enforcement action should the client not have appealed. The refusal reasons given by Liverpool City Council were that The Local Planning Authority consider that the proposed Lawful Development Certificate to legalise the Change of Use of a small HMO was not lawful and liable to enforcement action under section 172 of the 1990 Act. The decision notice…
This planning application was originally validated by East Suffolk Council on the 28th January and refused on the 26th March for a Rear, Side and Front Extension and Erection of a Detached Garage and Store. This type of appeal is a householder appeal and as such has 12 weeks for the appeal to be submitted from the decision notice date. We always recommend leaving at least a whole clear month from instruction to appeal deadline in-case additional investigations are needed, but the more time available the better, we are often unable to accept any appeals that have less than 2 weeks left to appeal, as this would provide insufficient time to produce the appeal to the standard we work to. The refusal reasons given by East Suffolk Council were that The Local Planning Authority considered that; The proposed development, due to its height, scale, massing and proximity to the eastern…
This planning application was originally validated by Wrexham County Borough Council on the 14th December and refused on the 4th October at committee for a Retrospective application for Outbuilding, Front Porch, Wall, Boundary Fence and Pergola. The committee went against the advice of their planning officers who recommended approval of this application. As such after carful consideration we also recommended that not only our client appeal the refusal but additionally we put in a costs application for our client to attempt to gain the appeal costs back for them. This planning appeal was classed as a House Holder appeal and as such the appellant had 12 weeks from the refusal date to appeal to the Planning Inspectorate. Additionally with this case being a retrospective application, we were mindful of a potential enforcement notice being issued ,and were in contact with the planning office at Wrexham to ensure that an enforcement…
This planning application was originally validated by London Borough of Hounslow Council on the 6th September and refused on the 8th November for a Part Single Storey, Part Two Storey side extension. This type of appeal is a householder appeal and as such has 12 weeks for the appeal to be submitted from the decision notice date. We always recommend leaving at least a whole clear month from instruction to appeal deadline in-case additional investigations are needed, but the more time available the better, we are often unable to accept any appeals that have less than 2 weeks left to appeal, as this would provide insufficient time to produce the appeal to the standard we work to. The refusal reasons given by London Borough of Hounslow Council were that The Local Planning Authority considered that; The proposal, by means of scale and poor design, results in an excessively large, incongruous…
This planning application was originally validated by Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council on the 17th December and refused on the 29th March for a Change of use of the land from amenity to residential land along with the fence to be installed. This type of appeal for a change of use has 6 months for the appeal to be submitted to the planning inspectorate from the decision notice date. We always recommend leaving at least a whole clear month from instruction to appeal deadline in-case additional investigations are needed, but the more time available the better. The refusal reasons given by Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council were that: The proposed change of use of the amenity land would result in the use of the land for residential purposes with inevitable associated paraphernalia, which would adversely affect the existing open vista in this part of the public footpath. The proposal would not represent…
This planning application was originally validated by Sheffield City Council on the 8th April and refused on the 23rd August for a Two storey side extension and single storey rear extension to a semi detached house. This planning appeal was classed as a House Holder appeal and as such the appellant had 12 weeks from the refusal date to appeal to the Planning Inspectorate. We always recommend leaving at least a whole clear month from instruction to appeal deadline in-case additional investigations are needed, but the more time available the better. The refusal reasons given by Sheffield City Council were that The Local Planning Authority consider that the proposed two-storey side extension would be overbearing in relation to the adjoining residential property due to the separation distance between, and it would therefore result in an unacceptable effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of that adjoining property. As such…
This planning application was originally validated by Boston Borough Council on the 14th January and refused on the 6th April for Four Detached Chalet Bungalows outside of the planning boundary. This planning appeal was classed as a Full Application appeal and as such the appellant had 6 months from the refusal date to appeal to the Planning Inspectorate. We always recommend leaving at least a whole clear month from instruction to appeal deadline in-case additional investigations are needed, but the more time available the better. The refusal reasons given by Boston Borough Council were very comprehensive and were split over three large paragraphs The first paragraph stated that The application site falls outside of a settlement boundary and is located within the countryside. There is a significant lack of information submitted to provide a sufficient and sound justification for residential development of four dwellings in this location. The development has…