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…
Posts tagged as “Extension Planning Appeal”
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…
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…
Wychavon District Council refused this application 1st February after originally validating it on 7th December. There reasons were stated as; In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority the scale and design of two storey side extension would fail to represent a high design quality. The rear extension fails to incorporate a design break and shows a higher ridge height than the original dwelling and does not therefore appear as subordinate to the host dwelling. This will increase in the visual massing of the property from its original form. As a result of these factors, the proposal is considered to be contrary to Section 8 of the South Worcestershire Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document 2018 and Part viii of Policy SWDP 21 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan 2016. The Appeal Statement for this case that is detailed in the video, and it was produced specifically to overcome the refusal…
This planning application was originally validated by London Borough of Harrow Council on the 27th July and refused on the 5th November for a PRIOR Approval, Rear extension onto an existing rear extension making total length 5m. 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 Harrow Council were that The Local Planning Authority considered that; The proposal, by reason of its rearward projection and siting,…
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 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…