London Borough of Brent Council refused this retrospective application 21st December after originally validating it on 21st May. There reasons were stated as; The outbuilding by virtue of its scale and positioning has a dominant and overly prominent appearance resulting in a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the host property and the open space of the rear garden. It thus does not accord with Core Strategy CP17 and Local Plan Policy DMP1. The outbuilding is located 5 metres from this property’s ground floor habitable windows. Given the site has a low boundary wall height of 1.6m the development has already contributed to a degree of overlooking and loss of privacy to the occupants at no 18 Ambleside Road. In this regard, the development has failed to comply with DMP1. The Appeal Statement for this case that is shown in the video, and was produced specifically to overcome…
Posts tagged as “Garden Room Planning Appeal”
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.…
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…