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 “Loft and Roof Extension Planning Appeals”
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…
This planning application was originally validated by Royal Borough of Greenwich Council on the 13th June and refused on the 13th August for a Loft conversion incorporating rear dormer window, outrigger dormer, increase in ridge height by 250mm and two rooflights to front 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 Royal Borough of Greenwich Council were that The Local Planning Authority considered that; The proposed rear…
Planning Appeal Case Study in the London Borough of Hackney for a Mansard Roof Extension. This case started for us when we were contacted by our client after their most recent application had been refused by the London Borough of Hackney and a decision notice had been sent to our client refusing the application. Our client had been frustrated by the planning system and the lack of information and feedback they had received throughout their previous applications. This was magnified by the fact that other similar developments had been approved in the region for what they were wishing to achieve. It has been noticeable in certain regions that roof extensions seem to be refused straight off no matter what the circumstances are and they are only being granted through appeal. The refusal was issued on the 30th April 2021 and as a House holder Application the appeal had 12 weeks…