Press "Enter" to skip to content

Posts tagged as “Rear Extension planning Appeal”

PRIOR Approval Planning Appeal London Borough of Barking and Dagenham Case Study

This planning application was originally validated by London Borough of Barking and Dagenham Council on the 17th June and refused on the 20th July for a PRIOR Approval application for a Single Storey rear 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 Barking and Dagenham Council were that The Local Planning Authority considered that; The proposed extension, by virtue of its excessive depth and…

Rear Extension and Front Porch Planning Appeal Arun District Council

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…

East Suffolk Council Rear Side Front Extension and Detached Garage Planning Appeal Case Study

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…

Two Storey Side Extension and Single Storey rear Extension to a Semi Detached House Planning Appeal Sheffield City Council

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…

Planning Enforcement Appeal Case Study Rear Extension Barking and Dagenham

This video is a case study detailing a recent enforcement planning appeal we undertook for a client in the Barking and Dagenham Council area for an extension that had been built and a previous retrospective applications had been refused. This case started for us when we were contacted by our client because they had received from Barking and Dagenham Enforcement team an enforcement notice stating that there was believed to be a breach in planning control. The enforcement notice stated that the rear extension due to its excessive depth, an overbearing impact on neighbouring properties and as such it was contrary to local policies BP8 and BP11 and the borough wide development policies plan document along with the Residential Extensions and alterations supplementary planning document. The enforcement notice from Barking and Dagenham Council stated that to comply our client should 1) Remove the unauthorised extension in its entirety 2) Remove…

Part two Story Part Single Story Side and Rear Extension Planning Appeal Hillingdon Council

This case study video is detailing a recent planning appeal in the London Borough of Hillingdon for a part two story and part single story side and rear extension that we undertook for a client. This case started for us when we were contacted by our client after their recent application had been refused by the London Borough of Hillingdon and a decision notice had been issued to our client refusing the application. The refusal was issued on the 21st April 2021 and as a House holder Application, the appeal had 12 weeks from the decision notice to be submitted to the Planning Inspectorate. Our client informed us that they felt the decision. Was unfair as others in their area had received approval for similar schemes. As such the client instructed us to appeal on 7th June 2021 leaving a reduced time to produce a comprehensive and robust appeal. Further…

Prior Approval Planning Appeal Case Study in the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham

This video is a case study detailing a recent planning appeal in for a Prior Notice Planning Application Appeal for an rear extension located in the London Borough of Barking & Dagenham. This case started for us when we were contacted by our client after their recent Prior notice application had been refused by the London Borough of Barking & Dagenham. The application was for a Larger Home extension of 6m past the original rear wall of the dwelling and a height of 2.9m and was refused by Barking and Dagenham on 15th December 2020 for the following reasons; Excess depth Proximity to the boundary Loss of light to adjacent property Loss of outlook to the adjacent property Sense of enclosure for adjoining residents Detrimental to amenities of living standards of adjoining residents Contry to local Policies BP8 and BP11 of the Borough Wide development Policies Supplementary Planning Document (SPD)…

Two Story Side and Single Storey Rear Extension Planning Appeal Walsall Borough Council

We were contacted by our client after their recent application had been refused by Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council planning department and a decision notice had been issued to our client refusing the application. The refusal was issued on the 4th November 2020 and as a House Holder Application, the appeal had 12 weeks from the decision notice to be submitted to the Planning Inspectorate. Our client felt the decision was very unjustified as they feel the property is situated on a significantly oversized plot. Additionally he felt the council was causing unnecessary expense by requesting a bat report survey and did not substantiate the reasoning as to why they needed that report during the determination process as the likelihood of bats on or around this property in this built up locality was minimal. The client instructed us to proceed with around 8 weeks to produce the appeal documents. We always…

Retrospective Rear Extension Planning Appeal Birmingham City Council

We were contacted by our client after their recent retrospective application had been refused by Birmingham City Council and a decision notice had been issued to our client refusing the application, a previous Lawful development Application had also been refused for this development. Our client was aware the next step was for Birmingham City Council to issue an enforcement notice to take the development down and wanted to avoid that if at all possible. The refusal reasons given by the Birmingham City Council this case were that the proposed extension does not comply with the 45 Degree Code for House Extensions and would lead to a loss of outlook and light to No 194 Alexander Road. For this appeal we produced a 13 page detailed appeal statement, working our way through the delegated officers report and decision notice, dismantling their objections and reasons to refuse. Providing a comprehensive and robust…

Enforcement Planning Appeal Rear Extension Barking Dagenham

This case started for us when we were contacted by our client because they had received from Barking and Dagenham Enforcement team an enforcement notice stating that there was believed to be a breach in planning control. The enforcement notice stated that the rear extension due to its size, design and scale of the development results in an increased sense of overbearingness and harmful to both neighbouring properties and the appearance of the house. Barking and Dagenham Enforcement were also claiming that the development was contry to Policies BP8 and BP11 of the LDF Borough Wide Development plan Policies DPD dated March 2011. The enforcement notice from Barking and Dagenham Council stated that to comply our client should 1) Remove the unauthorised extension in its entirety, or reduce the dimensions to 3m in overall height and 3m in depth. 2) Remove all subsequent waste material from the premises. Barking and…