Search the Community

Hi all, In short I made an application for a two storey side extension last year which was refused for various reasons which I appealed and the appeal was dismissed for a different reason, but both relating to the character of the street. I'm not going to die on this hill if I'm wasting my time but one aspect of the decision is still bothering me. My next door neighbour had an extension approved (prior to me moving in) for what is a rather unconventional looking extension (putting it politely) and the reason the planners allowed it was explained: “Whilst it is acknowledged that no other property has a similar extension, the character of the cul-de-sac, is vernacular and of no particular merit worthy of retention.” However my refusal was based on the impact on the character of the area (because the gaps between the houses was being made smaller) which to me is a direct contradiction to the reason next door's was passed. The cul-de-sac I live on isn't great visually with all houses being concrete/brick 1950's semi's with a whole variety of extensions (none of which are the same) so I was surprised the planners are so dead against mine particularly as nobody in the street objected to it. The town council did object but their reasons were not material. Now the appeal has been dismissed is that it? The original decision was littered with errors and made no reference to the neighbour's determination so I assumed the appeal would be upheld due to the lack of consistency with my decision. Should it not not have been explained to me in both the original decision and the appeal why they have contradicted the earlier planning decision that the road has no merit? I appreciate they are not bound by earlier decisions but as the decision is so different surely they should have explained the volte face? Happy to provide any documents or explain anything further. Thanks for any advice anyone is able to offer, Nathan

Mindful of the fact that there are a good few on BH who have yet to obtain planning permission, I'd like to draw attention to a well written synopsis of a recent judgement concerning isolated dwellings in the countryside. The author , Martin Goodall , has a particularly readable written style, it is well worth reading in full. The meaning of the word isolated is important, The LPA had challenged an Inspectors decision : he had allowed an appeal against the LPAs decision to refuse permission. The decision hinged in part on the interpretation of the term isolated. The LPA and Inspector understood the term to mean different things. The LPA took a more functional approach relying on map data, the Inspector sought to examine more than simple map evidence. ' ...Lindblom LJ’s observations on the boundaries of a settlement are particularly interesting, and clearly envisage a more flexible approach in this regard than the rigid adherence to designated settlement boundaries that LPAs commonly seem to adopt. ...' (Goodhall 2018, downloaded April 2018) (Emphasis added) I understand that locally (the Fylde Coast) appreciable numbers have been refused, at least in part, on the grounds of isolated development. To those affected, the article, and perhaps the full judgement (reference in the article) bears careful examination.

I have planning consent after 8 months (only done because of PD revocation) for a job which normally is PD and self-certified at that - rubbing salt in my paper cut wound compared to the pain felt by many here. I updated my plans to adjust to planners feedback along the way to move them from "minded to refuse" to "consent". Filed plans reflect the compromise not my original intent. They gave me the normal "to plan" and "to sample" stuff but also added back some of the things we had changed and which are now on the plans as conditions as well. As they are the same bar extremely minor drafting differences this is - "mostly harmless". My challenge now as a first timer in process is how to handle a couple of risks I have and the right approach to the paper chase with "consent with conditions". Now I can of course clearly go and ask the county duty planner - likely the easiest way to get to talk to one - which precise forms would they like locally for these. Before I go and do that - I feel a strong urge to understand the best and minimal approach - lower friction options - the boundaries of "unreasonable behaviour" - such as sending me off to start a full application once again for say "one glazing bar" Examples 1 Minor change to elevation plans As I procure and finalise product in light of planning conditions - I have the usual issues where some solution options drive minor configuration changes (the first is literally one pencil line on the elevation plan to illustrate a new sectional window break/glazing bar. Tactics clearly could be A) Ignore forever as too minor to be a practical concern or challenged. B) Bundle any of these up if there prove to be several and make an "NMA" once the job is well on the way to being finalised (albeit with a risk of an inconvenient refusal - costs are at the higher end for these components so enforcement risk of reworking them is low probability but high impact. Waiting or longer paper chasing before committing the work likely kill the 2018 weather window which I can do without. 2 Variation of an awkward yet explicitly listed planning condition I have a planning condition on an exterior finish both the usual "to sample supplied xx.xx.xx and also restated as a standalone condition listing the finish Having read the county plan sections referred to in the justification - the link between the broad strategy statements on character and the mandate to use this very specific finish is extremely tenuous. Clearly "because we say so" is good at least until an appeal or other process to vary the planner's decision. I am not currently aware of any other use of the mandated finish in the locality. Indeed I may yet find it fairly hard to find it in similar context in this colour - it comes up in darker colours more. This is my next move either to reconcile myself to it or to the necessity of fight. Some extra costs and an unhelpfully reduced choice of products being available in it are factors arising out of the condition. Options seem to be A) Appeal - I am in timescales to raise one - objecting to the conditioned consent and also a householder type application - but whether this type of condition varying appeal is a "householder category appeal" seems ambiguous to me in the what is used for what descriptions of appeal types on the planning portal. B) Make a new application - please no - the consent letter says generally as boilerplate that this is my option to change things. C) Go and see the duty planner with potential configuration and samples and try to gain agreement to go the NMA route - if they *can* change the condition that way. Does that work? Am I in fantasy land ? D) Ignoring it and doing something different job wide doesn't seem like a very sensible plan to me. Thoughts ? Graham

You'd want me to to evidence that statement wouldn't you? Here goes. The list of documentation See 23rd November and 7th December Now look at the 9th of March I rest my case. You can appeal twice. I don't care about the outcome. I don't care much about the ins and outs of the technicalities of the planning argument. I care about fairness of process. And I'm cross, but wiser. Thank God I allow myself a visit to the pub on Fridays.

.... go formal on this one. The first question is: in the context of a refusal for a domestic (householder) planning application, how long does the applicant have to lodge an appeal? I think the answer is 12 weeks for the following reasons https://www.gov.uk/appeal-householder-planning-decision https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/544036/Procedural_Guide_Planning_appeals_v8_0.pdf , page 10, 2.4.2 But I have a naggling niggle in my head, that there might well be exceptions that I have missed. The original refusal was several months ago. Here's the secondary question, not to say 'twist'. If the applicant despite the planning permission refusal continues to live on site in a caravan while building a stables, (nothing to do with the refused house application) , is it reasonable for the LPA to allow the applicant to continue to live on site while the stables is built? At current rates of progress, Hell will freeze over before the stables is finished.

Hesitantly, I offer this checklist because the subject matter is often deeply sensitive: there's so much at stake during the meeting and the build up to it may well have been fraught. Indeed, this blog entry is a pen-portrait of a recent Planning Committee Meeting in my area All the more need for a rational, carefully structured checklist, therefore. This list appeared originally on the ill-fated ebuild site. Each comment was referenced to multiple threads, thus adding greatly to its validity. This list is offered as a help to those who are considering going to Committee to make their case. I am almost sure that -since many of the ebuilders are now here at buildhub- that any questions you may have about this checklist will be answered promptly. List the facts, assemble the evidence. (Basic procedure for problem solving) Councillors may ask for applications to be called The process in a nutshell Scottish Regulations differ to those in England Dig out the NPPF read it, which paragraphs refer to your case? The value of an accurate drawing Conservation Area? Other local decisions Scale model Size matters, (footprint) but you need evidence Micro-politics: architects - planners - county councillors - parish councillors - neighbours; strategy for dealing with each Is needing to Appeal so bad? Going to Committe or Going to Appeal Manage your Planning Consultant Check the fees situation in relation withdrawn applications What is a withdrawal? You may withdraw DURING a meeting Manage your emotions: don't show people how upset you are What to say and how to say it If you're worried about that, employ a professional to present for you. Going to Appeal needn't be as bad as it may sound