All posts by Alison
The appeal followed what was initially a case of non-determination, in which the Council had ‘dithered’ for many weeks over the application deadline. In exasperation, Prism eventually appealed after the Council had taken more than twice as long to formulate its view. After the appeal was lodged, the Council then made up its mind and decided it should have supported the case.
However, although the Council approved the revised application submitted by Prism, they imposed so many conditions that were unnecessary that Prism advised the clients that the Council’s conduct was unreasonable. The appeal therefore continued. The Planning Inspector stated that not only should the council have approved the original application, they should have given a simple approval with minimal conditions when they did eventually do the right thing. That they didn’t was patently unreasonable. The Inspector then went on to take the unusual step of awarding our clients all of their costs back from pursuing the original appeal.
Without lodging the appeal, it is doubtful whether the Council would ever have reached the right decision and the ruling confirmed that Prism’s original assessment of the situation was absolutely correct. It was the 4th such similar decision in this particular Council area and one of many similar wins that Prism has had for this type of case across the north of England.
When you need advice on equine planning matters, Prism have the demonstrable experience and proven track record to give sound advice with positive results.
Prism recently succeeded in gaining planning approval for a 3m high fence with a 1m high trellis. In this case, the property backed onto a footpath and the existing 5m high bushes boundary were dying from loss of light. The Client already had privacy issues to the rear of their garden as it was significantly lower in height than the footpath.
National rules (Permitted Development Order) on development allow a fence of up to 2m without permission. Building a 2m fence would result in views into our Clients property and reduced privacy compared with the existing receding hedge. So, a planning application was required.
Discussions were held with Darlington Council to ensure the best possible outcome for our Client and we were able to agree on a height. This meant the Clients garden could be screened and also that the council would approve the application, avoiding a potentially expensive, risky and time consuming appeal.
Whilst a small project for us at Prism, we will work on projects we believe have a high chance of success regardless of scale. We also understand the need for privacy particularly as we come into the summer with people using their gardens.
If you are in a similar position or are having issues with a council at this scale, please contact Prism Planning for advice.
The project has been a long running one, taking over a year to resolve, from start to finish but the wait was more than justified by the result, according to the family.
The case involved a complicated series of interwoven projects with the starting point being to establish the extent of the family garden by means of a Certificate of Lawfulness of Existing Development, legally defining the historic garden limits. This can be an important point for people living in rural locations where the differences between paddocks and gardens can be crucial.
Having carefully established the garden extent, Prism Planning then sought to convince the LPA of the legal ability to put up a log cabin in the garden which could provide accommodation for the 1st generation of the family whilst the 2nd and third generations lived in the main house. In this way, all the family are together on the same site, providing help and support for each other but with the necessary degree of independence and privacy. It’s a care model that looks increasingly attractive to many, recognising the difficulties of getting onto the housing ladder, the rising cost of residential care as well as the benefits of being able to care for your loved ones in a practical manner.
The project wasn’t straightforward, with the LPA doubting the legality of the approach. Prism had to work hard, citing relevant precedents and legal positions to convince the LPA that the position was one they could eventually support.
We expect this approach to be increasingly popular with families in the coming years but it isn’t to be entered into lightly. It requires a sensitive and careful approach. A badly made application might well be unrecoverable – so talk to us before embarking upon a project of this nature if you want to maximise your chances of success.
The couple had bought an established terraced property in one of Durham’s many conservation areas. They wanted to extend and improve the property with a single story rear extension that allowed the house to be completely remodelled and brought up to 21c standards, with a new kitchen and dining area.
The scheme was refused by the Council because of concerns over the impact on the neighbours. As the extension was on the north side of the building, its impacts were much more limited, in Prism’s view, than the Council’s concerns warranted. We took the unusual step of commissioning a full assessment of the impacts of the scheme, using a BRE special assessment tool which allowed for the impacts to be objectively measured.
Having visited the site and looked at the assessment, the Inspector agreed with Prism’s approach and granted permission for the extension.
BRE daylight assessments are not routinely used in all cases but this appeal shows that they can give rise to significant positive results when properly used by specialists.
Prism Planning had worked with the Council prior to the submission of the application to get the principle agreed with officers, smoothing the passage of the eventual application. Although this proposal was contrary to the Local Plan, being outside the defined limits to development, the Council have very pragmatically introduced flexible approaches to the delivery of housing in sustainable areas. In this respect, Hambleton are leading the way and responding positively to the current hosing crisis in this respect at least.
Our client will now look to dispose of the site so any interested parties looking to acquire a small site in the area should contact Prism Planning.
At face value, you may have thought the application would sail through: a development of social housing on a brownfield site within the urban area, a residential area at that, and the brownfield part of the site was Council owned and was to be sold to our clients subject to planning permission being granted. How wrong you would have been.
The application, was recommended for approval at the meeting of 3rd January. However, the application faced stiff opposition from local residents and a Ward Councillor who attended the meeting and spoke against the application. At this point it was looking likely that the application would be refused. Thankfully, our Director, Rod Hepplewhite, also attended the meeting to speak in support of the application and was able to address the issues raised by the objectors. The Committee then decided to defer a decision to allow for the issues raised to be fully explored before the application was reported back to them.
Revisions were subsequently made to the proposals and additional information was provided, which addressed all of the issues that had been raised. When the application was reported back to Committee, again with a recommendation for approval, the objectors spoke again as did our Director, Rod Hepplewhite. He was able to advise that all issues previously raised had now been addressed, as evidenced by the officer report and the recommendation that that the proposed development be approved. In this instance the Planning Committee accepted our argument and by a significant majority voted in favour of granting planning permission. Our clients and the architect for the scheme http://www.bsbaarchitects.com who also attended the meeting were delighted with the outcome.
We have dealt with many applications for residential development of various forms. We have built up a good level of expertise on the subject and recognise that no two developments are the same and have learnt to be prepared for the unexpected. Notably, just because and application is recommended for approval doesn’t necessarily mean that the Planning Committee will grant planning permission. You should be represented at the Planning Committee meeting as we are aware of cases where only objectors speak and in the absence of the applicant being represented Planning Committee refuses planning permission. A subsequent planning appeal may succeed but that adds additional expense to the project as well as a significant time delay, both of which could have been avoided.
The property had been marketed to prove there were no suitable occupiers in the area. We had carried out the minimum period required for marketing and written a strong application thoroughly demonstrating the condition was not required. We worked with a surveyor ensuring that the property was marketed correctly, including setting out a price agreed by the LPA. We also scrutinised offers coming forward from interested parties to ensure they were from lawful applicants who would meet the condition.
After submission we discussed the application with the Case Officer and ensured everything was on track. We used our expertise in agricultural conditions and searching appeal precedents to clarify to the LPA the definition of agriculture. Prism Planning attended Planning Committee and spoke in favour of the application advocating for removal of condition to be approved. Care was taken to point out material facts of the case and demonstrate the collaborative nature with the LPA.
The results were that Hartlepool Planning Committee unanimously agreed with the officer recommendation and the application was approved. We worked closely with the Client ensuring the case put forward was an accurate representation of the local history. If you are looking at a removing a condition and seeking expert guidance please feel free to contact us, Prism Planning prides itself on its successes, consequently we only progress cases we believe have a strong chance of success so we will be open and honest about your chances.
Prism argued that the officer recommendation was flawed and flew directly in the face of the emerging Neighbourhood Plan which sought to protect such spaces. It was pointed out that such plans were in the process of being accorded significantly higher status by the government and this particular plan had already passed its inquiry and simply awaited the referendum.
Prism spoke on behalf of Great Aycliffe Town Council who we had assisted with the preparation of the plan.
After hearing Steve Barker, Managing Director of Prism Planning speak, the committee agreed unanimously that the scheme should not be allowed to go ahead.
It’s not an easy task to persuade a Planning Committee to go against their officers and its very rare for it to be supported by all the members. The Town Council are delighted with the result and see it as a victory for Neighbourhood Planning, something we are all going to become very familiar with the coming years following the Neighbourhood Planning Bill passing into law this spring.
Prism were happy to be of assistance.
Darlington based Prism Planning represented the landowner and farmer of the land, Ian Snowdon at a public inquiry in March of this year and it has taken the Planning Inspector nearly 9 months to decide that the scheme was acceptable. The inspector found for the appellant on all counts, noting “The social and economic benefits of the new housing would be very significant indeed and would make an important contribution to the Borough’s housing supply. The scheme would include a useful and much needed contribution to the stock of affordable housing in Stockton-on-Tees.”
He went on to note that “The site forms part of a wide area south of Ingleby Barwick as far as Low Lane that is being comprehensively redeveloped to provide much needed housing and other facilities. The appeal result comes at a time when there is a significant national focus on the need for new houses to be built with significant concerns that not enough housing is being built. A new Housing white paper is promised by the government just next month.
Responding to the decision, Steve Barker of Prism Planning, who gave evidence at the inquiry said; “Stockton have recognised that they haven’t been able to demonstrate a 5 year housing supply for some time now and the debates over development in this corner of Ingleby have used up a lot of time and resources for landowners and the Council alike. I hope that now this final decision has been made all parties can start to move forward positively and work in partnership to make things happen on the ground. A lot of time has been spent arguing when we could have been focusing on improving the area and meeting our housing and leisure needs.” It is likely that a detailed application for reserved matters will now be submitted to the Council in 2017.