All posts in Development Control

Our client had converted a former stable building into a house, without having first got the benefit of planning permission, through a misunderstanding in how to draw down permitted development rights. This hadn’t gone down well with the planning authority, for understandable reasons, with an appeal against their initial refusal of planning permission being unsuccessful.

In looking at the reasons why the Inspector initially agreed with the Council, Prism considered that there was scope to mitigate the harm that the Inspector had cited. We brought in a professional Landscape Architect, Guy Rawlinson and with his help, devised a new landscape mitigation plan. We then went further a crafted a unique legal agreement, or Unilateral Undertaking, relating to the way in which the landscape could be managed if consent were granted. A second, revised application was submitted.

Unfortunately, the Council maintained its initial stance and went on to refuse the second application, escalating matters by also serving our client with an enforcement notice. The Council had seemingly ignored both our landscape plan and our legal agreement.

At the second appeal, the new Inspector commended the landscape assessment and plan and criticised the Council for ignoring the Unilateral Undertaking that Prism had carefully prepared, finding it robust and fit for purpose. He was critical of the Council’s opposition to the development and granted our client consent to remain in occupation with his family, subject to complying with the legal agreement and undertaking additional planting.

Our client can look forward to spending Christmas in his own home, not hunting for a new one!

Whilst it is never a good idea to carry out development without planning permission, if you do find yourself in a tricky situation, come and talk to us as soon as possible. As this case makes clear, if there is a solution to be found, we specialise in finding it! Don’t give up until you’ve talked to Prism.

 

Over 90% of all planning applications are now submitted online and The Planning Portal is the platform we use to submit them.  At present, applications are submitted by ourselves via the Portal, then transferred automatically to the Local Planning Authority who validate the application and process the fee payments. 

However, this is all about to change.  From 10th September 2018, the Planning Portal will process all fee payments before transferring the applications on to Local Planning Authorities.  In addition to the actual application fee, there will also be a processing fee of £16.67 + VAT (£20 in total) charged per application submission (the service is currently free).  

Details of the proposed changes are summarised below (source: email from The Planning Portal 23/08/18).

 

“We are pleased to announce that the new service will be operational from 9am on Monday 10 September

From this time, the Planning Portal will take all payments for planning applications in England made through our planning application system (1App).

Once the payment is made by either you or your client, the application will be released to the relevant local authority along with the planning application fee. 

A service charge of £16.67+VAT will be added to the planning fee for each application, to cover the cost of providing the service and enable us to invest in improving the 1App system itself. 

The service will simplify the planning application process across England, offering a consistent range of payment options and saving you and local authorities time tracking down payments – an issue which causes so many delays at validation.

You can read our step-by-step guide to find out how it will work. We have also published a comprehensive list of FAQs

The key changes are as follows:

Timing of the release of applications

Applications will be released once payment is received and confirmed by us. The time it takes for us to receive payment and therefore to release an application will vary depending on the payment method chosen. You can find a table of these timescales in our recently communicated FAQs

As now, and in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Development Management) (England) Order 2015, the period for determination by local authorities will start once they receive the application.

Paying us online or by phone

If your planning fee is less than £1,000, you can pay online or nominate your client to pay.

You or your client can also pay over the phone at any time of day or night, 365 days a year.

 

Paying us by bank transfer – Faster Payment, CHAPS and BACS

For planning fees over £1,000, Faster Payment will usually be the best option. “

 

Prism Planning secured planning permission for the same client, ENER-G Bio Solutions, in respect of two separate anaerobic digestion plants, one near to the Thinford roundabout, County Durham and the other at Riverside Park West, Middlesbrough in a single week.  That can’t be bad going and is indicative of Prism Planning’s growing expertise in this area of renewable energy production.  Indeed, we have built up a good level of expertise on the subject and recognise that although no two developments are alike and all require a comprehensive raft of technical documentation to support the planning application.  Through our own expertise on the subject and the connections we have with environmental and transport consultants we can address all issues that are likely to be raised by local planning authorities.

At their meeting of 1st May 2018, Durham County Council’s County Planning Committee supported the officer recommendation that planning permission should be granted for the construction and operation of an anaerobic digestion plant on land at Mount Huley Farm, Croxdale, Durham. 

On Friday 4th May 2018, Middlesbrough’s Planning & Development Committee voted unanimously to support the officer recommendation that planning permission should be granted for the construction and operation of an anaerobic digestion plant on land at Riverside Side Park West, Middlesbrough.

Both plants will process food wastes that would otherwise go to landfill together with farmyard manures and silage to produce bio-gas.  The bio-gas will then be both purified and compressed for injection into the Gas Grid, there being a connection point to a gas pipeline near to both sites.  The resultant bi-product from the process known as digestate, which are odourless, will be spread on the farm fields as a fertiliser and soil improver instead of farmyard manure and imported nitrate fertiliser which are used at present.

Our Director, Rod Hepplewhite, attended both meetings and spoke in support of the applications, setting out the case for approval of the development and reinforcing the planning officer’s recommendation that the application be approved.  All material planning considerations had been addressed; neither plant will result in a significant impact upon the landscape or visual amenity nor cause noise or odour nuisance or give rise to traffic issues of any significance, harm to the local ecology or adversely impact any features of archaeological importance.

We had worked in a positive manner with the respective case officers throughout the course of the applications to address issues raised and respond promptly to requests for additional information.  Both AD plants represent an appropriate form of sustainable development at the site, which accords with national and local planning policy together with the ‘National Anaerobic Digestion Strategy and Action Plan and The Waste Management Plan for England.  

Prism Planning are delighted to announce that the High Tunstall housing development of 1200 homes has at long last been granted outline planning permission, subject to the completion of a S106 Agreement. This represents the largest housing development approved in the Tees Valley in recent years.

The proposals were brought forward in 2014, when Tunstall Homes proposed a detailed masterplan, including a new distributor road, local centre, primary school, amenity open space and structure planting. The scheme was one of the largest in the North East and required an Environmental Impact Assessment under current European legislation.

The original masterplan included provision of 2,000 new homes, but following the two-stage public consultation by Results Communications Ltd, and continual dialogue between the client, Tunstall Homes, and Prism Planning with Hartlepool Borough Council, the planning application was submitted for consideration the same year.

Rod Hepplewhite, one of the directors of Prism Planning, which operates nationwide, said the approved application represents the changes in market conditions, and the benefits of adopting a considered approach through early engagement with stakeholders.

“The application, accompanied by a detailed masterplan, originally sought permission for 2,000 homes on a larger area of land but as the towns housing needs reduced, so did the scheme.

“As might be expected of a development of this size and on a greenfield site on the edge of town, the application raised a number of issues, not least the scale of development proposed and proposed access arrangements. We have been working closely with the client and stakeholders to ensure that what was proposed will be of benefit to Hartlepool, as well as the surrounding area.”

The approved scheme will lead to a variety of much needed improvements to the A19, helping to close off a number of dangerous junctions, as well as leading to the start of Hartlepool’s western by-pass, which will significantly help traffic flows across the town.

Hartlepool Borough Council’s Planning Committee resolved to accept the officer recommendation for approval of the planning application for land south of Elwick Road in High Tunstall.

The scheme represents a new record for Prism Planning, which deals with applications for small, one-off developments as well as large masterplanned, multi-use developments.

The proposal was designed to not only meet the housing demand in Hartlepool but to provide community facilities for residents expected to move into the new homes.
Prism have just been successful in getting planning permission, at appeal, for a new livery worker’s dwelling at an established livery yard in Maltby, Stockton on Tees.

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.
A family with three generations have been granted a Certificate of Lawfulness for Proposed Development to allow them to stay together on the same site and support each other, thanks to the work of Prism Planning.

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.
A County Durham couple are celebrating success with Prism Planning having just won permission at appeal for an extension to their house.

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 a good day at Hambleton Planning Committee yesterday, having gained planning permission for 3 new bungalows on a parcel of land at Tanton, just outside Stokesley. The site was outside the limits to development but officers accepted that the site had good access to the nearby market town of Stokelsey, was on a frequent bus route and was therefore in a sustainable location. The scheme proposed 3 new bungalows, in keeping with the surrounding development and members welcomed this type of housing which is much needed in the district.

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.
The last two months have been interesting ones for Prism and their equestrian clients with two interesting cases coming to a head in very different cases but both being horse related.

In the first case, clients had received an enforcement notice requiring them to remove their two horses and stables from their garden. The LPA had decided that ‘Elvis’ and ‘Sparkplug’, two lovely moorland cobs, represented unauthorised development by changing the use of the original garden. In fact the horses occupied less than half the garden and only then over the winter period. During the summer they grazed fields away from the home. The Council argued they caused smells, flies, attracted vermin and caused a loss of privacy to the neighbours, some of whom objected to the horses looking over the boundary fence. Comparisons were made by the LPA to the famous shark emerging from the roof of the house in Oxford, as well as the man who erected a model of a Spitfire in his back garden. We contended that neither of these bizarre examples were remotely comparable with our situation.

Thankfully the inspector agreed and granted permission for the horse to stay, as well as their stable block, leaving two very happy horses owners. The case highlights how matters can escalate when LPA’s get complaints about unauthorised development and show why it is important that good, knowledgeable advice is obtained at the earliest possible opportunity.

The second case, also horse related was equally bizarre but for very different reasons. Our client and his wife are running a successful and well established livery yard, despite being in their 80’s and with one of them being registered disabled! They have decided that at their time of life they want to ease up a little and employ a manager to do the heavy and antisocial work, including chasing after escaped horses at 3am! A planning application was lodged for replacement managers accommodation, something we have done on several occasions for clients. The case was supported by specialist Equine Vets and the BHS.

Many weeks after the statutory determination date and with several promised deadlines from the Council missed, in frustration we appealed against non-determination and asked for a hearing. At the same time we also re-submitted the same planning application back to the LPA to allow them to try to reach a decision on it with more time. This resulted in a speedy approval – something which the LPA cold and should have done first time around. However the LPA imposed a whole series of conditions on their decision, preventing all possible future expansion or improvement to the property. Accordingly the appeal is still progressing albeit now just relating to what conditions should, or should not be imposed in these type of situations.

This second case has also given rise to a claim for costs – clearly the LPA could and should have approved the initial application in a timely manner, as they proved by supporting the second application when the appeal focused their minds!

Sadly, as cuts to services in local government planning departments continue to ‘bite’, we are all probably going to have to get used to poorer levels of service and situations like this might become all too common. It remains to be seen whether LPA’s will find new ways to work in such climates or continue to cling to established and out of date practices.

Anyone with an equine related problem will appreciate from the above examples that we know a thing or two about horses and the planning system – and an initial chat about how we might be able to help is free, wherever you are in the country.
At their meeting of 21st February 2017, Sunderland’s Development Control (Sunderland South) Sub-Committee voted by a significant majority in favour of our client’s development of a part brownfield site within the urban area for a residential development comprising affordable housing, low cost housing and supported housing for people with learning difficulties.

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.