All posts in Development Control
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.
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.
It therefore gave our Director, Rod Hepplewhite, great delight in advising his clients that their application for their dwelling on land next to their stables on a site just to the west of Easingwold in Hambleton District had been approved with little difficulty and, more importantly form their point of view, within the 8 week target period.
Due to a marital break-up our client had had to relocate his business, based on the schooling and training of horses together with breeding of ponies, to a temporary site elsewhere in the district while he found a permanent site. We first obtained permission for the stables on the 9¼ acres (3.75 hectares) site as this was the most pressing need before tackling the more challenging application for the dwelling for our client and his new partner (both employed in the equestrian business).
Under normal circumstances, when an equestrian business is first established on a site, local planning authorities will only allow residential accommodation in the form of a static caravan or mobile home and for a limited period of three years. They normally also require a lot of supporting information regarding the operation of the equestrian business.
In this instance the local planning authority accepted our argument that they were looking at the relocation of an existing business rather than the establishment of an entirely new business and granted permission for our clients’ dwelling without the need for the usual supporting information. The dwelling was proposed in the form of a ‘Country Home’ bungalow, a type of mobile home, which may have assisted in us obtaining planning permission for our clients but it was still the end result our clients were hoping for and we were delighted with the swift positive outcome for them.
We have now dealt with numerous applications for equestrian and agricultural worker’s dwellings together with associated applications for stables and farm buildings and have built up a good level of expertise on the subjects. We are always happy to help clients with such proposals.
Our Director, Rod Hepplewhite, has just succeeded in obtaining a planning permission that varies the opening hours of a hot food takeaway in Jarrow to allow the business to open on Sundays. The shop had previously been allowed to open Mondays to Saturdays only.
Also, it became apparent during South Tyneside Council Council’s consideration of the application that some conditions attached to the original permission had not been properly discharged. Our client had bought the hot food takeaway premises recently and since planning permission runs with the land or property it fell upon him to resolve the breach in the planning conditions that the previous owner had overlooked. When this was brought to our attention we sought to resolve the breaches without delay.
Our prompt attention to issue over the undischarged planning conditions undoubtedly assisted in us gaining the permission to open on Sundays that our client sought. Wherever possible and in the best interests of our clients we seek to work with local planning authorities rather than against them. Sadly, it isn’t always possible but in this instance it was, much to the delight of our client.
Following the grant of his planning permission our client e-mailed to say “it is worth paying a bit more for a proper company to do this kind of work, I will keep your details for future business”.