When a local planning committee overturned officer’s recommendation and refused planning permission for development in the Green Belt, they missed the fundamental basis of national planning policy and their own.
Both local policy and paragraph 89 of the NPPF have 2 elements in ascertaining if there is an exemption to a proposed development being inappropriate; same use AND materially larger. To comply with the policy the proposed development must do both.
As representatives of a group of objectors, we highlighted this issue (where the Council concentrated only on the the increase in size of the proposed development).
We successfully established that the proposed use was not the same as the existing use and therefore the proposed development fell at the first hurdle. The size or otherwise of the new works were irrelevant. The Inspector picked up on this matter and agreed. Had we not raised it….
In conjunction with our architectural colleagues at Gillespie Yunnie Architects and, once again, our highways colleagues at Bellamy Transport Consultancy, C2C Planning Consultants assisted our mutual client in overturning the planning officer’s recommendation to refuse planning permission for this modern, strong architectural property with a strongly worded supporting planning statement.
Congratulations to a strong project team who worked together to get our client a great outcome.
Even if you don’t need us to act as your agent, we are happy to help with writing a supporting planning statement for you. We are happy to help a little or a lot!
Happy to have finally received a planning permission for the new self-service valeting facilities at C&R Repairs at Thorverton Mill.
After being refused planning permission earlier in the year, C2C Planning Consultants were able to supply Mid Devon District Council the necessary information and comfort that the use of the facilities was unlikely to generate a noise nuisance to neighbouring properties.
Despite an exchange of correspondence outlining the merits of our client’s case and the holes in the Council’s advanced arguments, Exeter City Council served an Enforcement Notice on the owners of this dwellinghouse, indicating that the dormer constituted operational development. Whilst the Enforcement Notice made no reference as to why the Council advanced this stance, our attention was previously drawn to a condition that the Council believes to remove permitted development rights.
C2C Planning Consultants asserted in our appeal statement that the dormer is permitted by Schedule 2, Part 1, Class B of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development)(England) Order 2015 and, second, that those permitted development rights have not been removed by any condition on a relevant planning permission. With the help of our colleague Graham Gover, we successfully argued that all six limitations that would prevent development being permitted by the Class were met; even limitations (c) and (e) which are matters of interpretation.
In addition, we persuaded the Inspector that the condition the Council relied upon to remove permitted development rights was not precise and is therefore unenforceable.
“…the way the condition is worded strongly suggests that it is only permitted development rights within the curtilage of the dwellings that is being restricted. The headings within the 2015 GPDO do not form part of the statute but they do provide guidance. While the heading to Schedule 2, Part 1 is ‘Development Within the Curtilage of a Dwellinghouse’, only some of the Classes A to H refer to ‘curtilage’. Class B, ‘additions etc to the roof of a dwellinghouse’, is not one of them.
It may be that either or both of the terms ‘extensions’ and ‘other development’ in the condition are intended to embrace additions to the roof slopes. However, the very fact that the condition is ambiguous on the point and thus open to interpretation means that it is imprecise and therefore unenforceable. It cannot be said therefore to unequivocally remove the rights available under Schedule 2, Part 1, Class B of the 2015 GPDO…”
To the delight of our clients, the enforcement notice will be quashed.
Whilst Class MB is now Class Q, c2c Planning Consultants were delighted to hear from David Sheppard of David Sheppard Architects that the conversion of the barn of a mutual client to a dwelling was deemed to be permitted development by Teignbridge District Council.
Having assisted with pre-application advice, feed into the architect’s plans and troubleshooted issues arising during the determination of the application, we took great delight in David’s success! Congratulations to all!
c2c Planning Consultants were pleased to assist with the re-submission of a planning application for 8 dwellings at Stonegallows in Taunton.
We had to submit an appeal against the previous refusal of the scheme whilst seeking the re-determination of the proposal by way of a second planning application. We were very happy to have the benefit of a grant of planning permission by the Planning Committee and withdraw the appeal.
The site is currently being built out and these beautiful properties are being marketed by Greenslade Taylor Hunt.
You would have thought that planning permission for a somewhat dangerous and derelict site within the Conservation Area and town centre of Cullompton would have been received with open arms! Apparently not.
We worked really hard on this one to persuade the Council that more than a single dwelling on this site was appropriate. In the end we got 3 dwellings on site. They are characterful and I think the end result is befitting to the site.
The site is on the market and if you are interested you can see the details here.
The architect handed this application over to us to troubleshoot a number of objections to the erection of a singe dwellinghouse within a garden in Taunton, Somerset.
The application had attracted significant objection from both near and far for such a modest application. Our associate Mike Bellamy of Bellamy Transport Consultancy was already on board and was fiercely arguing the highway aspects of the site.
We picked up the remainder of the planning issues and made a presentation to the Taunton Deane Borough Council Planning Committee, swaying their vote in favour of the grant of planning permission.
The project managers of this 5MW of renewable energy contacted us to write a planning statement to support an application to be submitted to Warrington Borough Council.
Being within the Green Belt, the decision maker needs to make a number of assessments:
1. The decision maker needs to consider whether the proposed development is “inappropriate” development in the Green Belt;
2. The decision maker needs to consider whether the development would cause any harm other than by reason of inappropriateness;
3. The decision maker then needs to consider whether there are other considerations to be weighted in the planning balance; and
4. Whether the harm caused is clearly outweighed by other considerations.
We concluded that even if the decision maker attached great importance to Green Belts, as set out in paragraph 79 of the NPPF, any harm that would be caused by reason of inappropriateness was clearly outweighed by the environmental and biodiversity benefits of the proposed renewable energy scheme.