Ridge Road, Kempston
GCPP assisted a client in overturning a refused planning application on appeal for the demolition of an existing outbuilding and the erection of a dwelling. The proposal was refused by Central Bedfordshire Council due to its impact upon the character and appearance of the area in respect of overdevelopment and poor quality design. Our Statement of Case demonstrated that the proposal would not constitute over-development and the proposed design was high-quality. The Inspector agreed and subsequently granted planning permission.
Chalton Stables, Moggerhanger
GCPP assisted a client in overturning a refused planning application on appeal for a modern barn-style conversion and detached garage in the open countryside. The proposal was refused by Central Bedfordshire Council due to its impact upon the character and appearance of the area and its location within the open countryside, click here to view our appeal statement that sets out our arguments against the reasons for refusal, which included an assertion that the local policy used to justify the reason for refusal is out-of-date in relation to amended national policy. The inspector agreed and subsequently granted planning permission.
Ickwell Road, Upper Caldecote
GCPP assisted Parrott Holdings Ltd in achieving outline planning permission for a residential development of up to 24 dwellings and associated works including access and open space. The application was originally refused due to conflict with a local policy regarding encroachment into the open countryside and its effect on the pattern of development in the settlement and wider landscape.
GCPP set out a robust argument on appeal which concluded that the benefits associated with the proposal would outweigh the harm arising through the conflict of policies that justified the LPA's reasons for refusal. The inspector agreed that the benefits outlined in our appeal statement outweigh such harm and thus approved the scheme.
Authorpe Methodist Church, Louth
GCPP assisted Thomas Connolly Estate Agents in obtaining a grant from the Inspectorate for a partial reward of costs against East Lindsey District Council (The “LPA”). Upon viewing the decision notice from the LPA, we noticed that that the planning officer had refused planning permission based on an incorrect assessment of the proposal against planning policy.
Costs can be rewarded if a party has behaved unreasonably, and the unreasonable behaviour has directly caused another party to incur unnecessary or wasted expense in the appeal process. We, therefore, appealed for costs and the inspector found that the LPA had acted unreasonably and caused the applicant unnecessary expense. Click here to view the decision notice.
View some of our recent successful appeals against Enforcement Action...
Your local planning authority may send you an enforcement notice if you’ve built or changed something without planning permission. You can appeal against an enforcement notice if you own, rent or lawfully occupy the property or land it applies to.
Please contact us if you would like further information on what we can do for you.
LU1 1UD - Luton Borough Council
GCPP assisted a client in appealing an Enforcement Notice issued by Luton Borough Council. The alleged breach of planning control was the unauthorised erection of a detached building on the land. The enforcement notice required the demolition of the recently erected detached buildings including their hardstanding and foundations, and removal of all associated building materials, rubble and waste materials arising from the demolition work.
The council's delegated officer's enforcement report alleges that the building did not constitute works under the General Permitted Development Order in respects of the height and floor area.
Using our expertise and extensive familiarity with planning legislation, we worked around the council's allegations, arguing that the development did in fact constitute permitted development. The inspector agreed and thus the enforcement notice was quashed.
E11 4HH - London Borough of Waltham Forest
MK44 1BBY - Bedford Borough Council
Bedford Borough Council issued an enforcement notice to a client alleging that without planning permission, they had undertaken works involving:
"the material change of use of the land from agricultural to a mixed use incorporating residential use and/or commercial storage and/or agricultural uses and the erection of structures associated with the use."
The requirements of the notice were:
"to permanently cease the residential and commercial storage uses of the land, to permanently remove all caravans and vehicles used for non-agricultural purposes as well as all structures, storage containers, gas canisters, residential paraphernalia, building materials, vehicles, vehicle parts and all other such items associated with the agricultural use of the land."
Using our comprehensive knowledge of planning legislation, GCPP turned to section 173(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act which requires the LPA to demonstrate clearly the breach of planning control. We argued that the use of uncertain and ambiguous language within the notice did not specify with sufficient clarity the alleged breach of planning control. The inspector agreed and subsequently the enforcement notice was quashed.
GCPP assisted a client in quashing their enforcement notice issued by the London Borough of Waltham Forest which alleged that without planning permission, they had carried out building works and material change of use to convert the existing self-contained flat located on the first and second floor levels into 5x one-bedroom self-contained flats.
The enforcement notice required the cessation of the residential use of each of the unauthorised five flats, to reinstate the first and second floor of the flat to one single flat which included removing all partitions, divisions, boiler/heating equipment, electric and gas meter as well as fixtures and fittings that facilitated the unauthorised change of use, and finally to remove all resultant debris and paraphernalia as a result of these requirements.
GCPP aided the client in sourcing and collating the necessary evidence to prove that the unauthorised development is now lawful due to the 4 Year Rule (click for more info). We, therefore, appealed the enforcement notice under Ground (d) of Section 174(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act which states that at the time the enforcement notice was issued, it was too late to take enforcement action against the matters stated. The inspector agreed that this was the case and as a result, the Enforcement Notice was quashed.
TW3 1PA - London Borough of Hounslow
GCPP assisted a client in appealing an enforcement notice issued by the London Borough of Hounslow which alleged that without planning permission, they had changed the use of the property from residential to estate agents and administrative office, and the installation of an unauthorised shop front and signage.
The notice required the permanent cessation of the unlawful uses, stating that the client must:
"cease the use of the property as a mixed-use property, remove the shop frontage and reinstall windows, doors and frontage to a pre-authorised development standard, remove the advert signage at the front of the property and all associated paraphernalia associated with the unlawful uses, to revert the use of the property back to a single-family dwelling and to remove all resultant debris from the land."
Using our comprehensive knowledge of planning legislation, GCPP found inconsistencies within the notice and turned to section 173(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act which requires the LPA to demonstrate clearly the breach of planning control. The inspector agreed with the case put forward and thus, the enforcement notice was quashed.