Planning Permission: Case Studies

CASE STUDY ONE: “Straightforward Developments Can Be Met With Refusal”

In many cases, over-development is sited as a reason for refusing planning permission, but in this case, underdevelopment was the issue.

The site, minutes away from Bristol city centre, is located in a small hamlet. To the west of the site lies an array of large commercial developments, and to the east, a wide expanse of agricultural land.

The land was bought by a local family who wished to develop two bespoke family homes. A full planning application was submitted to the local planning authority in early 2007. However, the local planning authority refused the application. The decision notice outlined a number of reasons upon which this decision was based. These included:

• Impact of the development on wildlife
• Overlooking of the neighbouring property
• Highway safety
• Underdevelopment of the land

The owner was obviously confused by this decision, especially after he had received what appeared to be favourable pre-application advice before he had prepared his submission. The owner therefore sought further advice.

The revised solution: One considerable factor for refusal was that the original application had not been submitted with enough detailed information. In addition, the refusal could not be appealed as six months had elapsed.

An application has now been prepared which has redesigned the internal layout with windows away from the neighbouring property. The access arrangements and the layout were revised in order to satisfy the highway safety issues.

In addition, an ecological survey was commissioned which found that great crested newts were within 100m of the site. This discovery bolstered the planning case as arguably, from an ecological point of view, the foraging habitat of the great crested newts needs to be preserved to facilitate their continued breeding in the locality of the adjacent ponds, which are located within 250m of the site.

The Local Plan had designated the entire area with a specific policy to ensure high levels of development. In other words, the council requires this development to yield four dwellings. Given the size of the site and the low-density housing around it, we felt that the refusal reason was not justified.

The local authority declined to meet for a pre-application site visit, claiming they had little time or resources to facilitate this. The only course of action was to create a strong case so that should it be refused it would stand up to scrutiny at appeal.

CASE STUDY TWO: “The Listed Building Application Required a Detailed Justification”

Listed buildings are notorious for causing problems when it comes to gaining planning permission for extensions, but it is not certainly not impossible.

Situated in an idyllic location in the Cotswolds is a substantial Grade II listed building surrounded by manicured gardens within a Conservation Area. The dwelling oozes charm; however, the living room is small in comparison to the rest of the property and the windows on either side of the room do not command the picturesque southerly views. At present the southern elevation has an old entrance, which has had to be boarded up for security reasons.

The family who own the property required a solution to overcome the problem of the lack of light able to enter the house. An extension to their living room, which would command views of the escarpment to the south, would allow natural light to penetrate this part of the house and create an attractive room that would enhance the setting of the listed building.

The design needed to be sympathetic to the character and setting of the listed building but clearly articulating the extension as a new addition. Further to this, the design had to be sensitive to the setting.

The revised solution: Based upon an assessment of the setting and the listed building, a design was created that echoes the key design traits. The proposed fenestration replicates that of the house by the use of similarly shaped and proportioned windows. In terms of materials, coursed rubble walls and a Cotswold stone roof are proposed to complement the historic nature of the setting. The hipped roof and the linking corridor are utilised to bring the structure away from the house’s windows so as not to compete with its historic fabric and to create the impression of a free-standing structure. The link will ensure that in future years it is inherently obvious that it is a modern addition that has been designed to provide additional living space without harming the key elevations and fabric of the property.

The position of the extension and the existing landscaping within the garden ensure that the development would not be visible from public viewpoints within the Conservation Area. Further to this the materials and finishes have been selected after careful consideration of those used on site and in the local area.

The submission to the council included a listed building application as well as a full planning application. The listed building application required a detailed justification explaining why the works were needed, whilst both applications contained a Design and Access Statement.

The local authority permitted both applications under delegated powers.

CASE STUDY THREE: “A Refused Development is Not the End of the World”

Often, simply not providing enough detailed information in your outline planning application can lead to a refusal, but there are simple ways to rectify this.

The site consists of a rectangular piece of land with an existing dwelling at one end of the site with an access onto a narrow lane at the other end. The land is well sheltered by trees surrounding the site and by the area’s topography. The site slopes into a valley with neighbouring properties located below.

The owner bought the site a couple of years ago with the main dwelling in poor condition. The site was bought as an investment, with the owner hoping to build two new houses as well as improving the old property.

The owner prepared and submitted an outline planning application for two new dwellings to the council. However, after an arduous and frustrating two months in negotiations with the council, the application was refused on highway grounds.

The refusal reason cited by the council related to the application not containing enough detailed information to demonstrate that the development would not be detrimental to highway safety.

The revised solution: A second application was put together based upon a need to overcome the highway issues. A site meeting was held with a county highway officer in which suitable ways forward were discussed. The outcome of the meeting was that a footpath was needed to link the site to the main road and that enough carriageway width should remain to allow two cars to pass each other. Given these requirements it allowed a detailed plan to be drawn up with a footpath of the correct width, an access with good visibility in both directions and one that allowed two cars to pass by even at a narrow pinch point in the road. A computerised tracking diagram illustrating the path that vehicles would take in relation to each other supported this work.

The application was submitted with detailed statements and diagrams that greatly improved the level of information available to the case officer. The application was supported by the highways officer and was permitted by the development control committee with ease. A Reserved Matters scheme to be summitted with detailed plans of the buildings is the next stage.

Further reading:

• Planning Permission: Making an Application
• Understanding Planning Permission
• Planning Permission: Do I Have a Chance?