Planning appeal

[DevilDamo]

I have never gone through the appeal process before so... are they fairly straight forward and it's something me (an AT) can take forward or is it best to employ a professional, e.g. Planning Consultant?

 

[jeds]

It depends on the nature of the appeal and the consequences of losing but if it is a standard written procedure appeal for whether an extension is allowed or not I'd say they are very easy. Probably easier than the planning application.

Only thing you need to be VERY sure about is that the appeal is not unreasonable. If the local authority thought you were wasting their time with an appeal that never had a hope they could claim costs. read this document carefully:

http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/costawardsinplanningappeals.pdf

The appeals procedure takes far too long (I'm waiting for one now that has been nearly 6 months) but they are often worthwhile. I've won a lot more appels than I've lost over the years.

 

[^woody^]

You'll need to know, and be able to explain in detail, how the proposal fits in with local policy, and why the councils decision is wrong in context of their policy.

It's not a re-run of the application, and you are not trying to convince the appeals officer that the proposal is a good idea, but rather that the council has reached the wrong conclusion in context of their own policies and decision making process

In matters were the refusal was based on a subjective assessment, then you need to provide a more convincing argument that the development will not be as bad as the council planner thinks it will be

Having access to other relevant appeal decisions and case law helps, as does knowing how to structure your appeal argument - that is where a planning consultant comes in handy as he will have the experience to counter a lot of the council's arguments.

The decision whether to engage a consultant or go it alone, depends on the nature of the refusal and the reasons which are given

 

[DevilDamo]

Thanks guys!

On this particular job... there have been two previous refused applications and mine is the third. However, I did make some changes to make the design less bulky/intrusive/appealing. His response was...

Good afternoon and thank you for your email, this Council has now determined three very similar planning applications at this site to extend the front of the property under refs 07/0002, 07/0629 and most recently 10/0524. The Council has refused all three and with this history in mind I do not believe that any extension would be favoured by the LPA and an appeal may be the only way forward for your client.

So I may refer this to a planning consultant to see what chance (if any) we have at winning this at appeal, taking into account the relevant policies that the case officer referred to.

Thanks.

 

[^woody^]

WOW, three attempts does not bode too well!

Ideally the comments from the first application should have been incorporated into the second, and definitely the third so that an approval could be obtained.

If the subsequent applications were significantly different to the initial one, within policy guidelines and yet still refused, then it may be that the extension is not to be.

You'll have to check the refusal against the reasons to see if there is any mileage in an appeal, or if a revised scheme (with pre-application advice) is viable.

You will only get one-shot at an appeal, so if its worth it, get some advice on the merits from a consultant, or if you can put a case together then do that

 

[jeds]

I agree. Obviously not a straightforward one. It sounds obvious but go through the refusal reasons carefully and put a case together for each one. Sometimes when planners just don't want something they stack things up to try and strengthen their case. I have found that inspectors do not like this and it has worked against the authority on many occasions.

Also check the planning report because this can often include comments and notes that don't get into the final decision.

I find it's better to stick to what is relevant and do not pack the appeal with additional side issues. Inspectors like to keep things as simple as possible and they seem to respect it more when you don't get side tracked.

 

[DevilDamo]

Thanks guys

On both occasions, the following reasons have been given...

"The proposed development would, by reason of its height, depth, mass, front projection and design, have an adverse visual impact on the street scene and the character of the area contrary to the objectives of Policy..."

I took this onboard prior to making my submission. Some significant changes were made to the design as well as back up information from other shops that have had the works approved in areas where it does not co-incide with the character of the area, but hey ho.

I'm going to email a consultant tomorrow to see what "free" advice I get before putting him in contact with my client as it all boils down to costs

 

[^woody^]

"The proposed development would, by reason of its height, depth, mass, front projection and design, have an adverse visual impact on the street scene and the character of the area contrary to the objectives of Policy..."

OMG they have missed off "incongruous feature in the street scene" from that standard reply

If that is the main issue, then surely it must only be a matter of design, and it seems to be a largely subjective assessment which could be reversed.

There does seem to be current climate where planners are a bit more keen to help business if it can be demonstrated that the work is necessary to help the business continue. So it may be something to drop in as a bit of persuasion for borderline deccisions