Appeal or withdraw and submit new application?

Hello all,

I am about to have my planning permission refused but it has not been posted officially yet. My architect is advising me to appeal the decision and also to put in another different application at the same time.

I am concerned because it is now clear that part of the original planning application, a dropped curb, cannot be approved because of an access issue, so could an inspector actually overturn a refusal but specify the exception of the dropped curb, or would he have to uphold the refusal because of the changes required to the application?

Would it be better to withdraw and do a new plan with that part omitted and answering all of the comments/points raised by consultees rather than have a refusal on record? Or would it be more useful to have the refusal decision report so that I can more comprehensively submit a better application and deal with the policies in the refusal notice and therefor be more likely to be granted?

It's in a conservation area and not listed but within the curtilage so needs listed building consent.

Many thanks

LL

The dippy architect should never have submitted an application that contravenes highway policy.

If the application definitely breaches policy and it's not just the planners opinion, then an appeal is pointless and an inspector can't change the decision, and he certainly can't alter it and impose his own conditions. You would be appealing the process and the decision, not getting a re-run by another person.

If you think the planner is wrong, then yes, let it be refused and appeal.

Doing an appeal on one proposal while submitting an amended proposal is not a good idea.

Your architect seems to be giving you poor advice. Presumably he will charge extra for the resubmission, the appeal and no refunds on his previous application.

If you have spoken with the planners already, and know the issues, then a refusal is not going to tell you any more. Your architect should have dealt with this much sooner, and then you could have amended the plan or withdrawn it and resubmitted sooner.

^woody^ said:

The dippy architect should never have submitted an application that contravenes highway policy.

If the application definitely breaches policy and it's not just the planners opinion, then an appeal is pointless and an inspector can't change the decision, and he certainly can't alter it and impose his own conditions. You would be appealing the process and the decision, not getting a re-run by another person.

If you think the planner is wrong, then yes, let it be refused and appeal.

Doing an appeal on one proposal while submitting an amended proposal is not a good idea.

Your architect seems to be giving you poor advice. Presumably he will charge extra for the resubmission, the appeal and no refunds on his previous application.

If you have spoken with the planners already, and know the issues, then a refusal is not going to tell you any more. Your architect should have dealt with this much sooner, and then you could have amended the plan or withdrawn it and resubmitted sooner.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the swift and considered reply! The dropped curb is actually adjoining a private lane (I didn't realise it was privately owned as the block and location plans show a line at the point of my property, not the pavement, so it was a genuine mistake to ask for access and dropped curb over private land, I would never have done this had I known. So highways have no problem with it and have written to say so, but the owner of the land adjoining does and that's absolutely fair enough, of course.

There are other factors which I need to address, lack of detail leading to misconceptions about the proposed material for parking which is easily resolved with a better plan. There is a lot of reliance in the conservation officer's comments about the historic setting being harmed and I have substantial (decades) of photographic evidence to show the erosion of the historic setting, so I am confident that I can show that a porch and parking represent far less impact than has been allowed, especially as the scheme is fronting a B road and the property is next to a disused factory on one side, so the 'street scene' which is being quoted as being affected is not actually that appealing as it stands. I have photographs of cars parked outside the house and all up the road, so my proposal to house my own car within my boundary, coming into line with the guidelines for parking provision, should not be such an issue?

There is opposition about parking provision obscuring part of a stone wall, the conservation officer says it will be harmful and that the porch represents a domestication of a former agricultural building. But the building was converted from a farm building to a residential one 50 years ago so surely it IS a domestic building? In the pre-app meeting the conservation officer advised that a dwelling of this type would feasibly have had a door/entrance-way fronting onto the main road, so advised it would not be contrary to policy, but is now stating it's inappropriate... is this subjective or should I not try to submit another plan? I will be using all the same materials, same stone, tiles, using a master craftsman to do a careful and considered job as I love and respect my home and it's heritage... but I didn't put enough of the detail in to show this and feel that with visuals and more explanation some of the comments could be negated. Is it worth it or will they have flatly decided in principle it can't be permitted do you think...

In another twist, the parish council put a 'no objection' notice in but then later wrote a blistering list of comments about not realising it is a listed building (which it isn't, but is within the curtilage of) and have now recommended refusal, seemingly after reading comments from others calling it a listed building.

Thank you in advance!

It would be interesting to know on what grounds the architect thinks the refusal decision could be overturned on appeal , and what alternative scheme would be likely to be approved with a fresh application. You might then have a better idea what to do. There seem to be a lot of issues for people to be able to give satisfactory answers on here ,in my opinion .

A couple of things to consider...

Sometimes in an application, there's a whole host of things that I think the planners will find contentious, but are really important to the viability of the scheme. If the indication from the LPA is that they're going to refuse the scheme - but only for fairly trivial reasons that I think could be easily addressed in a fresh application, and not for any of the reasons that I thought would be contentious - then I take the refusal (do nothing) and submit afresh accordingly.

With regards to curtilage listing, this can be a tedious one to fight, as councils can be remarkably stubborn on this point even where there's evidence to show that the building is no longer within the curtilage. I would put the case as clearly and thoroughly as possible and insist that the council consult with EH/HE with a view to getting the listed building description formally amended.

Leofric said:

It would be interesting to know on what grounds the architect thinks the refusal decision could be overturned on appeal , and what alternative scheme would be likely to be approved with a fresh application. You might then have a better idea what to do. There seem to be a lot of issues for people to be able to give satisfactory answers on here ,in my opinion .

Click to expand...

Thank you, the agent is extremely surprised that it hasn't been approved but because of the dropped kerb issue it couldn't be approved anyway, even without the comments about the character of the area etc. It would be good to have the black and white reasons set out from the planning officer, so that the next application can address these specifically. It's a case of whether a previous refusal will make it much harder to get an approval down the line really. Lots of concerns from neighbours are about the possibility of vans and lorries/unsightly vehicles being parked outside in the event of the property being sold in the future, but could this be addressed with a condition for no commercial vehicles?

Nakajo said:

A couple of things to consider...

Sometimes in an application, there's a whole host of things that I think the planners will find contentious, but are really important to the viability of the scheme. If the indication from the LPA is that they're going to refuse the scheme - but only for fairly trivial reasons that I think could be easily addressed in a fresh application, and not for any of the reasons that I thought would be contentious - then I take the refusal (do nothing) and submit afresh accordingly.

With regards to curtilage listing, this can be a tedious one to fight, as councils can be remarkably stubborn on this point even where there's evidence to show that the building is no longer within the curtilage. I would put the case as clearly and thoroughly as possible and insist that the council consult with EH/HE with a view to getting the listed building description formally amended.

Click to expand...

A lot of the comments are about the historic setting, although the development is on the roadside which is not seen from the historic/listed buildings although it would be seen upon entry. I feel this is very subjective and with some visuals of the garden frontage with parking on one end, leaving the majority of the stone wall in view, a continuation of either the grass that's there at the moment (it's a wide verge) or gravel which forms the drive, it would be shown to be a lot less impactful than the 'hardstanding' quoted in the application. Grasscrete or similar would be a suitable idea so as to withstand the weight but not jar with the current ground covering, equally using gravel to continue the entrance driveway into a parking space at one end would be an option. At no point would I be wanting to concrete/block pave the whole of the frontage and I think that is what they imagine. In reality, the left hand portion would be garden and the right third would be parking.

I can easily make it clear that the property itself is not listed in the next application so I'm not looking to get anything reclassified, it's just annoying that the misinterpretation seems to have added a lot of weight to the strength of resistance when originally there was no objection at all.

It's really valuable to have opinions on here, it's very much appreciated, thank you all.

If the application needs a new red line (and probably a separate ownership certificate) you may as well put a resubmission / fresh planning application in. You can put some flashy visuals in if you want, but it's not really that worthwhile; a supporting statement that states "materials to match XXX or X material to be re-used" etc is going to be sufficient enough and one that clearly clarifies curtilage / listings / ownership etc.

It's difficult to advise much without seeing the site / setting / proposal the reasons for refusal etc. Nakajo raises a good point R.E. curtilage listing and curtilage as a whole can be a debatable point - Again without details it's hard to offer advice. Furthermore 'effecting the setting' of a listed building is a minefield, there's been case law where hills / high ground on the other side of application sites effect the setting, in fact it is quite hard to say applications don't effect the setting.

I don't think you said what the application was for? Was it just a new access? a new porch? Was planning permission ever given for the residential conversion? Is this an ancillary building to a listed building? When was the building listed (before or after 1948 / the conversion is useful to know)

In your supporting statement you'll want to have this information and more and you'll wanting to be addressing these and the reasons for refusal that are going to be coming out.

locallass said:

In the pre-app meeting the conservation officer advised that a dwelling of this type would feasibly have had a door/entrance-way fronting onto the main road, so advised it would not be contrary to policy, but is now stating it's inappropriate... is this subjective or should I not try to submit another plan?
Thank you in advance!

Click to expand...

Of course a dwelling is likely to have a entrance fronting the main access (circumstances / age depending) - most of this is subjective as is the setting of the building, where is the curtilage etc (depending how close the application is, what you are altering etc) but the original building / listing information will help make a more informed decision here.

Don't think we know what the application was for as LukeB123 pointed out ,but if the red line outlining your ownership of the application site was wrong
( access over somebody else's private land !) then the application would be invalid anyway wouldn't it ? A planning consultant once told me there were only two things that were a criminal offence in planning , one was making a false declaration of ownership in a planning application and the other was carrying out unauthorised work on a listed building. You should have a meeting with your architect to review the situation.

Thank you so much everyone, I have consulted a planning consultant and he has advised withdrawal as the plan is not going to get though LBC, your help and input has been so useful and is what prompted me to seek further advice, it has certainly saved me an appeal process. Very many thanks!

it has certainly saved me an appeal process... for now

I would always get the refusal. Once you have a refusal you have black and white what needs to be amended. Whereas if you withdraw the LPA can bring up fresh issues that were never raised before.

There is no benefit I am aware of in withdrawing an application. It just lets the LPA avoid doing work (so the LPA of course always advise it).

People IMO overly worry that a refusal is black mark on a property as it shows what cannot be built and can put off purchasers, but a withdrawn application still shows on the site history, and anyone with a moments thought can see that anything withdrawn was going be refused.

On design its impossible to comment without seeing it. But the dropped kerb is curious. If it is on your land and is to adjoining owners land rather than the public highway then you probably don't even need consent to do it - of course if you then drive over your neighbours private land there may be potential repurcussions.

At appeal very very minor changes can be submitted - because if it is so trivial the LPA should ask you to make the changes rather than refusing the application. Of course if they refuse and the changes are so minor then you will be quicker making those changes and doing a second application which is much quicker than the appeal process.

lt8480, so you are advising locallass to go against her planning consultant's advice and not withdraw the application !
p.s. I was unaware that planning authorities always advised applicants to withdraw an application if they were recommending refusal , that is entirely up to the applicant.

@Leofric There would be no point informing an applicant in advance of an intent to refuse other than to encourage them to withdraw.

Leofric said:

lt8480, so you are advising locallass to go against her planning consultant's advice and not withdraw the application !
p.s. I was unaware that planning authorities always advised applicants to withdraw an application if they were recommending refusal , that is entirely up to the applicant.

Click to expand...

I don't have all the facts. But I don't see the point? I would query why withdraw with the consultant.

I'm only aware of one time when a withdrawal may makes sense - and that's when you want to submit a second free-go application significantly sooner than the determination is due - as you can only submit a free-go application once an application is refused/approved/appealed(e.g. for non determination)/withdrawn.

So say you were 1 week into the 8 week determination period and wanted to change the scheme in a way that the LPA wouldn't accept under the current scheme you would need to do a second application. If you wanted to do you free-go without waiting for another 7 weeks it may then make sense to withdraw.

But if you are near the determination point then the formal refusal along with its reasons and the case officer's report is inherently the most helpful thing you can have for amending the application for the second go.