A large modern, rear extension to a detached house with balustrade and dwarf balcony wall have been allowed on appeal in West Wickham. The Appeal Inspector found the balustrade to be complementary to the contemporary architecture of the extensions to the property and that the dwarf balcony wall would not jar with the architecture of the property or character of the surrounding area.
Four new houses have been allowed on appeal in Knaphill. The Appeal Inspector pointed out that the National Planning Policy Framework encourages innovative designs which promote high levels of sustainability and design and considered the proposed contemporary styled development as meeting this requirement whilst positively contributing to the built environment surrounding the site.
A new dental surgery and six flats have been allowed on appeal in Windsor.
The Appeal Inspector accepted our submissions that a new dental surgery was worthy of support and that the residential element was designed to be in keeping with the locality without affecting the street scene or neighbouring properties. (Architects : Danks Badnell)
Carter Planning has secured planning permission on appeal for a three storey block of forty flats, including nine affordable units, in Hertfordshire. The development by Latis Homes is situated in a prominent site in the Hoddesdon Conservation Area.
The appeal Inspector agreed the proposal would be a prominent and modern addition to the street scene. It would be proportionate in scale and height to the neighbouring buildings and would assist in improving the appearance of the vacant site and provide a built frontage. The Council sought an overage clause but the Inspector said this would not be related to the development, nor fairly related in scale and kind. As such, it would not accord with the provisions of Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 and the tests for planning obligations set out in the National Planning Framework.
Six dwellings have been permitted on a number of back gardens in Dartford following an appeal by Carter Planning. The site was not allocated for housing and was a windfall contribution to housing land supply. The Inspector considered three main factors: the sustainability of the site; whether benefits of development outweigh disbenefits; and the capacity of infrastructure.
The Inspector relied heavily on the National Planning Policy Framework. Paragraph 47, anticipates a significant boost in the supply of housing. Paragraph 17 requires that planning should proactively drive and support sustainable economic development to deliver the homes that the country needs. Moreover, Paragraph 49 states that housing application should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development, as was the case for the appeal scheme. The Inspector concluded that the delivery of additional homes would help meet the country’s need for housing which was a substantial benefit in favour of the proposed development.
In an appeal decision which permitted a block of ten flats in Maidenhead, the Planning Inspector accepted our submissions that the proposal was consistent with the core principles of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012 which requires that planning should take account of the character of different areas and always seek to secure high quality design and a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings.
The scheme was considered to accord with the requirements of Policies DG1, H10 and H11 of the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Local Plan in that the scheme was of a high standard of design; the design and scale of new buildings was compatible with the established street façade having regard to the scale, height and building lines of adjacent properties; and no harm was caused to the character of the surrounding area. (Architects: Edgington Spink and Hyne)
Six flats have been granted on appeal above a row of shops in Barnet. The Planning Inspector agreed with Carter Planning’s submission, stating the scheme respected the rhythm of the street and that the location was a sustainable one which did not require further car parking. He disagreed with the Council and concluded that the scheme accorded with the Council’s Development Management Policies Document adopted in 2012.
Carter Planning has been successful in respect of an appeal for five houses in Leatherhead. The Inspector concluded that the residential character of the area was mixed. The Inspector also concluded that because the proposed houses were well designed, set back from the road and landscaped the scheme would not appear overly prominent, would respect the verdant character of the road and would not impact neighbours amenity. This resulted in a high quality scheme.
An appeal has been allowed for alterations and extensions to a mid terrace house within a Conservation Area in Islington. The property is a former shop and is locally listed. The proposals included a mansard roof extension, excavation of a semi basement area and insertion of a mezzanine, and an internal rearrangement of the accommodation and staircase. The controversial element of the scheme included a half-width, second floor, rear extension over the new staircase. The Inspector considered that the extension designed by Architects London Atelier, which would be constructed in non-reflective glazing, would allow views of the brickwork behind and be “a small and inconsequential addition to the building”. The character and appearance of the Conservation Area would therefore be unharmed.
Notwithstanding the removal of garden land from the definition of brownfield land in the National Planning Policy Framework, Carter Planning continues to advise owners with large plots and small developers who wish to erect houses thereon. This month has seen planning permission for a family house on a rear garden in Sunbury-on-Thames granted on appeal.
Developer: St Andrews Properties Ltd
Our successful planning appeal for entrance gates to a residential estate in the Green Belt, is now being quoted as an authoritative case for two reasons. Firstly, the provisions of a development order are to be interpreted in a broad and common sense manner and the Planning Inspector also considered the definition of what constitutes “adjacent to a highway” in a number of ways and concluded the gates were not adjacent to a highway. See Journal of Planning and Environment Law Issue 5 2013 published by Sweet and Maxwell ISSN: 0307-4870.
Planning permission has been obtained for a gated entrance to a private estate in Surrey. In an unusual appeal it was determined that the gates were “inappropriate development in the Green Belt,” but that very special circumstances existed to allow them.