Manchester City Council

Our client approached us following a  previous application refusal for the change of use. The reason for refusal [...]]]> The application sought to change the use of an A1 delicatessen to an A3 Cafe/restaurant with a retail element in an affluent suburb of Manchester.

Council

Manchester City Council

Issues

Our client approached us following a  previous application refusal for the change of use. The reason for refusal highlighted the fact that the premises were not located within a local centre thus the change of use would be contrary to the Council’s food and drink policy.

Solutions

It was decided to resubmit the application and provide a more detailed submission that sought to build on the local support for the application.  Support was gained via an in-store petition, a social media petition (involving Facebook and Twitter) and direct contact with neighbouring properties. This resulted in over 400 letters and names of support.  The Council recognised this support and the application was recommended for approval but due to departure from policy the final decision was to be made at Planning Committee.

A prominent MP objected to the proposal, siting amenity problems as the main reasons for the objection.  We presented at committee with counter-arguments to the MP. The Committee members sided with us and the application was approved contrary to the Council’s food and drink policies. The applicant is now able to convert the premises into a restaurant.

This again highlights the importance of stakeholder relations and also proves that material considerations such as overwhelming support for an application, can influence a planning decision.  The Council welcomed this approach and a constant friendly dialogue was maintained throughout  the application process.

An historic gallery built in 1880, and once being the home of the art collection of Sir Francis Cook, faced an uncertain future. The building had been identified by [...]]]> Our client was faced with an enforcement threat over Grade II listed gallery and sought advice on diversification of use.

Issues

An historic gallery built in 1880, and once being the home of the art collection of Sir Francis Cook, faced an uncertain future. The building had been identified by English Heritage on the ‘At Risk’ register. A complicated planning history provided a barrier to future renovation and use. Furthermore, the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames considered the D1 gallery use had been abandoned.

Solutions

Following in-depth research into the history of the site and case law on abandonment, we managed to convince the Council  that the gallery still retained its D1 use class, and that any D1 use under the Use Class Order could be carried on at the premises without the need for express planning permission.

Outcome

A Certificate of Lawfulness was granted, and future development options are now available to the client.

Before you submit always make sure you have reviewed the national and local application requirements. This is commonly referred to as a Validation Checklist. [...]]]> Invalid applications are frustrating for applicant and Local Planning Authority alike. Neglectful applicants often submit substandard applications, but equally Local Planning Authorities commonly request superfluous documents.

Before you submit always make sure you have reviewed the national and local application requirements. This is commonly referred to as a Validation Checklist. As a bare minimum the following will always be required regardless of the type of application:

Worthing Borough Council

The church had been vacant for a couple of years, with a history of failed schemes including [...]]]> We were approached by a local developer hoping to convert a redundant church into a polyclinic, providing a range of health services all under one roof.

Council

Worthing Borough Council

Issues

The church had been vacant for a couple of years, with a history of failed schemes including residential development and a school conversion. The idea of the health centre gained traction as local health providers expressed informal interest in the location. Initial pre-application advice from the Council was cautiously optimistic – however for the scheme to be successful they required a full planning application, transport assessment and S106 agreement to improve accessibility.

Solutions

Plainview Planning respectfully disagreed with the Council’s recommendations. The church was an existing D1 use, and the proposed use was also D1. We prepared a thorough Planning Statement to the Council setting out the regulatory and case law background, explaining that actually the principle of the use was lawful and that no formal planning application was required. Despite initial opposition, the Council’s legal department finally signed off on a Certificate of Lawfulness.

Once the Certificate was granted we set to work applying for other works to facilitate and improve the health care offer. We secured consent for roof extensions, new external plant, and a separate hydrotherapy pool in the car park.

We saved our client the expense and constraints of an unnecessary S106 agreement and accompanying conditions, with all the consents granted on time and within budget.

(Press article 1 / Press article 2)

Gloucester City Council

The application had been previously refused with the decision notice stating that the development was overly cramped due to the narrow nature of the plot. [...]]]> The proposed development consisted of a detached bungalow on an infill plot in the Podsmead area of Gloucester.

Council

Gloucester City Council

Issues

The application had been previously refused with the decision notice stating that the development was overly cramped due to the narrow nature of the plot.  The applicant resubmitted with a new design but the scheme was still not being supported.  Due to this negative stance by the Council, the applicant contacted Plainview Planning for help.

Solutions

Plainview Planning advised the client to withdraw the application in order to avoid another refusal and embarked on preparing a more robust planning submission with a detailed planning statement citing precedents and High Court evidence that added considerable weight to the argument.  A full public consultation exercise was organised which consisted of gathering the views of the surrounding residents and collating their responses.  The local ward Councillor was contacted and offered her full support to the application.  Despite the robust statement and the clear support for the application, the Council refused to view the scheme in a positive light.

The decision was taken to ask the local ward Councillor to call the application into Development Control Committee, as it was felt that presenting to the Committee may give the application more of a chance of gaining approval.  The ward Councillor also agreed to speak on behalf of the application and put across the views of her constituents.  Plainview Planning argued that the scheme would go some way to alleviating the housing needs shortage in the Gloucester area.  The Committee members agreed and the application was approved, despite the case officer’s recommendation for refusal.

Cotswold District Council

The land earmarked for the tennis court was within the Cotswold Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), [...]]]> Our client wished to build a tennis court on estate land for his own use, but which could also be used by the local village community.

Council

Cotswold District Council

Issues

The land earmarked for the tennis court was within the Cotswold Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), and adjacent to a Conservation Area – a difficult location. A large amount of earthworks would also need to take place which made the application even more controversial.

Solutions

Realising the difficulties at the site, we undertook a public consultation exercise with the local community and gained their support for the project. We highlighted a lack of local facilities and promoted the scheme to the Council, through direct correspondence and building a rapport directly with the case officer. We were able to persuade the Council that the impact of the tennis court would be minimal, when balance against the community benefits. We were also able to limit the cost to the client by removing the need for an expensive and lengthy Section 106 agreement (a unilateral undertaking) or Management Agreement to secure the community use aspect.

Public consultation and public lobbying exercises can be hugely beneficial to even the smallest applications; especially where a development is proposed on a controversial site, and is often overlooked by other consultancies. This, coupled with building a solid rapport with case officers helps to guarantee application success.

Plainview Planning managed the whole planning application process – pre-application [...]]]> We have secured planning consent for 15 luxury apartments at a hotel on the Isle of Wight. Our client was faced with difficulty selling his hotel as a going concern, so approached us for help with trying to make his property a more attractive investment.

Plainview Planning managed the whole planning application process – pre-application meetings, instructing architects, preparing consultation and planning documents, and liaising with the Council.

There was initial resistance from the Council, but we put forward a robust review of the local tourism market to demonstrate that the continued use of the building as a hotel was not viable.

Permission was granted within 12 weeks of Plainview being instructed.

If you are trying to find a more financially rewarding use for your hotel or commercial property please don’t hesitate to contact our commercial department – commercial@plainview.co.uk

Our client had built an outbuilding 8 metres by 6 metres in a relatively small back garden for use as a gym (with bathroom), playroom and storage space. An Enforcement Notice was issued by the London Borough of Brent requiring its complete demolition. We took the case to an Enforcement Appeal [...]]]>

Our client had built an outbuilding 8 metres by 6 metres in a relatively small back garden for use as a gym (with bathroom), playroom and storage space. An Enforcement Notice was issued by the London Borough of Brent requiring its complete demolition. We took the case to an Enforcement Appeal and won.

Council

London Borough of Brent

Issues

There were three issues to be argued at appeal. Firstly, that the outbuilding should be given planning permission due to no harm being caused. Secondly, that it could be built under permitted development rights in line with the General Permitted Development Order (we considered that the use was incidental ). Thirdly, that it could not to be used as a separate self contained planing unit or self contained accommodation.

Solutions

We sourced a number of  precedents, examining both local appeals and local planning applications. This was supplemented by case law sourced from the Court of Appeal and High Courts. A character appraisal of the local area was also undertaken to persuade the appeal inspector that the development had little impact; and evidence presented to prove that, on the balance of probability, the outbuilding could not be separated from the main dwelling.

The inspector allowed the appeal and quashed the enforcement notice.

Time and again we see innocent homeowners build outbuildings that they think benefit from permitted development rights, only for the Council to try and rip them down due to a misunderstanding of what is and isn’t ‘incidental to the enjoyment of the dwellinghouse’. We think it is a shame that more Council enforcement departments do not heed PPG18 and the recommended lenience that should be afforded to private homeowners.

Our client approached us to regularise her residential occupation of a Public House despite the fact that the pub had not traded for 7+ years. We recommended a Certificate of Lawfulness of Existing Use which required us to prove that the pub had been lived in exclusively and continuously for 4+ years.

Council

Cherwell District Council (North Oxfordshire)

Issues

The presentation of evidence is vital in a case such as this. The burden of proof lies on the applicant, and the Council must be satisfied ’on the balance of probabilities’ that the use has continued as applied for.

Solutions

We collated and prepared documentary evidence as to the occupation. The documents included statutory declarations, bills, invoices, local news articles and photographs.

Initially the Council resisted the application, but we resubmitted with additional explanation as to the legal background of primary/ancillary uses within a single planning unit. We also touched on the issue of abandonment. The Council finally agreed with our interpretation and issued the Certificate. They considered the use lawful within the meaning of Section 191 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).