Some 18,500 planning permissions were rejected last year and the figure is set to increase if changes to planning legislation occur…
UK householder appeals specialist Just Planning has warned if changes to planning come into play the number of unfair planning permission rejections could dramatically rise.
According to the organisation, decisions by local councils saw some 18,500 planning permissions rejected unfairly, and it expects the number to hit nearly 20,000 households in 2016.
Just Planning, which has a 71 per cent success rate defending homeowners from council planning officers decisions, likened local authorities to the Carol Beer character from Little Britain. She was famous for dismissing customers with the phrase ‘computer says no’.
The data suggested only 2,190 households were able to overcome planning officers last year by appealing to the national Planning Inspectorate on their own.
Now, Just Planning said proposed changes to the National Planning Policy Framework, which are currently under debate, could add further complications to the process if they are enacted. The firm said it believes these changes will overload planning officers and confuse householders. Additionally, the cost of applying for planning permission could also increase.
Just Planning said it managed to overturn the majority of its appeals in 2015 due to confusion between government and local policies, as well as ‘flawed design aesthetics’.
Just Planning’s CEO Martin Gaine said: “Further changes to national planning policy will only frustrate the system’s already fragmented, light-touch approach to applications.
“Overworked planning officers who are confused between national and local planning policy tend to reject applications out-of-hand based on dated rules.
“But households who are strapped for space or cannot afford to move should not take this lying down.
“Everyone should appeal a refusal, even though many people aren’t aware there is even a process in place. Sometimes they may have to resubmit an initial application, but the odds on a successful appeal are in their favour – especially given the number of “Carol Beers” in local councils.
“Our experts on planning appeals are here to convince households they have a fighting chance.”
The firm listed the top five reasons appeals were successful. It comprises of:
1. Erroneous Case Officers
The erroneous or inflexible view of individual case officers is the basis for the majority of successful appeals, who have cited out-of-date policies in conflict with national planning policy or who have failed to objectively assess a submission.
For example, many planners will reject an extension over three metres in depth, even though the Government raised this to six/eight metres under certain conditions in 2013.9. These types of refusals should always be appealed – Just Planning has a higher success rate of 75 per cent on these cases – and the appellant may also win an award of costs in their favour. Such cases accounted for 35 per cent of Just Planning appeals in 2015.
2. Flawed Design Aesthetics
A specific council may take objection to the aesthetics of an extension, such as non-uniform plaster or bricks used in its construction. However, due to the subjective nature of these decisions, councils have a particularly weak record on appeal where design is the main issue. Such cases accounted for 24 per cent of Just Planning appeals in 2015.
3. Amenity Impact
The ‘Amenity Impact’ on neighbours, such as adverse noise or blockage of natural light is often cited by planners in rejections. Many applications fall foul of the ‘45 Degree Rule’: this dictates an extension must not intersect a line drawn at 45 degrees from a neighbour’s window. However it may be argued the window is not in common use and will not affect a neighbour’s ‘amenity’. Such cases accounted for 17 per cent of Just Planning appeals in 2015.
4. Council-specific rules
A specific council’s rules on certain parameters have been violated i.e. the London Borough of Waltham Forest Council dictates no extensions may be made to a “side-return” that might block natural light onto a neighbour’s premises and the London Borough of Lambeth is particularly restrictive on loft extensions.
Success in this kind of appeal depends on how strong and recent the policy is and whether it has been successfully challenged at appeal previously. Such cases accounted for 14 per cent of Just Planning appeals in 2015.
5. Universal principles
Basic universal principles common across all councils may have been ignored; for example, almost all councils dictate a double-storey side extension needs to be set back a metre from the front of a main residence, so that it looks subordinate. In such cases, Just Planning advises changing and resubmitting the application. Such cases accounted for 10 per cent of Just Planning appeals in 2015.
The firm said despite some 90 per cent of applications being granted nationally there is a significant discrepancy in the number of cases granted by local planners. For example, Newham Council in London only granted permission in 53 per cent of cases.
Additionally, there are north and south divides, with a higher proportion of rejections seen at councils located in the south of England. The bottom ten councils were all located in the south east and had a 53-73 per cent rejection rate.
On the other end of the spectrum the top ten councils for approvals had a 99-100 per cent approval rate and were located outside the south east.
London did particularly poorly with seven of the 10 councils with the lowest approvals located in the capital. Londoners were also at higher risk of receiving enforcement notices, which could see an extension dismantled at a significant cost. A total of 55 per cent of notices were seen here. However, 43 per cent were overturned at appeal.
