We are absolutely delighted to have secured planning permission at appeal for a client in the West Northamptonshire countryside for remedial works to their dwelling.
There’s quite a tale to this one. The client’s property is one of two that were constructed by the same builder, under the same original consent. As built, both plots deviated from the approved plans and the respective purchasers (of which our client was one) therefore each inherited a breach of planning control that they had not caused, but had to resolve.
Prior to our involvement, the first attempt to regularise both properties in their ‘as-built’ state through enforcement appeals had failed.
Compromise solutions for both plots were therefore sought separately by the respective owners of the plots. Both applications were recommended for approval by Officers and were on the same committee agenda – to be considered one after the other. For our client, the compromise meant losing an entire floor of accommodation.
The neighbour’s application, which was materially similar, was approved without any fuss or debate. The principle of agreeing a compromise (based on wording within the enforcement appeal decisions) was not questioned at all. However when it came to our client’s application, remarkably the Committee drew an entirely different conclusion on the principle of agreeing a compromise solution, and then used this as their basis to debate the application at length, and to refuse it.
Whilst the two schemes were not identical, the LPA should have been consistent on how they approached the principle. They weren’t. They U-turned from one application to the next, which is completely unreasonable behaviour.
It gets worse. The LPA’s decision notice referred to the dwelling ‘as constructed’ rather than the changes being applied for, and their appeal statement was all over the place. It was written as if this was a re-run of the previous enforcement appeal, and the content within it was inaccurate. The Inspector even commented that:
“the Council’s appeal statement is poorly constructed and refers extensively to the previous enforcement appeals on the appeal site”.
The good news is that we were able to convince the Inspector that the client’s proposed compromise solution was acceptable in planning terms and would not harm the character and appearance of the area, including the group of former farm buildings and the Special Landscape Area.
The client has been badly mistreated by the LPA and others over the last few years and so it is especially pleasing to have been able to finally bring closure for them on the planning front. Their path forward is now much clearer, and the only condition requiring attention provides scope for the client to agree a timetable with the LPA in which to make the agreed changes to the property. In fact, the Inspector’s timetable condition is far more favourable and flexible than the one the LPA imposed on the neighbour’s property! Every cloud!
