Appeals for the reconstruction of a building to accommodate 5 flats with basement accommodation: Won
The Inspector agreed with the arguments forwarded by Hollins Planning that proposed light wells would not harm the character of the conservation area in which the appeal dwelling was situated. He also agreed there was ample garden space for potential residents of the development. The Inspector also agreed that the Council had acted unreasonably by Introducing new reasons for refusal. As a result a separate application for a full award of costs was also allowed.
Appeal refs APP/N5660/A/11/2157227, APP/N5660/E/11/2157230
Appeal for the conversion of a vacant (B1) office building to (C3) nine flats: Won
The Inspector considered the marketing evidence that had been carried out by the appellant was patchy. However, he agreed with research carried out by Hollins Planning, which concluded there was no longer any realistic demand to use the building as offices.
Appeal Ref APP/N5660/A/11/2158671
Enforcement appeal: Retention of a garden outbuilding: Won
The outbuilding spanned the rear of two properties and the Council had raised concerns about its built impact and harm to neighbours. However, The Inspector agreed that the outbuilding was well-constructed compared to other examples that had been highlighted by Hollins Planning and it was sited sufficiently far enough from neighbours so as not to cause any harm.
Appeal Ref APP/G5750/C/11/2158196
Appeal for a two-story side extension; Won
The Council had refused an application for the extension and a side dormer on the grounds that it would not be in keeping with the open character of the area. However the Inspector agreed that it would not harm the character of the area. The Inspector also noticed the presence of other front dormers in the area, which had been identified by Hollins Planning.
Appeal Case Reference: APP/K3605/D/11/2155765
Appeal for a two-story side extension; Won
The Council had insisted that the side wall of the extension had to be set more than 1m from a side boundary. However, the Inspector agreed that the character of the area was not so spacious that it justified this level of set –in from the boundary.
Appeal Case reference APP/G5180/D/11/2161482
Appeal for a two storey side and rear extension: Won
The Council had refused the application on the grounds that the outlook of the neighbours would be harmed. However, the inspector accepted the arguments forwarded by Hollins Planning that views of the extension would be oblique and the occupiers of the neighbouring property would not affected by the 2-storey rear extension.
Appeal Case reference APP/P5870/D/11/2160722
Appeal for the conversion of a bungalow into a house; Won
The Inspector agreed with the argument forwarded by Hollins Planning that the character of the area was very mixed and therefore the proposed alterations would not appear out of scale or as a dominant form of development in the street scene
Appeal Case reference APP/A2280/D/11/2157218
Appeal for a two-storey side extension; Won
The appeal property was in an area of special local character and the Council had insisted that a side set in of more than 1m was required. However, the Inspector agreed with the assessment forwarded by Hollins Planning, which found that the gaps between houses were not particularly spacious and the Council was wrong to insist upon a wider gap.
Appeal Case Reference: APP/G5180/D/11/2157347
Appeal for the conversion of the property into two flats: Won
The Council had refused the application on the basis that the original size of the house was too small to be converted and therefore contravened local plan policy. However, Hollins Planning successfully argued that the Council had incorrectly applied this part of their conversion property and the appeal was allowed.
Appeal Case Reference: APP/N5660/A/10/2137011
Appeal for the erection of 5 dwellings: Won
The site was in Clapham, South London. The Council had refused the application because they felt the buildings were too large. The Council was also concerned that the occupiers of the houses would have a poor standard of outlook. However, the Inspector agreed with Hollins Planning that the buildings were appropriately scaled, and while outlook was restricted, the development would provide a standard of living accommodation.
Appeal Case Reference: APP/N5660/A/10/2136053
Appeal for the erection of three houses: Won
The Council had refused planning permission on the basis that the design of the houses did not fit in with the character of the area. However, the Inspector agreed with the arguments forwarded by Hollins Planning that the design of the houses was acceptable and they would not harmfully affect the area.
Appeal Case Reference: APP/A5840/A/10/2130597
Appeal for a rear roof terrace: Won
The appeal related to a property in South London. The Inspector agreed with Hollins Planning and agreed there were numerous roof terraces in the area. The Council had also relied on a change in plan policy to justify their refusal. However, the Inspector agreed with Hollins Planning that the precise wording of the policy had not changed significantly.
Appeal Case Reference: APP/N5660/A/10/2141144.
Appeal for a two-storey rear extension: Won
The appeal related to a property in Cambridgeshire. The application was refused because the Council was concerned about the impact on the existing building. However, the Inspector agreed with Hollins Planning and found there was no uniformity on the estate an that as designed the extension would not harm the character of the host building.
Appeal Case Reference: APP/H0520/D/10/2132043
Appeal for the conversion of a house into 3 flats: Won.
The Council had refused the application because of concerns about the standard of the interior layout, impact on neighbours, privacy, noise and parking issues. Hollins planning was able to cite a comparable appeal decision relating to a nearby property, which the Inspector accepted, was relevant. The Inspector also accepted the argument forwarded by Hollins Planning that overlooking would be no worse than existing, as would potential conditions of noise.
Appeal Case Reference: APP/A/08/2076768.
Appeal for the Conversion of accommodation above the shop premises into 3 flats: Won.
The Council was concern about the size of the attic flat and conditions of daylight. The inspector agreed with the argument forwarded by Hollins Planning that flat in question would provide a good standard of accommodation and conditions of light and outlook would be satisfactory.
Appeal Case Reference: APP/N5660/A/08/2080011
Appeal for 6 new build flats : WON.