Planning permission had been given for 2 dwellings, subject to a Section 106 agreement that one of the dwellings was to be affordable. Our client, a local builder, wanted to purchase the site but without the restriction (The Section 106 had not been signed). We advised that an application for 2 open market houses would be appropriate and that a viability assessment should be made showing that even 1 affordable dwelling on this site would be unviable.
Following the resubmission and Viability Assessment the Local Planning Authority agreed and granted permission for 2 unencumbered residential properties, and without restricting occupancy to local people either.
Our clients’ family owned a small traditional cottage in a sensitive costal location. They wished to move to live there and bring up their own family. The existing cottage was far too small and it was unviable to extend further as previous unsympathetic conversions had rendered parts of the cottage unstable. The LPA were approached and pre-application discussions were instigated. A replacement dwelling was advocated and the design team produced a proposal that was both contemporary and sympathetic to the sites’ setting in the countryside.
The application was finally approved as a replacement dwelling with all Design and Housing policies being complied with. However the site was formerly in the hands of the National Trust, who had to approve the design. They have not, and we are now in negotiation with the Trust to find an acceptable compromise.
Our clients have built their own home in the full knowledge of the Section 106 Agreement that restricted occupancy to local persons. At the time of near completion they sought to obtain a mortgage but the banks were unwilling to lend because of the restrictive occupancy condition.
Our clients made an impassioned plea (and formal application) to the Local Planning Authority to discharge the Section 106. The LPA refused and we were brought on board to advise. We advised that an appeal would be worthwhile as there were so many precedents that had seen these types of Agreements discharged in the past.
An appeal was duly lodged and a Hearing requested. In the meantime the LPA, having lost an identical appeal (as they surely would have in our case anyway), changed their minds on our client’s application and referred the matter back to committee. The LPA subsequently approved the discharge of the Section 106, but had allowed an appeal to be lodged and all work done up to the date of the Hearing.
The appeal has been withdrawn and a costs application against the Council is pending…
Our client had built a stable block for horses, but due to unforeseen circumstances was no longer able to use the property for that purpose. An application to convert the building into a holiday letting unit was refused and we were advised on whether or not to conduct an appeal. Upon assessing the relevant policies it was agreed that an appeal would be worthwhile. The Planning Inspector allowed the appeal indicating that the proposed conversion fell within policy guidelines, and that the building was capable of conversion without harming visual or residential amenities. This indicates that the relevant conversion polices apply to newer buildings as well as older farm buildings.
We were instructed to assist in the preparation and submission of a revised application following withdrawal of an earlier application after considerable opposition had arisen to plans to increase the height of the clients property in the towns conservation area. Following consideration of these local objections, and in spite of the level of opposition, we advised the client that the proposal should acceptable and that subject to some subtle amendments it should be re-submitted to the Council.
The application was duly re-submitted and we assisted in negotiations between the Councils Conservation and Planning Departments and the clients architects, which resulted in the scheme being approved.