Find planning appeals in seconds

Appeal Recovered — Kent

APP/G5180/C/26/3378023

"Fishery", Waldens Farm, Kent, BR8 8EP

The planning appeal decision letter concerns two applications for costs against the London Borough of Bromley, submitted by Mr. Jamie Buckley of JB Trading Limited. The inquiries, held in June 2026, were related to Appeal A, which sought a certificate of lawful use for various developments at Waldens Farm, and Appeal B, which contested an enforcement notice regarding the siting of storage containers. The main issues raised in the costs application included the Council's alleged unreasonable behavior in issuing the enforcement notice, enforcing against a use approved by its Environmental Health department, and failing to adequately address evidence in both appeals. The Inspector, J Moss, reviewed each claim against the backdrop of the Council's reasoning for its actions. The Inspector concluded that the Council had not acted unreasonably. Despite finding that there was a material change of use at the site, the enforcement notice was deemed appropriate as it related to storage containers that contributed to this breach. The Inspector noted that the Council's enforcement actions were based on separate legislative requirements and did not negate the need for planning permission. Furthermore, the Council's joint submission of evidence for both appeals was considered standard practice, and the Inspector found no failure to address relevant historical evidence. Ultimately, the application for a full award of costs was refused, as the Inspector determined that there was no unreasonable behavior by the Council that caused unnecessary expense during the appeals process.

Planning appeal — the UK

92 Draycott Avenue, HA3 0BY

The appeal decision concerns an enforcement notice issued by the London Borough of Brent regarding unauthorized developments at 92 Draycott Avenue, including a front boundary wall, railings, electric gates, and new hardstanding. The appeal was made by Mr. Ali Hassan under grounds (f) and (g) of section 174 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The main issues addressed were whether the requirements of the enforcement notice were excessive to remedy the breach of planning control (ground f) and whether the compliance period of six months was reasonable (ground g). The Inspector noted that the enforcement notice's purpose was to restore the site to its condition prior to the unauthorized developments. The appellant's arguments for retaining the structures with modifications for security reasons were acknowledged but deemed insufficient to remedy the breach, as the structures would remain. The Inspector concluded that the requirements of the notice were necessary and proportionate, emphasizing that any lesser steps would not adequately address the breach. Additionally, the six-month compliance period was found to be reasonable given the simplicity of the structures involved. Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed, and the enforcement notice was upheld with minor corrections for clarity. The Inspector's decision reflects a balance between the need for compliance with planning regulations and the appellant's concerns for security.

Appeal Part Allowed — Devon

APP/Q1153/C/26/3377919

Land South of Dartmoor Caravan Park, Devon, PL20 7PP

The planning appeal decision letter concerns two appeals made by Mr. Daniel Jarman (Appeal A) and Mrs. Tamsin Jarman (Appeal B) against an enforcement notice issued by West Devon Borough Council regarding the unauthorized change of use of land from agricultural to a residential caravan site, along with associated operational developments. The Inspector, Paul Dignan, held a hearing and site visit on 1 July 2026, with the decision issued on 4 August 2026. The main issues identified by the Inspector included the impact of the development on the scenic quality of the Tamar Valley National Landscape, the suitability of the site for the proposed use, the need for Gypsy/Traveller sites, and the personal circumstances of the appellants. The Inspector found that the development significantly detracted from the landscape's natural beauty and tranquility, violating local policies aimed at preserving such areas. The site’s location was deemed unsuitable due to poor access to services and lack of safe pedestrian routes, further complicating the case for the proposed development. The Inspector upheld the enforcement notice, correcting and varying it to clarify the allegations and extending the compliance period from 12 months to 2 years. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed, and planning permission was refused for the deemed application. The decision emphasized the importance of landscape preservation and sustainable site location in planning considerations.

Appeal Split Decision — the UK

ENA-290-2013

Land Adjoining 13 Saw Mill Terrace, EH19 3FY

In the appeal decision regarding enforcement notice ENA-290-2013, the Reporter upheld the enforcement notice issued by Midlothian Council but varied its terms. The enforcement notice concerned the alleged unauthorized change of use of land from public open space to private garden ground and the erection of a fence at 13 Saw Mill Terrace, Bonnyrigg. The main issues revolved around whether a change of use had occurred and the accuracy of the enforcement notice regarding the land in question. The appellant argued that the alleged breaches had not occurred and that the requirements of the notice were excessive. The Reporter found that while the triangular area of land was indeed being used as private garden ground, the rectangular area directly in front of the property was not subject to a change of use, as it was owned by the appellant and had characteristics of a private garden. The Reporter noted that the enforcement notice did not require the cessation of the land's use, which could have led to planning permission being deemed granted if the notice's requirements were met. The Reporter declined to amend the enforcement notice to include additional requirements proposed by the council, as this would have caused injustice to the appellant. Ultimately, the appeal was partially successful; the Reporter upheld the enforcement notice but confirmed that the allegations regarding the rectangular area and a section of fencing were unfounded. The enforcement notice will take effect immediately, with compliance required as specified, but without the additional conditions sought by the council.

Planning appeal — the UK

PPA-130-2099

Inveraray Shinty Club, PA32 8XD

On July 9, 2026, Argyll and Bute Council refused planning permission for the erection of a telecommunications equipment compound, including a 25-meter high tower, at Inveraray Shinty Club. The refusal was based on several key issues concerning the proposal's compliance with local and national planning policies. The main arguments against the proposal highlighted its adverse impact on visual amenity, character, and appearance of the surrounding area. Specifically, the Council cited non-compliance with National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) Policy 24 (Digital Infrastructure) and Local Development Plan 2 (LDP2) Policies 44 (Telecommunications), 15 (Historic Environment), 17 (Conservation Areas), and 20 (Gardens and Designed Landscapes). The decision emphasized that the development would negatively affect the Historic Environment, contravening NPF4 Policies 7 (Historic Assets) and 14 (Design, Quality and Place). The Reporter's reasoning underscored the importance of preserving the visual and historic integrity of the area, aligning with the Council's assessment of the proposal's incompatibility with established planning frameworks. As a final decision, the Council formally refused the application, allowing the applicant the option to request a review of the decision within three months if aggrieved. The refusal did not indicate any amendments to the initial proposal, nor did it classify the application as a departure from the Development Plan.