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 Recovered — LEEDS

APP/N4720/C/25/3376890

5A Fire Station Houses, LEEDS, LS9 6NL

The appeal decision concerns an enforcement notice (EN) issued by Leeds City Council against Mr. Juris Vilumsons for the alleged unauthorized erection of a dwellinghouse at 5A Fire Station Houses, Gipton, Leeds. The EN required the demolition of the dwelling and clearance of debris, with compliance periods set at 9 and 10 months. The main issues identified by the Inspector included the clarity of the EN regarding the alleged breach of planning control, the reasons for its issuance, and the specific steps required for compliance. The Inspector noted that the EN failed to mention the existing planning permission granted in January 2023 for the construction of the dwelling, which rendered the basis for the EN unclear. The Council's reasoning for the EN cited visual amenity and living conditions impacts but lacked precise explanations of how the dwelling was detrimental. The Inspector found that the Council's subsequent clarifications introduced new reasons for the EN that were not present in the original notice, causing potential injustice to the appellant. Additionally, the EN was deemed invalid as it was served without including the owner/occupier of the adjacent property, No 5, which could lead to unjust prosecution. Ultimately, the Inspector quashed the EN, concluding that it did not specify the breach of planning control with sufficient clarity, and thus the appeal grounds did not need to be considered. No further conditions were imposed as the enforcement notice was invalidated.

Appeal Part Allowed — ROTHERHAM

APP/P4415/C/25/3375108

Land at the rear of 19 Shelley Road, ROTHERHAM, S65 2NF

The appeal decision concerns an enforcement notice issued by Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council against Mr. Shabeer Hussain for the unauthorized erection of a three-storey building comprising nine residential flats and storage space at the rear of 19 Shelley Road, Herringthorpe. The notice, issued on 9 October 2025, required the demolition of the building and the removal of all construction materials within two years. The appeal was made under section 174(2)(f) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, arguing that the requirements of the notice were excessive. The Inspector noted that the purpose of the enforcement notice is to remedy the breach of planning control or any injury to amenity caused by it. The appellant withdrew an initial appeal on ground (a), which would have allowed for consideration of the planning merits of the development. The Inspector found insufficient evidence from the appellant to support claims that the steps required were excessive or to propose alternative solutions. Additionally, a related appeal for similar development had been dismissed, reinforcing the lack of planning merit. Consequently, the Inspector concluded that the enforcement notice's requirements were appropriate to remedy the breach. The appeal was ultimately dismissed, with the enforcement notice upheld but corrected to include "without planning permission" in the breach description and to remove the word "permanently" from the compliance requirements.

Appeal Quashed — Buckinghamshire

APP/N0410/C/25/3372061

Land at The North Star, 63 - 67 Thorney Mill Road, Buckinghamshire, SL0 9AH

The appeal decision letter concerns an enforcement notice issued by Buckinghamshire Council against Mr. Daoud Amin for the unauthorized erection of an extension at The North Star pub in Iver. The notice, issued on 17 July 2025, required the demolition of the extension and the removal of debris within six months. The appeal was made on grounds (a), (f), and (g) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The Inspector found that the appeal on ground (a) was barred due to a prior refusal of retrospective planning permission for the same development, which was confirmed by the Council. Consequently, the appeal could only proceed on grounds (f) and (g). Under ground (f), the appellant argued that the requirements of the notice were excessive. However, the Inspector determined that the steps outlined were necessary to remedy the breach of planning control and that no alternative proposals were presented. For ground (g), the appellant sought an extension of the compliance period from six months to twelve months. The Inspector concluded that the demolition of the relatively simple structure could be completed within the six-month timeframe without undue hardship to the pub's operations. Ultimately, the Inspector dismissed the appeal, affirming the enforcement notice's requirements as reasonable and proportionate. No conditions were imposed, and the appellant was required to comply with the original notice within the specified period.