Find planning appeals in seconds

Appeal Part Allowed — the UK

APP/P4605/C/25/3372003

61 Hagley Road West, B17 8AE

The appeal decision concerns an enforcement notice issued by Birmingham City Council against Yasser Gulraiz for the unauthorized installation of front gates and boundary walls at 61 Hagley Road West. The main issues addressed were whether the construction constituted a breach of planning control, the appropriateness of the enforcement notice's requirements, and the compliance period. The Inspector found that the front wall and gates exceeded the permitted height of 1 meter adjacent to a highway, thus constituting a breach of planning control. The appellant argued that the development was permitted under the General Permitted Development Order; however, the Inspector concluded that the height limitation applied, and the construction did not comply with the Order. The appeal on this ground failed. Regarding the appeal on the grounds of excessive requirements (ground f), the Inspector acknowledged that while the enforcement notice required the demolition of all boundary walls and gates, it was imprecise. The requirement was varied to allow for the potential reconstruction of the front boundary in accordance with previously approved plans, while excluding the shared side walls from demolition. On the compliance period (ground g), the Inspector agreed that the original three-month period was insufficient and extended it to six months to allow for necessary adjustments. In conclusion, the enforcement notice was upheld with modifications, allowing for the possibility of reconstructing the front boundary wall and gates to comply with planning regulations within a six-month timeframe.

Planning appeal — Edinburgh

CLUD-230-2376

Pf1, Edinburgh, EH3 9JZ

The appeal decision letter pertains to a Certificate of Lawful Use and Development (CLUD) for the property located at PF1 10 Drumdryan Street, Edinburgh. The appeal was submitted by Ms. R Bodnarova but was deemed out of time by the Planning and Environmental Appeals Division (DPEA). The main issue addressed in the letter is the timeliness of the appeal submission. According to the Town and Country Planning (Appeals) (Scotland) Regulations 2013, appeals must be submitted within three months of the decision notice from the planning authority, in this case, the City of Edinburgh Council. The appeal was received on 17 August 2026, which exceeded the stipulated timeframe. The key argument presented by the DPEA is that they have no authority to accept late appeals, regardless of the circumstances surrounding the delay. The Reporter's reasoning is straightforward: adherence to procedural deadlines is critical in the planning process, and the DPEA is bound by regulations that do not allow for exceptions to this rule. As a result, the final decision is that the appeal is not accepted due to its late submission. The letter concludes with a note that a copy will be sent to the planning authority for their information, reinforcing the procedural transparency of the decision-making process.

Appeal Split Decision — Edinburgh

ENA-230-2460

Flat 1F2, Edinburgh, EH10 4ER

The appeal decision from the Planning and Environmental Appeals Division concerns an enforcement notice issued by the City of Edinburgh Council against Annie Harper for the unauthorized use of a residential flat as a short-term let. The main issues addressed in the appeal were whether the use constituted a breach of planning control, whether the steps required by the notice were excessive, and whether the compliance period was reasonable. The Reporter concluded that the use of the property as a short-term let did indeed represent a material change of use, as it commenced after the establishment of the Edinburgh Short-term Let Control Area, thus constituting a breach of planning control. The appeal under ground (c) failed as the appellant could not demonstrate that the use was lawful. Similarly, the appeal under ground (f) was unsuccessful because the Reporter found that the cessation of the short-term letting was necessary to remedy the breach and its impact on local amenity. However, the appeal under ground (g) succeeded, as the Reporter acknowledged the appellant's concerns regarding the one-month compliance period. Considering the timing of the decision relative to the busy summer festival period and existing bookings, the Reporter varied the enforcement notice to extend the compliance period to two months. In conclusion, the enforcement notice was upheld, but the compliance timeframe was amended to two months, allowing for a fair balance between the appellant's interests and the concerns of local residents.

Appeal Part Allowed — BURTON-ON-TRENT

APP/B3410/C/25/3376066

A Core Pole Fitness Centre, BURTON-ON-TRENT, DE14 1JE

The appeal decision concerns an enforcement notice issued by East Staffordshire Borough Council regarding the installation of a metal roller-shutter door at 171 High Street, Burton upon Trent. The notice, issued on 4 July 2025, required the removal of the door and restoration of the building to its prior condition within two months. The appeal was made by Mrs. Susan Bond under grounds (f) and (g) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Ground (f) argued that the steps required by the notice exceeded what was necessary to remedy the breach. The Inspector concluded that the removal of the door and associated parts was essential to achieve compliance and that any lesser steps would not suffice, thus dismissing this ground. Ground (g) contended that the compliance period was too short. The Inspector found that two months was adequate for the removal and repair work, noting that the appellant had previously suggested delaying enforcement pending a planning application, which had not been submitted. The Inspector determined that there was no justification for extending the compliance period given the ongoing harm from the unauthorized installation. Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed, and the enforcement notice was upheld, with a minor correction made to the wording of the breach from "doors" to "door." The Inspector emphasized the necessity of compliance to remedy the breach of planning control.

Appeal Quashed — the UK

251 Wightman Road, N8 0NB

The appeal decision concerns an enforcement notice issued by the London Borough of Haringey against Mr. John Andrews for the unauthorized change of use of a property at 251 Wightman Road from a single-family dwelling (Use Class C3) to a House in Multiple Occupation (Use Class C4). The notice, issued on 13 February 2026, requires the cessation of the HMO use within nine months. The main issue raised by the appellant was the request for an extension of the compliance period to 12 months, citing existing tenants and their need for time to find alternative accommodation. However, the Inspector noted the absence of documentary evidence supporting the existence of tenancy agreements. Furthermore, the Inspector highlighted that the appeal process had already allowed approximately five months of suspended enforcement action, resulting in a total of 14 months available for compliance, which exceeds the requested extension. The Inspector concluded that there was insufficient justification to extend the compliance period further, emphasizing the need to address the harm caused by the unauthorized use promptly. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the enforcement notice was upheld without any variations. The decision underscores the importance of compliance with planning regulations and the need for timely resolution of unauthorized uses.