DLP Planning Ltd (DLP) successfully secured full planning permission for two new dwellings in the Green Belt at planning committee last week, against the Case Officer’s recommendation for refusal. The application site forms part of the landscaped grounds of The Chalet, a large detached Victorian property to the north east of Alveston, South Gloucestershire.
Working in collaboration with Willmore Iles Architects, a high-quality scheme for two detached four bedroom dwellings was produced, making an efficient and imaginative use of the site, whilst protecting the amenity of neighbouring residents.
The site provided a number of significant planning constraints, including its location outside the settlement boundary of Alveston and within the Green Belt. DLP successfully argued that the proposal would constitute limited infilling within the village under NPPF Paragraph 89, because:
It is located within the built up area of Alveston based on the facts on the ground;
It would be consistent with other permissions considered infill by this committee; and
It represents limited harm to the openness of the Green Belt.
The Council’s Core Strategy suggests infill is “The development of a relatively small gap between existing buildings, normally within a built up area”, however DLP argued that the definition was too simplistic to define infill and preserve the openness of the Green Belt.
DLP contended that simplistic guidance based solely on the size of the gap allowed development on sites that represent harmful visible intrusions into the countryside as appropriate infill. Whereas sites that have a negligible impact on openness aren’t considered to be infill simply because the gap is wider than what officers would consider to be “a relatively small gap”. It was argued that what constitutes infill is much more complicated than just the size of the gap and that the facts on the ground, containment, visual intrusion and impact on the character of the settlement should all inform criteria to determine what constitutes infill within a village.
The Planning Committee supported DLP’s view and granted approval.
Image courtesy of Willmore Iles Architects
dlpPlanning permission secured for two new dwellings in the Green Belt
DLP Planning Ltd (DLP) have successfully secured full planning permission for a development of 15 new one bedroom apartments, with associated infrastructure and landscaping adjacent to Aylesbury Town Centre on behalf of our client. The approved development represents a five storey car free scheme with a strong case made for its accessible location in close proximity to bus and train routes. The site, which currently represents a private car park, will be completely re-developed to provide new high quality residential homes, with communal open space and soft landscaping and ample cycle storage.
DLP with the assistance of BE1 Architects overcame a number of key planning challenges including overlooking, massing and day lighting issues. Working in collaboration with Local Planning Authority Officers, the resulting development utilises green walls and modern articulated built form to improve internal and external vistas and enhance the existing street scene, without harming the privacy or amenity of neighbouring properties.
DLP lead the project team and worked in collaboration with a number of consultants to achieve this result, including Energy-Evaluation Services Ltd, who provided advice on the daylight/sunlight issues; critical to the success of the planning application.
John HelyarCar-free Apartments Secured in Aylesbury
DLP Planning Ltd, on behalf of a number of clients are instructed to make representations to the Bedford Borough Local Plan Regulation 19 Consultation.
The Plan, which seeks to make provision for some 19000 new dwellings in the period up to 2035, promotes a strategy of allocating land within the urban area and on its edge, in rural settlements, subject to the sites being identified in Neighbourhood Plans and also a new garden village.
DLP have some concerns over both the quantum of development being identified by the Borough in order to meet its unconstrained housing needs and also in the strategy they are seeking to follow, which it believes is undeliverable.
In particular, DLP have concerns over the deliverability of a number of the urban sites identified for development in the Plan, the speed at which rural sites will come forward, given they are reliant upon Neighbourhood Plans being prepared and adopted, and most importantly the new garden village which is proposed to be located on land between Sharnbrook and Souldrop.
DLP have promoted an alternative new settlement proposal on the part brownfield site at Twinwoods to the north of Bedford. This site was subject to appraisal by the Council, based on an original scoring matrix and was highly scored. That matrix however, was changed by the Council at a very late stage in favour of one that favours non-road transport solutions and the promoters of the Colworth site have proposed to provide for a new parkway station. The policy drafted by the Council for the purposes of the Plan require that the station is both built and in operation before any development takes place on the new village and DLP highlight that there are very significant impediments to this such that it is unlikely that the new village would be delivered and provide any meaningful level of housing in the Plan period.
dlpBedford Borough Local Plan Submission Draft Consultation
The Regulation 19 Central Bedfordshire Council Local Plan closed for comment prior to its submission to the Secretary of State on Thursday 22nd February.
DLP Planning Ltd submitted representations on behalf of a number of clients and made formal objections to the Plan based upon the failure of the Council to properly undertake the Duty to Cooperate and in particular on the assessment of housing requirements, which has been a concern for a number of years, and the broader strategy adopted by the Council which fails to provide for a sustainable, infrastructure led Plan as sought by CBC
CBC proposes to release land sufficient to accommodate 39,350 dwellings, however in a critique of the OAN undertaken by DLP (SPRU), that figure is considered to give rise to a shortfall of over 10,000 dwellings. The Council also propose to increase the allocation via a future review, however DLP have expressed serious concerns as to this approach, which fails to reflect the government advice as set out in the National Framework and PPG to properly meet the housing requirements of the District.
CBC’s own housing requirements are increased as a consequence of its proximity to Luton and the obligation placed on it as a result to accommodate part of Luton’s unmet housing need. This has long been an issue for Central Bedfordshire and two earlier Local Plans have not proceeded as a consequence of this. There are concerns as to the extent CBC have undertaken this and also how it is intended to occur.
DLP promoted a number of development opportunities which have been excluded from the consultation draft Plan. In particular, the concept of major development at Barton le Clay to the north of Luton. Barton lies adjacent to the A6, which is a main strategic transport route which links Luton with Bedford in the north and is a main route way for public transport. DLP have been promoting development at Barton le Clay as part of a strategic sustainable urban expansion for some years and a range of schemes have been advanced, including development of a new garden village of up to 4000 units which would fund the extension of the dualling of the A6 to the north of Barton le Clay through to Silsoe and thus increase capacity
DLP also submitted representations for sustainable extensions to Dunstable and Flitwick as well as a number of smaller sites.
dlpCentral Bedfordshire Local Plan Consultation on Submission Draft
DLP Planning Ltd together with Matrix Transport & Infrastructure Planning Consultants are appealing a decision with Bedford Borough Council to refuse planning permission, contrary to Officers advice, for the creation of additional storage on land currently used for open storage at Crossweir Farm, Souldrop.
DLP have acted on behalf of the owner of the site for over 15 years and in that time has established planning permissions for in excess of 40,000ft2 of storage on the land together with open storage.
The appeal proposal will replace an area of open storage used for storing up to 125 caravans, vans and other vehicles, with three built storage units, purpose designed for the site.
There were no technical or third party objections, and the refusal was led by an interjection from the Ward Councillor who disagreed with both the appellants transport assessment and the analysis of that by Officers.
dlpAppeal Against Planning Application for Extension of Storage Area – Crossweir Farm Farmyard, Souldrop
DLP Planning Ltd have lodged an appeal against the refusal of Central Bedfordshire Council to grant planning permission for the erection of 3 large dwellings on land adjoining within the village of Aspley Guise. The application followed the grant of consent in 2016 for the erection of two 11,000sqft dwellings on the same land. An earlier application for the development had been refused on green belt grounds, however, following further discussion with Officers over what DLP considered was a misinterpretation of guidance, a second application was subsequently approved under delegated powers.
The appeal scheme was for 3 dwellings and provides for 3 smaller detached dwellings (7000ft2) on the same site with a lesser total floor space than that approved. The refusal however was based on impacts on the green belt and DLP in their case will be highlighting the inconsistency in the approach of the Council to this matter.
The appeal is proposed to be heard by way of an Informal Hearing which will take place later in the year.
DLP Planning Ltd are appearing at a Hearing into an appeal brought by Templeview Developments against Broxbourne Borough Council over its refusal of the development of land at St James Road, Goffs Oak. The appeal site comprises a former horticultural nursery but has been used for residential purposes in excess of 20 years.
An application for residential development of the land was made in June 2016 and this was refused solely on green belt grounds. DLP, in the application, argued that the site, which lies within a readily defined residential context and comprises previously developed land, accords with the proper interpretation of paragraph 89 of the Framework.
Subsequent to the refusal and following the lodging of the appeal, Broxbourne Council invited a second application based upon its proposed release of the land from the green belt. Whilst a second application was made, the release of the land was later changed by the Council in favour of other land within the area.
DLP will also be arguing, as they have done successfully elsewhere, that the ruling of the Court of Appeal in the case of Wood v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government  EWCA Civ 195, supports their interpretation, and that similar schemes have been allowed, both within the District and elsewhere on this basis.
dlpGreen Belt Development Goffs Oak, Hertfordshire
DLP Planning Ltd (DLP) have successfully secured full planning permission for a development of nine new 1 and 2 bedroom apartments at a building next to Heathrow Airport on behalf of our client. The approved development is for a two storey upwards extension to the roof of an existing office building that has a separate permission to be converted to 24 apartments, and so in total the scheme will deliver 33 much needed high quality dwellings. The extension takes advantage of the building’s ‘airspace’ and so is an example of the type of development the Government has recently announced their support for.
The site is located within the London Borough of Hillingdon and in November 2017 they enacted an Article 4 Direction to restrict the conversion of office buildings into residential. DLP successfully argued that this restriction did not apply to this building and so that both the consented conversion scheme and associated new development could take place, and also that the design of the scheme was appropriate and would not be harmful to the character of the area or neighbouring properties.
DLP led the project team and worked in collaboration with a number of consultants to achieve this result, including Matrix Transport and Infrastructure Consultants Ltd and Energy-Evaluation Services Ltd, who provided advice on transport and daylight/sunlight issues respectively, two maters that were critical to the success of the planning application.”
John HelyarPlanning permission granted for new apartments next to Heathrow Airport
An Appeal has been allowed at Land to the North of Longcliffe Road, Grantham, Lincolnshire for a sustainable urban extension of up to 480 dwellings, a neighbourhood centre, a single form entry primary school, ancillary public open space and associated works.
The main issues considered by the Inspector were what effect, if any, there would be on the settings of nearby heritage assets and whether the proposed development would make adequate provision in respect of local infrastructure, including matters such as affordable housing.
Roland Bolton of SPRU provided advice to the Appellant on the five year housing land supply position of the Council. In their evidence, the Council conceded that they were unable to demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites. As such, Paragraph 49 of the Framework relating to housing land supply ‘triggers’ Paragraph 14 of the Framework in respect of sustainable development and decision-taking.
The appeal was allowed on 19th January 2017.
dlpAppeal allowed at Land to the North of Longcliffe Road, Grantham, Lincolnshire
The Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications, Deemed Applications, Requests and Site Visits) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2017 (“the 2017 Regulations”) were laid before Parliament on the 20th December and comes into effect on the 17th January 2018. The 2017 Regulations amend the Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications, Deemed Applications, Requests and Site Visits) (England) Regulations 2012 (“the 2012 Regulations”).
The 2017 Regulations increases all existing planning application fees by approximately 20%. This increase also applies to deemed applications, requests or site visits. The increase was offered by Government to all local planning authorities if they agreed that the additional money would be re-invested within their planning department. All local planning authorities accepted the offer, which whilst requiring that the money is invested within their planning departments, does not require that it relates directly to their Development Control / Management sections.
The Planning Portal’s full schedule of planning fees will be issued shortly. Some key revised figures are set out below by way of an example:
Type of Development
Extension to dwelling
Variation of planning condition
Another significant change of the 2017 Regulations is an amendment that will require a fee to be paid where a planning application has to be made for planning permission for a form of development that would otherwise have been ‘Permitted Development’ but is not because of anArticle 4 Direction or planning condition on a previous planning permission. Previously, such applications were exempt from the requirement to pay.
The 2017 Regulations also introduce new fees and make a number of other changes, including:
A fee of £402 for each 0.1 hectare of the site area for Permission in Principle developments;
Introduction of a fee for a prior approval in relation to the new permitted development rights that were introduced in the 2017 amendments to the General Permitted Development Order; and
Enables Mayoral development corporations and urban development corporations to charge for the provision of pre-application advice in their areas.
With regards to the transitional arrangements, these provide that the changes made by the Regulations, including the increased fees and the introduction of new fee will only apply where an application has been made on or after the coming into force date of these Regulations. There is no definition of what constitutes a ‘made’ application in terms of it being valid or not. We are aware of at least one authority whose view is that if an application is submitted before the 17th but is invalid, if it is then made valid (for example, through the submission of additional information) on or after the 17th, it will be subject to the increased fees. This should be considered in the context of making applications in the transitional period.
If you require any further advice regarding the above, please do not hesitate to contact one of the offices listed below.
John HelyarPlanning Application Fee Increases Come Into Effect Today