Kaye Bender Rembaum’s Post

Retrospective Dormer Extension Dacorum Council Planning Appeal Case Study. Dacorum Borough Council refused this application 16th February after originally validating it on 10th November. There reasons were stated as; The hip-to-gable roof extension and dormer constructed without consent, by virtue of the massing and bulk, positioning and height, causes significant harm to the residential amenity of No.7 Nettlecroft. The works have resulted in an overbearing and dominant appearance when viewed from the patio of this neighbour, which is also subject to a significant loss of sunlight due to the orientation of the development. Furthermore, the addition of windows at second floor level has resulted in the garden of No.7 being significantly overlooked thereby reducing their amenity to levels below that which they could reasonably expect to enjoy. The proposal is therefore contrary to policy CS12 of the Core Strategy (2013), Saved Appendix 3 of the Dacorum Borough Local Plan (2004) and contrary to paragraph 130 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2021). The Appeal Statement for this case that is shown in the video and was produced specifically to overcome the refusal reasons issued by Dacorum Borough Council for this application. As with many of these types of refusals, the reasons are very subjective and as such require a comprehensive and robust detailed appeal statement. Never under-estimate the level of detail needed, covering policies both locally and nationally and where possible brining other approvals and appeals into the argument. We will explain in the video in more detail what and how to achieve this. The Planning Inspectorate visited the site on 25th July and issued the decision on 31st August. We are pleased to share that this appeal was successful as detailed in the Planning Inspectors report. #development #planning #planningpermission #dacorumcouncil https://lnkd.in/etcUaBJQ

The New Planning and Development Bill 2023 is currently under scrutiny. It is proceeding through the legislative process and currently with the Select Committee on Housing, Local Government, and Heritage. As an Architect and active member of the AEC community, I am asking myself which changes and challenges we will face and deal with. Several aspects of this new piece of legislation are reviewed: Planning application and appeal timelines. Exempted development. Judicial review, and alterations/extensions. And much more. (For those who are interested here: https://lnkd.in/eUDnhZhJ)

Retrospective Dormer Extension Dacorum Council Planning Appeal Case Study. Dacorum Borough Council refused this application 16th February after originally validating it on 10th November. There reasons were stated as; The hip-to-gable roof extension and dormer constructed without consent, by virtue of the massing and bulk, positioning and height, causes significant harm to the residential amenity of No.7 Nettlecroft. The works have resulted in an overbearing and dominant appearance when viewed from the patio of this neighbour, which is also subject to a significant loss of sunlight due to the orientation of the development. Furthermore, the addition of windows at second floor level has resulted in the garden of No.7 being significantly overlooked thereby reducing their amenity to levels below that which they could reasonably expect to enjoy. The proposal is therefore contrary to policy CS12 of the Core Strategy (2013), Saved Appendix 3 of the Dacorum Borough Local Plan (2004) and contrary to paragraph 130 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2021). The Appeal Statement for this case that is shown in the video and was produced specifically to overcome the refusal reasons issued by Dacorum Borough Council for this application. As with many of these types of refusals, the reasons are very subjective and as such require a comprehensive and robust detailed appeal statement. Never under-estimate the level of detail needed, covering policies both locally and nationally and where possible brining other approvals and appeals into the argument. We will explain in the video in more detail what and how to achieve this. The Planning Inspectorate visited the site on 25th July and issued the decision on 31st August. We are pleased to share that this appeal was successful. #planningpermission #extension #appeal https://lnkd.in/ec2XpWRQ

Mark Gauguier, James Bromley and I have written an article for New Civil Engineer exploring the key takeaways of ADAM Architecture and Farrer & Co's Placemaking Two Report. Our article outlines how land stewardship and a patient approach to development can be better integrated into the current planning and tax regimes. If the last few weeks has proved anything, it is that in the run up to the general election, planning reform and the role of placemaking is going to be a key topic of discussion and debate. https://lnkd.in/eKj2bdG5

Retrospective Dormer Extension Dacorum Council Planning Appeal Case Study Dacorum Borough Council refused this application 16th February after originally validating it on 10th November. There reasons were stated as; The hip-to-gable roof extension and dormer constructed without consent, by virtue of the massing and bulk, positioning and height, causes significant harm to the residential amenity of No.7 Nettlecroft. The works have resulted in an overbearing and dominant appearance when viewed from the patio of this neighbour, which is also subject to a significant loss of sunlight due to the orientation of the development. Furthermore, the addition of windows at second floor level has resulted in the garden of No.7 being significantly overlooked thereby reducing their amenity to levels below that which they could reasonably expect to enjoy. The proposal is therefore contrary to policy CS12 of the Core Strategy (2013), Saved Appendix 3 of the Dacorum Borough Local Plan (2004) and contrary to paragraph 130 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2021). The Appeal Statement for this case that is shown in the video and was produced specifically to overcome the refusal reasons issued by Dacorum Borough Council for this application. As with many of these types of refusals, the reasons are very subjective and as such require a comprehensive and robust detailed appeal statement. Never under-estimate the level of detail needed, covering policies both locally and nationally and where possible brining other approvals and appeals into the argument. We will explain in the video in more detail what and how to achieve this. The Planning Inspectorate visited the site on 25th July and issued the decision on 31st August. We are pleased to share that this appeal was successful. https://lnkd.in/etcUaBJQ

Amendments to PD Class MA (Commercial to Residential) to remove requirement for that a building must have been vacant for a continuous period of at least 3 months immediately prior to the date of an application the floorspace upper limit. (Comes into effect on 05 March 2024) https://lnkd.in/dTQH5xsB

Retrospective Dormer Extension Dacorum Council Planning Appeal Case Study Dacorum Borough Council refused this application 16th February after originally validating it on 10th November. There reasons were stated as; The hip-to-gable roof extension and dormer constructed without consent, by virtue of the massing and bulk, positioning and height, causes significant harm to the residential amenity of No.7 Nettlecroft. The works have resulted in an overbearing and dominant appearance when viewed from the patio of this neighbour, which is also subject to a significant loss of sunlight due to the orientation of the development. Furthermore, the addition of windows at second floor level has resulted in the garden of No.7 being significantly overlooked thereby reducing their amenity to levels below that which they could reasonably expect to enjoy. The proposal is therefore contrary to policy CS12 of the Core Strategy (2013), Saved Appendix 3 of the Dacorum Borough Local Plan (2004) and contrary to paragraph 130 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2021). The Appeal Statement for this case that is shown in the video and was produced specifically to overcome the refusal reasons issued by Dacorum Borough Council for this application. As with many of these types of refusals, the reasons are very subjective and as such require a comprehensive and robust detailed appeal statement. Never under-estimate the level of detail needed, covering policies both locally and nationally and where possible brining other approvals and appeals into the argument. We will explain in the video in more detail what and how to achieve this. The Planning Inspectorate visited the site on 25th July and issued the decision on 31st August. We are pleased to share that this appeal was successful. https://lnkd.in/etcUaBJQ

➡ Pilington, Hillside and now Dennis….. fresh interpretations of ‘drop in’ or mutually consistent permissions…   ↪ Many of us will be familiar with Pilkington v Secretary of State for the Environment and Others [1973] 1 WLR 1527 and more recently the Hillside judgement and now there is Aysen Dennis -v- London Borough of Southwark which further addresses the issue of overlapping or drop in permissions on large scale, multi-phase developments. ↪ The Dennis High Court judgement confirmed that the insertion of the word ‘severable’ via s96a (non-material amendment) to the original outline permission (issued in 2015) was unlawful and that the decision by Southwark Council to approve the s96a amendment should be quashed as the original outline planning permission was never constructed to be severable and therefore the amendment was material - and not non-material. ↪ Hon Mr Justice Holgate found that the outline permission must therefore remain unaltered as originally granted in 2015. This case is significant in providing further interpretations of the issue of the matter of severability and provides further complexity to the way amendments re made to large scale developments where permissions have already been granted.  #planning #sites #design #masterplanning #urbandesign

Retrospective Dormer Extension Dacorum Council Planning Appeal Case Study Dacorum Borough Council refused this application 16th February after originally validating it on 10th November. There reasons were stated as; The hip-to-gable roof extension and dormer constructed without consent, by virtue of the massing and bulk, positioning and height, causes significant harm to the residential amenity of No.7 Nettlecroft. The works have resulted in an overbearing and dominant appearance when viewed from the patio of this neighbour, which is also subject to a significant loss of sunlight due to the orientation of the development. Furthermore, the addition of windows at second floor level has resulted in the garden of No.7 being significantly overlooked thereby reducing their amenity to levels below that which they could reasonably expect to enjoy. The proposal is therefore contrary to policy CS12 of the Core Strategy (2013), Saved Appendix 3 of the Dacorum Borough Local Plan (2004) and contrary to paragraph 130 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2021). The Appeal Statement for this case that is shown in the video and was produced specifically to overcome the refusal reasons issued by Dacorum Borough Council for this application. As with many of these types of refusals, the reasons are very subjective and as such require a comprehensive and robust detailed appeal statement. Never under-estimate the level of detail needed, covering policies both locally and nationally and where possible brining other approvals and appeals into the argument. We will explain in the video in more detail what and how to achieve this. The Planning Inspectorate visited the site on 25th July and issued the decision on 31st August. We are pleased to share that this appeal was successful. https://lnkd.in/etcUaBJQ

Retrospective Dormer Extension Dacorum Council Planning Appeal Case Study Dacorum Borough Council refused this application 16th February after originally validating it on 10th November. There reasons were stated as; The hip-to-gable roof extension and dormer constructed without consent, by virtue of the massing and bulk, positioning and height, causes significant harm to the residential amenity of No.7 Nettlecroft. The works have resulted in an overbearing and dominant appearance when viewed from the patio of this neighbour, which is also subject to a significant loss of sunlight due to the orientation of the development. Furthermore, the addition of windows at second floor level has resulted in the garden of No.7 being significantly overlooked thereby reducing their amenity to levels below that which they could reasonably expect to enjoy. The proposal is therefore contrary to policy CS12 of the Core Strategy (2013), Saved Appendix 3 of the Dacorum Borough Local Plan (2004) and contrary to paragraph 130 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2021). The Appeal Statement for this case that is shown in the video and was produced specifically to overcome the refusal reasons issued by Dacorum Borough Council for this application. As with many of these types of refusals, the reasons are very subjective and as such require a comprehensive and robust detailed appeal statement. Never under-estimate the level of detail needed, covering policies both locally and nationally and where possible brining other approvals and appeals into the argument. We will explain in the video in more detail what and how to achieve this. The Planning Inspectorate visited the site on 25th July and issued the decision on 31st August. We are pleased to share that this appeal was successful. https://lnkd.in/etcUaBJQ