Refused Planning – Appeal Case Studies

Plande have been involved with challenging numerous refused planning permissions whether for full planning applications, variation of condition application or for many other reasons that LPA’s issue planning refusals.

Please see our Planning Appeals page for further information on the different types of appeal as well as the services that we offer.

Submitting a planning appeal is not always the best option and should be considered as part of an overall strategy and review which could including an amended design or the re-submission of applications to address the LPA’s concerns.

We have a wide variety of experience of obtaining planning consent both following a planning refusal or when the LPA suggest they will refuse a scheme, including for Green Belt replacement dwellings and Paragraph 55 homes among many others.

Please contact us to discuss your particular issue. For a free no obligation quotation please complete our short form here.


Planning Appeal Case Studies

The following case studies provide a small sample of appeals we have been involved with.

Speculative Residential Development - refused planning permission appeal

Appeal for a 3 dwelling, speculative residential development, North Wales

A speculative residential development of 3 detached dwellings was proposed on a long thin site, fronting onto a main road, with a single storey dwelling to the front of the site and two 4 bed dwellings to the rear.

Following frustrated planning discussions, the planning application was recommended for refusal on several grounds including harming the character and the appearance of the area, failure to comply with supplementary planning guidance, overlooking distances, backland development and harming the amenity of neighbouring properties and ultimately the LPA refused planning permission.

In a carefully developed and robust argument, our case was put forward in relation to all of the above points, with the Planning Inspector agreeing with our interpretation of planning policies and crucially that they should not be rigidly applied.

Local Planning Authority: Flintshire County Council

see also: Speculative Residential Development; Backland & Tandem Development; Garden Land Developments; Small housing sites; Infill plots

Backland Development - refused planning permission

Appeal for a self build house, backland development, South Manchester

Planning permission had been sought on the backland site on three separate occasions, with two earlier planning appeals rejected. The proposals sought to develop a single new build dwelling on garden land to the rear of numerous dwellings in a suburban setting. The refused planning application was subject to strong neighbour objections and was unanimously refused by the planning committee on several grounds including the living conditions of the neighbouring properties, especially in relation to the increased vehicular and pedestrian activity. A further planning refusal reason was that emergency vehicles would be hindered in case of a fire at the property.

The subsequent grounds of appeal document methodically resolved each item of concern, specifically including third party additional material to support the issues and robustly justifying the proposals in planning policy and supplementary guidance terms.

The Local Planning Authority had also proposed, that should the appeal be allowed that several conditions be added, including the removal of permitted development rights. Our arguments, supported by the Planning Inspector concluded that these would not be “necessary or reasonable”.

The Planning Inspector concluded that the proposals would not be contrary to planning policy, would have no harm on neighbouring properties (amenity, noise and disturbance), and following us obtaining approval from the local fire department, that there was no issue in relation to emergency vehicles. As such the appeal was allowed, overturning the original refused planning permission.

Local Planning Authority: Trafford Council

see also: Self Build Homes; Backland & Tandem Development; Garden Land Developments

Variation & Removal of condition appeal against refused planning permission

Appeal against Planning Approval subject to Onerous Conditions – North East

Outline Planning approval was granted, following protracted planning negotiations, for a substantial 160 bedroom extension to an existing hotel in the North East of England, subject to a number of planning conditions that were felt to be onerous, including placing restrictions on the site that had not been there before the planning approval and in relation to the protection of the adjoining Green Belt. The conditions also placed unnecessary control on the construction method of working as well as on the height of development.

A written representation planning appeal was submitted which successfully argued each point and prevented substantial costs and limitations of the future reserved matters application and construction phase.

The planning inspector commented that the proposed conditions were not necessary, not reasonable, misleading and did not meet the tests required for planning conditions, including that of precision and clarity.

Local Planning Authority: Newcastle City Council

see also: Variation/ Removal of Planning Conditions; Green Belt; C1 Hotels; Outline Planning Application

Houses outside of settlement boundary

Houses outside of recognised settlement boundary

The greenfield housing scheme was located outside of the recognised settlement boundary of a large village and adjacent to the Conservation Area. The application was refused planning permission on several grounds including precedent, the living conditions of neighbouring properties, highways and noise disturbance.

The Planning Inspector agreed that the precedent should not be a concern for the appeal and that the scheme should not have been refused planning on noise disturbance grounds.

We successfully argued that the proposals did not conflict with either the local plan or the NPPF with the Inspector stating, “I do not find that there would be harm to the living conditions of existing neighbouring occupiers”.

We also successfully argued the points regarding the Conservation Area with the Planning Inspector commenting “I cannot see how there would be any significant effect on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area“.

Local Planning Authority: Breckland Council

see also: outside of settlement boundaries; five year housing land supply; C3; conservation areas

A3 Restaturant appeal against refused planning permission

Change of Use of Grade II Listed Church to A3 Use (restaurant and wine bar)

The existing edge of town centre building, in North Wales, had become redundant and a new sustainable use was sought. The proposals met with substantial local objections including Local Councillors using the local press to influence the decision. The Council refused planning permission on the grounds that the application proposals would have an adverse effect on the free flow of traffic and highway safety and that it would have a detrimental affect on the viability and vitality of the town centre.

The planning appeal was submitted and successfully justified the various refusal reasons, including the Councils suggestion that the change of use would have a detrimental effect on the viability of the town. The Planning Inspector accepted all of our arguments and the appeal was allowed.

Local Planning Authority: Denbighshire County Council

see also: Listed Building Consent; A3 Restaurants/ Cafes; D2 Assembly & Leisure; A4 Drinking Establishments; Change of Use; Community Facilities; Historic Buildings & Heritage

Planning Enforcement Appeal

Award of costs against the Local Planning Authority

An appeal against an Enforcement Action served on our client awarded costs against the Council for “unreasonable behaviour resulting in unnecessary expense”. We successfully argued that there were significant issues with the issuing of the planning refusal notice as well as the process of dealing with the enforcement issues which the Planning Inspectorate agreed with. As part of the process, the Council had sought to amend the enforcement notice which they did not have the power to do. We also argued that the LPA had undertaken the enforcement action under the wrong section of the Town and Country Planning Act and that the time for remedying the situation was too short.

Local Planning Authority: London Borough of Brent

see also: House Extension

Listed Building Appeal

Extension to Grade II Listed Building following refused planning consent.

The Council refused planning permission on several grounds including the impact on the character of the Conservation Area and the designs having a detrimental impact on the Grade II Listed Building. We successfully argued that the proposals would bring a degree of cohesion and balance to the later additions and that the design would not affect their historical legibility or harm any original fabric. The Planning Inspector agreed that the original layout of the building has been substantially altered and that the designs would not lead to “incongruent additions“. In relation to the Conservation Area, the Council had argued that the proposals would cause inherent harm, however, the Planning Inspector disagreed and confirmed our understanding of policy and agreed that the proposals would preserve the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

Local Planning Authority: Trafford Council

see also: Listed Building Consent, Conservation Area

Rural Business Appeal

Appeal for an Agricultural training/ teaching facility

The Council refused planning permission on several grounds including the principle of development in its rural location as well as the effect of the design on the character of the site and area. A unique proposal, which received substantial local and national support, for an agricultural training facility focusing on the production of food and the care and welfare of farm animals. With regards to the design of the scheme, we successfully argued against the Council’s view that the buildings were too large to fit with the prevailing rural character with the Inspector agreeing that the buildings “would appear well suited to their purpose and not unusual for agricultrual buildings” and concluded that the proposals would not harm the character and appearance of the area.

Local Planning Authority: Fylde Council

see also: Rural Development; Agricultural; D2 Use

B2/ B8 industrial storage appeal

Planning refused for a B2/ B8 Industrial building

Planning Permission was refused for the erection of a B2 / B8 unit to the rear of existing buildings to facilitate the continued success of the business. The main issues were the impact on the living conditions of the adjoining neighbours. 

The Planning Inspectorate agreed with us that the neighbours didn’t have a right to a view and that due to the siting and lower level of the building that there would not be any significant impact on light levels. With regards to the noise issues raised by the neighbours and Council, the Inspector stated that these could be dealt with via appropriately worded planning conditions.


Local Planning Authority: South Lakeland District Council

see also: B2 Industrial; B8 Storage & Distribution; Rural Development

Granny Annex appeal against refused planning permission

Resubmission and Approval of previously refused application. Cheshire

The initial application for a Change of use/ conversion from granny annex to self contained residential dwelling house was refused planning permission on several grounds. The client sought to convert the existing building into a new house that could be used independently and sold as a family home.

Following a review of the existing application, we concluded that a negotiation and resubmission at the local level stood a greater chance of success. It was noted that an appeal could still have been submitted should this not have been the case.

We created a robust justification for the proposals and pre-application resolved the previous refusal reasons which included highways and parking issues. The application was subsequently recommended for approval subject to a Section 106 agreement for a financial contribution to open space provision within the area.

We successfully argued for a removal of this requirement and the application was subsequently approved with no financial contribution requirement, saving our client several thousand pounds and allowing the property to be sold, creating a substantial profit.

Local Planning Authority: Trafford Council

see also: Annexes; Planning Contributions; Self Build Homes; House Extensions

raising roof appeal against planning refusal

Proposals including raising of ridge line and dormer Loft Conversion. St. Albans

The planning application was refused planning permission on several grounds, including that the proposals would “… adversely affect the amenities of the occupiers of the adjoining property” due to the close proximity, visual intrusion and loss of privacy. We successfully convinced the Planning Inspectorate that the additional of first floor accommodation as well as increasing the roof was acceptable and should be allowed.

Local Planning Authority: St. Albans City & District Council

see also: House Extensions

Grade 1 Listed Building appeal against planning refusal

Single Storey Side Extension adjacent to Conservation Area and Grade 1 Listed Church, Cheshire

The planning application for a domestic extension was initially refused planning consent due to the LPA’s view that it would cause detrimental harm to the Conservation area and adjacent Grade 1 listed church. We successfully argued that this was not the case through the Householder Appeal Service. The Planning Inspectorate agreed that the extension would not materially harm the Conservation Area or Grade 1 Listed Church and stated: ” I find the design of the appeal proposal to be acceptable in terms of the setting of the Church and the impact upon the character and appearance of the Conservation Area”.

Local Planning Authority: Cheshire East Council

see also: Listed Buildings; House Extensions; Conservation Areas

householder appeal against planning refusal

Appeal and subsequent approval, Substantial Remodelling and Extensions. Dorset

Prior to contacting us, the householder had previously received two planning refusals for the substantial remodelling of and extensions to their detached dormer bungalow. The applications were refused for many reasons including proximity, over dominating and over bearing effect to the adjacent property, scale, massing, height and bulk.

As part of the strategy a planning appeal was submitted to argue each individual element whilst considering a more appropriate design and resubmission of a fresh planning application.

The Planning Inspector agreed with the majority of the arguments put forward, albeit a small single storey side section which wasn’t critical to the revised design, and this gave us a good starting point for negotiations with the planning department.

Planning approval was subsequently granted for a revised scheme, with more efficient and appropriate designs, which increased the scale of the extension by approximately 9% from the refused schemes.

Local Planning Authority: West Dorset District Council

see also: House Extensions; Rural Developments

apartments appeal against planning refusal

Appeal and parallel approval for Apartment in Conservation Area, Liverpool

Situated within a Conservation Area of Liverpool, our client owned a large detached Victorian property comprising 7 apartments. The refused planning scheme sought to reconfigure and substantially extend the property to create a new two bedroomed apartment. The Planning Inspector agreed with our argument that the proposed works would not harm the living conditions or neighbouring occupiers, would not have an overbearing or dominant impact on the outlook of neighbouring properties, would not have an adverse affect on the residential amenity and would comply with the relevant planning policy, contradicting the LPA’s reason for refusal.

In parallel with the planning appeal process, we worked with the client and LPA to redesign the refused planning scheme and ultimately this received planning approval. The revised scheme had several improvements from the refused scheme including a better outlook and daylighting from the main living spaces and bedrooms, a proper secure and private entrance as well as private external amenity space which was achievable within the original scheme. It is proposed that the revised scheme would create a higher value for the client whilst generally being more cost effective to construct.

Local Planning Authority: Liverpool City Council

see also: House Extensions; Rural Developments

Paragraph 79 (Para 55) Home appeal

Approval following planning refusal for a Paragraph 79 (previously 55) Home

Following receipt of the refused planning decision, our clients approached us submit a planning appeal to challenge the reasons for refusal. Following a review of the reasons for refusal we advised that it the application stood more change of approval by resubmitting with a new planning application allowing us to address the various issues, including design, highways and TPO’s. We worked with the design team and supporting consultants to present the scheme to the Council which then granted approval. The approval time frame was substantially quicker than a planning appeal would have taken and allowed us to address and negotiate a successful outcome. For more information please see our dedicated Paragraph 79 page which highlights several schemes that have been approved, including overturning previous refusals, obtaining approval following a recommendation for refusal and successfully persuading the Planning Committee to support the design.

Local Planning Authority: Breckland Council

see also: Paragraph 79 Homes; Self-Build Homes, Rural Developments; infill plots; greenfield development; outside of settlement boundary

RSS Planning Resource Appeals Casebook RSS Feed

  • Equine paddocks defined as previously developed land
    Four dwellings have been approved on the edge of an Oxfordshire village with no conflict with the adopted settlement strategy for the area and no harm to its character and appearance or setting of the village.
  • Extensions built prior to multiple occupancy use ruled lawful
    A certificate of lawful development has been granted for roof extensions and a single storey rear extension at a dwelling in east Sussex after an inspector determined they were lawfully built under the GPDO 2015 and were not part of the change of use of the property to a house in multiple occupation.

For a free no-obligation quotation – please complete your details below.


Your Name (required)

Your Email (required)

Local Planning Authority (required)

Planning Reference (required)

Do you have any supporting information that might be useful?

Where did you hear about us?

I have read and agree to the Terms of Service, and my personal data being stored and used (including to receive commercial offers in relation to our services to you). I confirm that I am over 18.

Share this page:

Follow by Email


This page provides an introduction only and is not a definitive statement of the law and should therefore not be relied upon.
The information above relates to England only. Policies across the rest of the UK may differ.
Contact your Local Planning Authority for advice and confirmation before any works are carried out.