South: Unfair planning-permission rejections predicted to hit 20,000 households
Local councils’ ‘computer-says-no’ attitude reportedly led to 18,500 unfair planning-permission rejections last year – a figure which is set to increase in 2016 if likely changes to planning law come to fruition, according to householder appeals specialist Just Planning.
The company has a 71% success rate in defending homeowners from the unjust decisions of council planning officers – who it equates to the Carol Beer character from 'Little Britain', famous for dismissing customers with the phrase ‘computer says no’.
Only 2,190 households managed to overcome these officers last year by successfully appealing to the national Planning Inspectorate on their own, thereby avoiding the significant costs of tearing down an extension or moving home.
However, Just Planning expects the number of unfair rejections to hit almost 20,000 households in 2016, a figure that will dramatically increase even further in 2017 if changes to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), currently under debate, are enacted later this year.
It believes these changes will further complicate the UK’s chaotic system of local planning rules, overload planning officers and confuse householders. Households could also see a rise in the cost of applying for planning permission under recently-released government proposals.
Martin Gaine, CEO of Just Planning, said: "Further changes to national planning policy will only frustrate the system’s already fragmented, light-touch approach to applications. Overworked planning officers who are confused between national and local planning policy tend to reject applications out-of-hand based on dated rules. But households who are strapped for space or cannot afford to move should not take this lying down.
The top five reasons for successful appeals:
1. Case officer errors
The erroneous or inflexible view of individual case officers is the basis for the majority of successful appeals, who have cited out-of-date policies in conflict with national planning policy or who have failed to objectively assess a submission.Â
2. Flawed design aesthetics
A specific council may take objection to the aesthetics of an extension, such as non-uniform plaster or bricks used in its construction. However, due to the subjective nature of these decisions, councils have a particularly weak record on appeal where design is the main issue. Such cases accounted for 24% of Just Planning appeals in 2015.
3. Amenity impact
The ‘Amenity Impact’ on neighbours, such as adverse noise or blockage of natural light is often cited by planners in rejections. Many applications fall foul of the ‘45 Degree Rule’: this dictates an extension must not intersect a line drawn at 45 degrees from a neighbour’s window. However it may be argued the window is not in common use and will not affect a neighbour’s ‘amenity’. Such cases accounted for 17% of Just Planning appeals in 2015.
4. Council-specific rules
A specific council’s rules on certain parameters have been violated. Success in this kind of appeal depends on how strong and recent the policy is and whether it has been successfully challenged at appeal previously. Such cases accounted for 14% of Just Planning appeals in 2015.
5. Universal principles
Basic universal principles common across all councils may have been ignored; for example, almost all councils dictate a double-storey side extension needs to be set back a metre from the front of a main residence, so that it looks subordinate. In such cases, Just Planning advises changing and resubmitting the application.Â
Even though approximately 90% of applications are granted nationally, there is a wide discrepancy in the number of cases granted by local planners, with the lowest (Newham council in London) granting only 53% of cases and six councils granting 100%.
