Hi AE just seen this thread. Apologies I could have been more use earlier.
The application appears to have been refused under delegated powers i.e. by Officers, so the Planning Committee wouldn't have made a decision. It would have been determined against the local plan and all other material considerations. It looks like the Officer decided it was contrary to the plan (probably policies on design and amenity, the paper mentions unsympathetic and over dominant) and there were no material considerations to the contrary.
The Planning Inspectorate will re-assess against the plan and see if sufficient weight was given to other material considerations. It's about 10 years since I worked in London but developers almost always claim a lack of housing is a material consideration which outweighs any aspects contrary to the plan policies. I generally found the Inspectorate to be fair but you do get the odd head scratcher.
In terms of the fence, you can (or used to) put up a fence up to 1m high within 20m of a road without planning permission. You can also put a hoarding around a lawful development site without permission. This doesn't apply here as they haven't got permission yet . The Council can make them alter it so that meets permitted criteria but the Council also doesn't have to do so.
BTW. Another dirty trick of developers is to dump rubbish, cars etc. on the property to show that instead of being a local asset, it's a liability. We had that one, too.
This doesn't really relate to the case here now, it's just a general point for anyone opposing developers. In our case, we claimed the site was well-kept, which it had been, and the developers dumped a car and a load of rubbish on it.
BTW. Another dirty trick of developers is to dump rubbish, cars etc. on the property to show that instead of being a local asset, it's a liability. We had that one, too.
This doesn't really relate to the case here now, it's just a general point for anyone opposing developers. In our case, we claimed the site was well-kept, which it had been, and the developers dumped a car and a load of rubbish on it.
They cut down the wild flowers on the site and made it look barren.
When we submitted comments to the Planning Inspectorate we noted that and said we've got photos that prove this.
Thanks for the heads up, I've got a feeling this could get nasty if the developers try to do anything on a school day.
So the fence has been ruled as illegally built, they'll be back to redo it properly and this time it looks like we'll know in advance when they are coming.
There will be a welcoming party here for sure.
I've been goading the contractors on Twitter but their only response has been to block me.
A company called Avon Estates bought the leasehold from Barratts then appointed a new management company, which unsurprisingly is part of their group.
Now, under the newish legislation which allows leaseholders to build upwards, they have applied for planning permission to build an extra floor. All very corrupt.
Comment