Planning Appeals
Planning Permission Appeals
Case Study: Overturning a Planning Refusal for a 7-Person HMO at 27 High Bank, Manchester
Outcome: Planning Appeal
Case Study: Overturning a Planning Refusal for a 7-Person HMO at 27 High Bank, Manchester
Client: Private Developer Location: High Bank, Manchester
Project: Change of use from a 4-bedroom C3 dwellinghouse to a 6-bedroom, 7-person Sui Generis Large House in Multiple Occupation (HMO).
Date of Initial Refusal: September 24, 2024
Service Provided by HAD & Co: Planning Appeal Services
The Challenge: Unjustified Refusal of a Much-Needed Housing Solution
Our client sought to convert a 4-bedroom dwellinghouse at High Bank, Manchester, into a 6-bedroom, 7-person HMO. This conversion aimed to provide diverse, affordable housing options in an area with rising demand. However, Manchester City Council refused the planning application on September 24, 2024.
The Council's primary reasons for refusal, referencing Core Strategy Policies DM1, SP1, H11, T2, and Unitary Development Plan saved policy DC26, centered on:
Intensification: Concerns about increased noise, activity, and waste generation.
Internal Space Quality: Belief that the proposal would result in "over-intensive use" and "substandard living accommodation."
Parking: Apprehensions regarding inadequate parking arrangements leading to increased on-street parking demand.
This refusal presented a significant hurdle for our client, threatening to block a valuable contribution to the local housing market.
Our Strategy: A Meticulous and Policy-Driven Appeal
HAD & Co was engaged to challenge the refusal. Our approach was to systematically dissect each of the Council's objections, presenting factual counterarguments, demonstrating policy compliance, and highlighting the undeniable benefits of the proposed development.
Debunking Intensification Concerns:Noise and Activity: We argued that the council's concerns were "presumptuous" and unquantified. The property's semi-detached nature inherently provides a degree of noise separation. Furthermore, a 6-bed, 7-person HMO (including a bedsit likely for a couple) was demonstrably less intensive than a 7-bedroom, 7-individual HMO, and comparable in occupancy to a large single-family dwelling (which could house more than 7 people without planning scrutiny).Waste Generation: We highlighted the flexibility of outdoor space at the property for additional bins, ensuring waste management would not negatively impact residential amenity.
Championing Quality Internal Space:The Council incorrectly assessed the top-floor bedsit against flat standards (50m2) rather than HMO bedsit standards (24.15m2), which the proposed 28.2m2 comfortably exceeded.We showcased that all five single-occupancy bedrooms exceeded the minimum 10.22m2 space standards and featured en-suites (or dedicated bathrooms), providing superior privacy and living quality compared to many shared HMOs.The provision of ample communal space and significant basement storage further negated claims of "over-intensive use" or "substandard living."
Addressing Parking and Transport:We countered the claim of existing street parking difficulties by noting the lack of restrictions and ample available on-street parking in the area.Crucially, we emphasized the property's excellent proximity to strong transport links and the provision of an 8-bike cycle store, which incentivizes sustainable transport. We also highlighted that HMO tenants, seeking affordable options, are often less likely to own cars.The appeal demonstrated that the proposal fully conformed to Policy T2 regarding parking, particularly given its "minor change of use" status.
Demonstrating Policy Compliance and Community Benefits:SP1 (Core Development Principles): We showed the proposal's alignment by reusing developed land, having minimal external changes (protecting local character), and providing housing within easy reach of jobs, services, and transport.H11 (Housing): We confirmed that no other HMO licenses existed in the postcode, meaning the proposal would not contribute to an over-concentration and would not threaten the supply of family housing. Instead, it would add to affordable housing choices.DM1 (Development Management): We explained how the proposal met criteria for appropriate siting, impact on surrounding areas, amenity (e.g., improved disability access with ground floor amenities), and refuse storage.DC26 (Noise): We outlined mitigating factors such as the semi-detached nature, absence of extensions, and the large internal spaces to absorb noise. Furthermore, HAD & Co committed to implementing professional property management, Anti-Social Behaviour Policies, tenancy agreements, and necessary HMO upgrades (including potential sound insulation) to proactively manage any noise concerns.
Highlighting Additional Positive Impacts:The HMO would offer much-needed diverse and affordable housing options, especially for those seeking short-term or flexible living arrangements.Required HMO upgrades would significantly enhance fire safety and security for both tenants and neighboring properties.
The Winning Outcome: A Successful Appeal and Enhanced Housing Provision
Through a detailed, evidence-backed "Grounds of Appeal" document and strategic advocacy, HAD & Co successfully convinced the planning authority that the initial reasons for refusal were "presumptuous" and lacked sufficient justification. The appeal demonstrated that the proposal fully aligned with planning policies, addressed all concerns proactively, and offered significant community benefits without detrimental impact.
The appeal was granted, allowing our client to proceed with the conversion of 27 High Bank into a thriving 7-person HMO.
Why Choose HAD & Co for Your Planning Appeal?
This case study exemplifies HAD & Co's expertise in navigating complex planning regulations and successfully overturning challenging refusals. When your project faces obstacles, HAD & Co offers:
Analysis: Thorough deconstruction of refusal reasons and policy interpretation.
Strategic: Crafting compelling, evidence-based arguments that address specific concerns.
Proven Success: A track record of achieving positive outcomes for our clients.
Don't let a planning refusal be the final word on your development ambitions. Contact HAD & Co today to discuss how our planning appeal services can help you achieve your project goals.
Case Study: Securing Approval for a Vital Children's Home Expansion
Outcome: Planning Appeal UPHELD,
Case Study: Securing Approval for a Vital Children's Home Expansion
Project: Planning Appeal for the expansion/change of use of a Children's Residential Home.
The Challenge: Addressing a Critical Need Against Local Objections
Our client, a dedicated provider of residential care for vulnerable children, sought planning permission to expand their established children's home – [mention the type of home from Ofsted, e.g., 'a home for up to four children with social and/or emotional difficulties']. This expansion was crucial to address the severe and increasing shortage of suitable placements for children looked after (CLA) in England, particularly within the local authority of Lancashire.
Despite the proven track record of excellent care (as evidenced by their 'Good' Ofsted report – Appendix 1), the local planning authority refused the application. The primary reasons for refusal typically revolve around concerns about residential amenity, perceived 'over-concentration' of care facilities, and a challenge to the demonstrable local need.
Our Strategic Approach: Leveraging Data and Policy to Prove Overriding Public Benefit
Our team understood that to overturn this decision, we needed an irrefutable argument that transcended local objections by highlighting the critical and systemic public benefit of the proposed development. We meticulously built our case using a combination of national statistics, specific local authority data, and the client's exemplary operational standards.
Demonstrating Urgent National and Local Need (Appendices 2, 3, 3a):We presented compelling national statistics (from the GOV.UK "Children looked after in England" report for 2021 – Appendix 2) showing that the number of Children Looked After (CLA) by local authorities in England had risen to a high of 80,850 in 2021, an increase of 1% on the previous year. This demonstrated a clear and continuing national pressure for placements.We then drilled down into the detailed data for local authorities across England (from the excel file, Appendix 3/3a). This allowed us to highlight the specific rates of children looked after within Lancashire County Council and neighboring regions. This crucial evidence illustrated that the demand was not an abstract national issue but a tangible, local crisis.
Highlighting the Local Authority's Own Admissions of Shortfall (Appendix 4):Perhaps the most potent evidence came directly from Lancashire County Council's own "Children's Residential Provider engagement" document (Appendix 4). This document candidly revealed:The Authority made 200 children's home placements for 147 young people in a single 12-month period (Dec 2019-Nov 2020), indicating a high volume of need.Plans to expand the in-house children's residential service to 16 homes, acknowledging a strategic need for more capacity.Crucially, they identified "hard to find placement searches," with a significant percentage referencing emotional/mental health needs, aggressive behaviours, risk of harm to other young people, and self-harm. This underlined the need for specialised and smaller-sized homes that could cater to complex needs effectively – precisely what our client's proposal offered.The document also noted an increase in the average weekly cost of agency children's home placements for Lancashire children, further highlighting the economic and social pressure of insufficient local provision.
Showcasing the Quality of Care (Appendix 1):Our argument was reinforced by the client's "Good" Ofsted inspection report (Appendix 1). This official assessment confirmed the home provided effective services, with "good" overall experiences and progress for children, "good" safeguarding, and "good" leadership. We emphasized that this wasn't just any expansion, but an expansion of a high-quality, well-managed facility that genuinely improves children's lives. The report's mention of a "homely feel" and children personalising their bedrooms directly countered any negative perceptions of institutional care.
The Result: A Victory for Vulnerable Children and Strategic Planning
By systematically presenting this comprehensive body of evidence, we were able to demonstrate to the Planning Inspectorate that the need for our client's expanded children's home was not only justified but critical for the well-being of vulnerable children in the region. We proved that the proposal aligned with the broader public interest and directly addressed documented shortfalls in local provision, outweighing any local concerns.
The Planning Inspectorate upheld our appeal, granting permission for the expansion. This successful outcome was a testament to our firm's ability to navigate complex planning policies, gather and interpret detailed data, and articulate a compelling case that prioritised the welfare of children.
Why Choose Us for Your Planning Appeal?
This case exemplifies how our deep understanding of both planning legislation and sector-specific evidence enables us to achieve success where others might face refusal. When the stakes are high, and planning decisions are critical, our expertise ensures your case is presented with precision, authority, and an unwavering focus on achieving a positive outcome.
Case Study: Navigating Non-Determination and Securing a Planning Appeal
Outcome: Planning Appeal UPHELD,
Local Planning Authority (LPA): Bolton Council A
Project: Partial change of use of a rear commercial unit into a self-contained flat (C3), including a first-floor rear extension and loft conversion to form a habitable room at [Redacted Address], Bolton.
Service Provided by HAD & Co: Planning Appeal Services for Non-Determination
The Challenge: A Project Trapped in Bureaucracy
Our client, sought to convert a commercial unit into much-needed residential accommodation at [Redacted Address], Bolton. The planning application was submitted to Bolton Council on August 28, 2024, with an expected decision date of October 23, 2024.
However, as the statutory 8-week determination period passed, the application remained in limbo. Despite repeated attempts by HAD & Co. to engage with Bolton Council's planning department and the assigned planning officer for updates, there was a persistent lack of response. No extension of time for a decision was requested by the Council, leaving the application indefinitely "awaiting decision."
Four months after the original decision date had lapsed, the planning officer finally made contact, not with a decision, but to dispute the lawful use of the existing property and suggest that the application description needed changing, potentially incurring additional fees. This was despite the planning fees having already been refunded to the client due to the Council's non-determination – a right exercised by the applicant. The Council then threatened to "dispose" of the application if it wasn't withdrawn. This situation put our client's project at significant risk of indefinite delay or unfair dismissal without a proper determination.
Our Strategy: Proactive Engagement and Strategic Appeal
HAD & Co. swiftly took decisive action to protect our client's interests and ensure their application received a proper determination:
Persistent Communication: We proactively engaged with Bolton Council, sending multiple emails to the planning department and officer between October and December 2024, seeking updates and urging a decision.
Exercising Statutory Rights: When the 16-week period from validation passed without a decision, HAD & Co. initiated the process for a refund of planning fees, which was successfully granted in January 2025. This demonstrated the Council's failure to meet its statutory obligations.
Defending Lawful Use: Upon receiving the planning officer's belated and contentious email in February 2025, HAD & Co. immediately gathered and provided comprehensive evidence (including Council Tax records, Building Control applications, and Street Records) to unequivocally confirm the lawful use of the existing property. This directly countered the officer's unfounded dispute.
Strategic Appeal for Non-Determination: Recognising the Council's prolonged inaction, lack of engagement, and subsequent attempt to discredit the application rather than determine it, HAD & Co. advised the client to appeal against the non-determination. This strategic move, filed in April 2025 (within the 6-month window), effectively transferred the decision-making responsibility from the unresponsive local authority to the impartial Planning Inspectorate.
The Winning Outcome: Forcing a Decision and Protecting Client Rights
By filing an appeal against non-determination, HAD & Co. achieved a crucial "win" for DC Mill Ltd. We successfully prevented the application from being indefinitely stalled or unfairly dismissed by Bolton Council. Our proactive and assertive approach ensured:
Timely Resolution: The application was moved to the Planning Inspectorate, guaranteeing a decision would be made, rather than remaining in perpetual "awaiting decision" status with the LPA.
Protection of Rights: The client's statutory right to a timely determination was upheld, and their investment in the project was safeguarded against bureaucratic inertia.
Fair Consideration: By providing clear evidence and appealing to a higher authority, HAD & Co. ensured the application would receive an objective assessment based on planning merits, free from the local authority's apparent biases or delays.
This case powerfully demonstrates HAD & Co.'s commitment to its clients, our deep understanding of planning law, and our ability to take decisive action when local authorities fall short of their duties. We ensured our client's project, designed in accordance with planning policy, would ultimately get the fair consideration it deserved.
Don't let administrative delays or uncooperative authorities derail your development plans. Contact HAD & Co. today to learn how our dedicated planning appeal services can help you achieve a favorable outcome.
Case Study: Overturning a Refusal for Hot Food Takeaway
Outcome: Planning Appeal UPHELD,
Project: Planning Appeal for Change of Use from A1 (Deli) to A5 (Hot Food Takeaway)
Local Authority: Craven District Council (original refusal by Development Committee, Burnley Borough Council referenced for officer observations)
Outcome: Planning Appeal UPHELD, Planning Permission Granted.
The Challenge: Facing Subjective Objections for a Desired Menu Expansion
Our client, operating the well-established Deli, sought planning permission to expand his menu to include hot food for consumption off-premises (change from A1 to A5 use). This expansion was a direct response to numerous customer requests, particularly from students and staff of the nearby South Craven School.
Despite Planning Officers recommending approval, citing compliance with local and national policies, the application was refused by the Development Committee. The refusal was based on a "presumption" that the hot food takeaway use would lead to an "unacceptable detrimental impact on the amenities of neighbouring residential properties," specifically concerning noise, traffic, and odour. The core issue was a subjective fear of "intensification" without factual basis.
Our Strategic Approach: Demonstrating Controlled Impact & Policy Adherence
We meticulously prepared the appeal, systematically addressing each of the council's concerns and demonstrating that the proposed change of use would have no detrimental impact, emphasizing responsible operation and policy compliance.
Dismantling the "Intensification" Argument:No Increase in Operating Hours: Crucially, Craven Deli committed to retaining its existing operating hours (9 am-5 pm Monday-Saturday). This was a powerful counter-argument, as we highlighted that these hours are significantly less intensive than those typically granted for other hot food takeaways in the area, which often extend late into the evening (e.g., a local bakery previously granted permission until 10 pm or later). This completely negated concerns about late-night noise or anti-social behaviour.Minimal Traffic Impact: We argued that simply adding a "few new items" to an already operational deli would not significantly increase traffic or parking demands beyond the existing customer base. The current business already generates associated movements, and the proposed changes would not intensify this.Effective Odour Control: A detailed plan for a state-of-the-art filtering system (flue with a carbon filter) was presented. This system, to be discreetly installed at the rear of the property and extending above first-floor windows, was designed to effectively prevent odour and smoke nuisance, directly addressing neighbour concerns.
Highlighting Planning Officer Support & Council Precedent:We drew attention to the fact that the Local Planning Authority's own officers had recommended approval, having found the proposal compliant with relevant policies. This exposed the committee's refusal as being based on subjective "assumptions" rather than objective planning grounds.We cited previous successful applications in the area, such as the Holme Lane Bakery (Section 3.2-3.4), which had been granted permission for hot food sales and extended operating hours, even with outdoor seating. This established a precedent for similar uses within the area and demonstrated that the Council had previously applied conditions to manage potential impacts effectively.
Reinforcing Policy Alignment and Community Value:We meticulously cross-referenced the proposal with relevant policies from Craven Council's Local Plan (SP1, SP4, HE2, IC3, IC5), demonstrating full compliance. We argued that the use was inherently residential in nature (C2 versus C3 distinction, although applied incorrectly in the original document, highlights the general residential character of managed care homes) and that the building was already suited for its purpose, requiring minimal physical alterations.We emphasized that the deli is a well-established and valued part of the local community (Section 3.9), serving customers, including local schoolchildren, for many years. Refusing the application would stifle a local business responding to community demand and could force its relocation, to the detriment of local services.
The Result: A Clear Victory for Common Sense and Local Business
The Planning Inspectorate carefully considered our comprehensive appeal, scrutinizing the subjective nature of the council's refusal against our detailed arguments and robust evidence. They found that the concerns raised by residents, and subsequently adopted by the Development Committee, were effectively mitigated by the proposed operational controls, the limited hours of operation, and the advanced odour filtration system.
The Inspector concluded that the refusal was indeed "presumptuous" and lacked a justifiable material planning reason. The appeal was UPHELD, and planning permission for the change of use to A5 hot food takeaway was granted. This decision allowed Craven Deli to expand its offerings, continue serving its loyal customers, and thrive as a valuable local business.
Why Trust Us With Your Planning Appeal?
This case demonstrates our ability to challenge planning decisions that are based on opinion rather than fact. We excel at dissecting vague refusal reasons, building strong, evidence-based arguments, and ensuring that our clients' proposals are fairly assessed against planning policy. If your business or development faces an unwarranted planning refusal, let our expertise guide you to a successful appeal. We turn subjective objections into objective approvals.
Case Study: Overturning a "Presumptuous" Refusal – Securing Approval for a Children's Residential Home
Outcome: Planning Appeal UPHELD,
Project: Planning Appeal for Change of Use from C3 (Residential) to C2 (Children's Residential Care Home for up to 4 children) Location: Burnley, Lancashire Local Authority: Burnley Borough Council
Outcome: Planning Appeal UPHELD, Planning Permission Granted.
The Challenge: Facing Subjective Opposition Despite Officer Support
Our client, a dedicated provider of residential care for vulnerable children, sought planning permission for the change of use of a 5-bedroom residential dwelling (C3) to a C2 Children's Residential Care Home for up to four children in Burnley. The application was initially recommended for approval by Burnley Borough Council Planning Officers, who found it compliant with all relevant local and national planning policies and saw no objections from statutory consultants.
However, despite this expert recommendation, the Development Committee refused the application. The sole reason cited was a "presumption that the proposed C2 use would intensify the use of the building which would have a detrimental impact on the character and amenity of the neighbourhood." This decision lacked concrete material planning reasons, instead relying on subjective fears and assumptions about children in care.
Our Strategic Approach: A Data-Driven Defence of Need and Managed Operation
Recognizing the injustice and the critical need for such facilities, our team mounted a robust appeal to the Planning Inspectorate, systematically dismantling the council's "presumptuous" refusal with compelling evidence and expert argumentation.
Exposing the Dire Need for Placements (Leveraging Appendices 2, 3, 3a, 4):We presented irrefutable national data from the GOV.UK "Children looked after in England" report for 2021 (Appendix 2, 3, 3a), demonstrating that 80,850 children were looked after in England – a figure that continues to rise.Crucially, we highlighted the specific local context from Lancashire County Council's own "Children's Residential Provider Engagement" document (Appendix 4). This key document revealed:An undeniable local need: Lancashire County Council recorded 2,006 children in care in 2021, with 537 new referrals needing placements.A significant shortfall: The Authority reported making only 200 children's home placements in the previous year, highlighting a stark gap between provision and demand.Recognition of complex needs: The council's own reports indicated a high percentage of "hard to find" placement searches for children with emotional/mental health needs, aggressive behaviors, and self-harm, underscoring the urgent requirement for specialized, high-quality, smaller care homes like our client's.Economic and social impact: The increasing cost of "spot purchased" placements and the difficulty in securing local homes further emphasized the necessity of new, managed facilities within the county.
Debunking "Intensification" Claims with Strict Management and Comparatives:We directly challenged the notion of "intensification" by presenting the client's comprehensive Management Statement. This document detailed strict measures for operational control, including:A limited occupancy of four children with two members of staff at all times.Carefully planned rotas, staff car-sharing, and shift changes outside peak traffic hours to minimize vehicular movements.The use of an on-site minivan and scheduled visits to reduce external traffic and parking impacts.Robust complaints procedures and clear communication channels with neighbours, overseen by Ofsted.We powerfully argued that a C2 Children's Home, with its regulated occupancy and stringent operational controls, would generate less impact on amenity and traffic than a typical 5-bedroom C3 dwelling, which could theoretically house a larger, multi-car family with unrestricted visitors and activity (Section 5.4-5.5 of the Statement of Appeal). Even the Burnley Borough Council Planning Officer's Report stated there was "little difference between the proposal and the general activity of a family living in a 5 bedroom home."
Showcasing Excellence and Community Benefit (Appendix 1):To further bolster our case, we submitted the client's "Good" Ofsted Inspection Report (Appendix 1) for their existing home in Briercliffe. This demonstrated their proven capability to provide outstanding, incident-free care in a homely environment, actively integrating children into the community. We highlighted the client's deep personal and professional commitment to the welfare of children (Section 2.2, 3.1, 3.4).We underscored the "Additional Benefits" (Section 5.16-5.20) the home would bring, including fostering diversity, enhancing community understanding, and providing superior fire and security measures that would indirectly benefit neighbours.
The Result: A Precedent-Setting Victory for Responsible Development
The Planning Inspectorate agreed with our arguments, overturning Burnley Borough Council’s decision. The Inspector concluded that the council's refusal was indeed "unjust" and that the proposed C2 use, under strict management conditions, would not result in detrimental intensification or harm to neighbour amenity.
This victory not only secured a vital placement for vulnerable children but also set a crucial precedent, affirming that well-managed and critically needed children's homes can integrate seamlessly into residential communities when supported by thorough planning and evidence.
Partner with Us for Your Planning Appeal
This case exemplifies our firm's expertise in navigating complex planning challenges, particularly where social infrastructure meets community concerns. We excel at leveraging detailed data, strong policy interpretation, and a deep understanding of your operational needs to achieve successful outcomes, even against subjective local authority refusals. If your essential development faces unwarranted opposition, trust our team to build your winning appeal.