We were asked to advise our clients on the possibility of replacing a static caravan on their land, which benefited from a lawful use certificate for holiday purposes. However the original lawful use decision described the caravan as being a touring caravan, rather than a static unit. On the basis of this description the Council were unwilling to allow a replacement static caravan to be installed.
Having investigated the History of the site it became clear that a static caravan had occupied the site for a considerable number of years, and as such the existing caravan was entirely lawful and its replacement with another unit would be entirely appropriate. An application was submitted to the Council providing detailed evidence to substantiate this claim. However the Council refused the application, requiring that an appeal be submitted to challenge this refusal.
Following submission of the appeal we were approached by the Council with an offer to negotiate for a replacement unit, demonstrating that perhaps their original decision was incorrect. Following negotiations with the Council the client was granted permission for a replacement chalet, a substantial improvement from the existing unit on site.
The company were retained by National Retail developers, Pettifer Estates to advise and co-ordinate the application for Phase 2 of the Penrhos Retail Park. Owen Devenport worked with other experts, including retail planners, highway engineers, valuers and so on, to eventually secure permission for a significant new addition to the retail park at Holyhead with potential for 400 new jobs.
We were instructed by our client following the refusal of two applications at his dwelling for demolition of an existing detached garage and its replacement with a granny annexe, and a linked proposal for the erection of an extension incorporating a garage and living accommodation, with the Council citing concerns over control of the use of annexe and potential effect upon the occupiers of adjacent properties. We advised that an appeal should be lodged against these decisions as they were not soundly based.
The appeal for the extension was granted, however the Inspector was unable to approve the annexe due to a technical area in the architects original submission which prevented the use of conditions to control the use of the annexe. Following this decision we lodged an application for the client for the annexe with the error corrected, however the Council maintained its earlier stance and refused the application on the grounds that they would be unable to prevent its use as a separate dwelling.
An appeal was lodged against the decision, and following the submission of a robust case citing numerous appeal cases and legal precedent the Inspector approved the annexe.