🏆 Winning Arguments

A local planning authority cannot anticipate a breach of planning control. 11. The Council pointed to a number of gaps in the supplied supporting information. The Applicant had been unable to provide comprehensive details of several aspects of the operation of an HMO business. For example, HMO licences were missing, https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2 Appeal Decision APP/Z4310/X/25/3375926 tenancy agreements piecemeal, student council tax exemptions lacking and full lists of student names were unavailable. They were of the view that more comprehensive details would have been needed to support a claim that an uninterrupted ongoing unlawful use had acquired lawfulness by the passage of time. However, where the evidence points to the start of a lawful small HMO use of No. 32 before October 2010, the burden of showing how and when that lawfulness might have been lost, shifts to the local planning authority. The failure or an inability to provide substantial information to demonstrate the ongoing lawful HMO use does not remove that lawfulness. Lawful use rights can only be lost by evidence of abandonment; by the formation of a new planning unit; or by being superseded by a furth…

No statutory declarations had been provided stating that the HMO has been in use for 10 full years as an HMO for 8 people. The Council concluded that the submitted evidence did not sufficiently demonstrate that the property had been lawfully used as an 8 bed HMO sui generis for a period of up to 10 years up to the date of the application. In this instance, they considered that the evidence provided did not meet the necessary criteria to show that lawfulness had been gained. 15. I agree that the Applicants’ submitted evidence fell short of completeness in several areas. It appears there were deficiencies in the administrative requirements under the Housing Act that attach to the running of an HMO business. However, for the purposes of establishing the lawfulness of the use under the Planning Acts, the Applicants evidence of the continuous occupancy of the property as a large HMO by 8 persons throughout the 10 years shown by the complete list of assured shorthold agreements was sufficient. The Council’s concern that the tenancy agreements did not provide assurance that the full occupation of the property was as implied by those agreements is noted. But no counter evidence was shown …

20. Given that I have concluded that the land can be considered as grey belt the main issues in this appeal are: 1) the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the surrounding area, with particular regard to the appeal site’s location within the Kent Downs National Landscape, and also due to its proximity to Ancient Woodland; and 2) the occupier’s personal circumstances along with other relevant considerations.

Planning law requires that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The recognised unmet need at the current time is a concern but the environmental policies relating to the Kent Downs National Landscape, the Metropolitan Green Belt, along with the Framework’s Grey Belt criteria, and the general character and appearance considerations, suggest that the deemed planning application should be refused. 53. However, I must also balance this with the family’s personal circumstances. As mentioned, the needs and interests of children – in this case a small baby - are a primary consideration, particularly in terms of health care as education is unlikely to be an issue for a few years yet. This cannot be satisfied with a roadside existence, and a settled base, at least in the short term, is obviously important to their wellbeing. 54. Alongside this, the Council’s approach, by way of emerging policy is an indication that the authority is attempting to meet its statutory requirements by way of allocations to help meet the actual degree of unmet need. Given this gypsy strategy and the loca…

The appeal is allowed, the enforcement notice is quashed, and planning permission

55. A temporary permission will also allow time for additional pitches to come forward, or for the appellant to make other arrangements whilst providing stability to the occupants, including the children, of the site. 56. Therefore, taking all these points together, the benefits of granting temporary permission would substantially outweigh the adverse affects, when assessed against the national decision-making policies of the Framework. 57. Consequently, the development is in conflict with the development plan. However, material considerations indicate a decision other than in accordance with the development plan. 58. Therefore, the appeal is allowed and I will grant a temporary permission to the appellant and other occupiers of the site for a period of ten years. This will be restricted to the current occupiers as I have taken into account their personal circumstances and interests of the children in granting this permission. Conclusion 64. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal succeeds in ground (a) and a temporary condition is granted on the deemed planning application. https://www.gov.uk/planning-

The appeal is allowed, the enforcement notice is quashed and planning permission

11. The main issues are the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area and its impact on highway safety.

Consequently, there is limited evidence before me that the appeal development results in visibility conditions materially worse than those which previously existed. 21. Overall, I am not satisfied that the boundary treatment materially reduces safety for users of the highway network. The site has historically been enclosed by a combination of fencing and substantial hedge planting, and planning permission had been granted for a 2m high boundary fence at this location. Requirements in the notice also provide an option for the development to be altered so that it fully accords with the approved plans under PL/2024/01497/MINFHO, which as referenced above, would involve the erection of a solid boundary treatment up to 2m in height. In the absence of any technical highway evidence demonstrating a https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 4 Appeal Decisions APP/Q4625/C/25/3371254, APP/Q4625/C/25/3371255 material worsening of visibility or highway conditions, I am not persuaded that there is conflict with Policy P8 of the Solihull Local Plan in terms of highway safety. Conclusion 22. The ground (a) appeal therefore succeeds. Conclusion 24. For the reasons given, I conclude that the appeal…

The appeal is dismissed

41. The parking, highway and refuse storage conditions are more relevant to a permission for a dwelling. However, it would not be wholly irrelevant to impose them on a permission for a building of this scale within a residential garden, as there could be some increase in use of the site if the building were used for purposes associated with the existing use of the land. Likewise if it were put to some other, hitherto, unknown use. 42. Importantly, if, as I have suggested here, any permission that I grant also means that the building can be used as a dwellinghouse on the provisions of S75(3) of the 1990 Act, then those conditions are clearly necessary. As is the restriction preventing use as an HMO, due to the small size of the site. I shall impose similar conditions here. Conclusion on ground (a) 43. The building at the site does not have any adverse effect on the character and appearance of the area or living conditions of neighbouring residents, whether or not it is in an active use. In the event that it could be put to use as a dwelling, conditions can ensure that any potential residual harm can be mitigated and sufficient facilities are provided. 44. Subject to the Conclusion …

4. The main issue is whether the Council’s decision to refuse to grant an LDC for the use of the building as a proposed nail and beauty salon was well-founded.

13. I am also unclear how the Council can assert from the photograph that the machines are for “public use”. There is nothing within the photograph to indicate who operates the machines; they are equally capable of being used by members of staff as by members of the public. Furthermore, the presence of a counter situated behind the machines is not in itself determinative that the machines are used as part of a launderette operation, particularly as the counter does not separate them from the remainder of the ground floor. 14. I have been provided with a letter written by the freehold owner of the premises, who asserts that Arnold Top Clean Ltd traded at the property; they ceased trading in April 2024; and throughout their occupation of the premises, they operated primarily as a retail dry cleaner. They also state that while the premises contained commercial washing machines and dryers, these were ancillary to the dry cleaning service and did not constitute a self-service launderette. 15. There is no evidence before me to contradict the freehold owner’s version of events. Furthermore, even if the washing machines and dryers were used by the 1 Planning Ref 84/1351 https://www.gov.uk…

The appeal is allowed and attached to this decision is an LDC describing the

conclusion that there was no public benefit to outweigh the harm identified. Whether that was a sound approach is not before me but this contrasts markedly with the approach taken to the appeal The National Planning Policy Framework was revised on 17 August 2026 such that the paragraphs quoted in the Council’s Reason for refusal do not correspond with the paragraphs (now policies) in the revised Framework. I have cited the latter in my main Decision. 1 https://www.gov.uk/planning-