Planning appeal decision
113 spring bank, Hull, HU3 1BH
without planning permission: a) the unauthorised development to the rear of the Premises by way of creating more flats and extending existing one; and b) unauthorised shop front alterations
- Authority
- Kingston-Upon-Hull City Council
- Appeal type
- enforcement · Enforcement Notice
- Procedure
- Written Representations
- Development
- residential · Householder developments
- Inspector
- Hartley D
Main issues, as the Inspector framed them
- Whether the enforcement notice was properly served on all persons with an interest in the land (ground e)
- Whether the alleged breach of planning control occurred (ground b)
- Whether the matters alleged constitute a breach of planning control (ground c)
- Whether enforcement action was time-barred (ground d)
- Whether the requirements of the notice exceed what is necessary to remedy the breach (ground f)
- Whether the compliance period is reasonable (ground g)
What decided it
The appellant failed to provide precise and unambiguous evidence to substantiate any of the grounds of appeal, and the unauthorised development constitutes a breach of planning control that does not benefit from permitted development rights in the conservation area.
The main issues and the deciding factor are read from the published letter by Town Planner Pro; the letter itself is the record. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Research, not advice.
®