Town Planner Pro
Search appeal decisions

Planning appeal decision

Notice upheld22 May 20263359233

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.

In the app this decision sits on the map beside every other appeal around it, with the full reasoning summary, the letter held on file, and the case law it applies.