Understanding planning · 13 min read
Planning application documents: what to read first
Understand planning application documents, officer reports and decision notices. Use a reading checklist, document table and worked example to inspect a case.
Application overview
Addition of fencing and larger gates to existing wall to the front of the property
Proposal details
- Reference
- CH/23/0395
- Alternative references
- PP-12159535
- Ward
- Brereton and Ravenhill
- Parish
- Brereton and Ravenhill CP
- UPRN
- 100031641355
Sign in to view all collected council fields and recorded changes.
Sign in to view collected detailsDocuments 9 of 9
| Document | Published | Action |
|---|---|---|
| Refused 12.1.24 - Block Plan AnnotatedPREFDWG | Not published | View |
| Refused 12.1.24 - Existing Block PlanPREFDWG | Not published | View |
| Refused 12.1.24 - Site Location PlanPREFDWG | Not published | View |
| Application Form RedactedPAPPFRM | Not published | View |
| Refused 12.1.24 - Front ElevationsPREFDWG | 29 Nov 2023 | View |
| Refused 12.1.24 - Side ElevationsPREFDWG | 29 Nov 2023 | View |
| Highways commentsPCONSULT | 11 Jan 2024 | View |
| Officer ReportPOFFREP | 12 Jan 2024 | View |
| Decision NoticePDECNOT | 12 Jan 2024 | View |
Documents open on the council website. Browse council documents if a link has changed.
Application timeline
Council milestones and published deadlines. A deadline passing does not confirm a decision.
Publicity end date
Past published deadlineA published target or deadline. It does not confirm an outcome.
Council sourceDecision due date
Past published deadlineA published target or deadline. It does not confirm an outcome.
Council source
Decision & conditions
Decision NoticePlanning conditions
- In accordance with paragraph (38) of the National Planning Policy Framework the Local Planning Authority has worked with the applicant in a positive and proactive manner to approve the proposed development. However, in this instance the proposal fails to accord with the Local Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework. 1) The proposed 20m length of closeboard fencing with a height of up to 2.5m by reason of its position to the immediate rear of the highway would result in a stark and visually intrusive form of development that would be incongruous in this location and would detract from the visual amenity of the open character of the street scene which comprises low and green boundary treatments to the front curtilages. Therefore, the proposal would be contrary to Policy CP3 of the Cannock Chase Local Plan (Part 1), the Design SPD and paragraph135 (a) & (f) of the National Planning Policy Framework. 2) The proposed location of the access gates, to the immediate rear of the pavement, would result in vehicles obstructing the adopted highway while the gates are in operation. This would lead to the likely increase in vehicle and pedestrian conflict and would result in an unacceptable impact on highway safety contrary to paragraph 115 of the National Planning Policy Framework.
