Case Studies

Successful Planning Applications

CONTACT US
Initial consultation is always free with no obligation
NAme
EMAIL ADDRESS
PHONE NUMBER
YOUR QUESTION
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form

Recent planning application case studies

AFA Planning Consultants have a broad and varied archive of case studies relating to all types of planning. We consistently achieve a high level of success. If you cannot see an exact case that relates to your issue or location, it is highly likely we have experience in that area.

Our planning consultants have a detailed and current understanding of what is required to give your application the greatest chance of success. AFA Planning Consultants have a long and successful history of obtaining both business and domestic planning applications. Here are some of our more recent planning application case studies.

GET IN TOUCH
CONTACT US
Initial consultation is always free with no obligation
NAme
EMAIL ADDRESS
PHONE NUMBER
YOUR QUESTION
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form

PLANNING APPLICATION REAR AND SIDE EXTENSION

Erection of ground floor rear and side infill extension to existing single dwelling

We started the case with a site visit and summary report. From there we made the proposal of a planning application and worked on the application through to a successful conclusion.

Application Number 18/01134/HH

APPLICATION FOR A LAWFUL DEVELOPMENT CERTIFICATE

Lawful Development Certificate Of Existing Use

AFA Planning Consultants successfully submitted a lawful development certificate for the bungalow at 48 Old North Road, Longstowe in order to confirm that the retention and use of the building as a dwelling is lawful.

Application No: S/1841/17/LD

Certificate Of Lawfulness Use

Certificate of lawfulness for the proposed erection of rear dormer extension with new french doors and juliet balcony, and installation of two roof lights to front roof slope

Application Reference: 18/00705/CLP

RETROSPECTIVE PLANNING APPLICATION

Retrospective Planning Permission For Extension

Part demolition of single storey rear extension and rebuilding it. Installation of 3 no. roof lights in two storey rear extension roof.

Application Number EPF/2515/16

PLANNING APPLICATION FOR STABLE BUILDINGS

Planning Permission Granted From Stable Buildings

Preparation & submission of planning application for erection of stable buildings and use of land for the grazing of horses and agriculture.

Planning Permission -1no. Storage Building With Stables

Planning permission granted for stable building with storage.

Application No: DC/18/1405/FUL

CHANGE OF USE FROM CLASS A1 (RETAIL) TO MIXED USE A3/A5 (RESTAURANT /CAFE & TAKE-AWAY)

Planning Permission Granted From Retail to Restaurant

Change of use from Use Class A1 (retail) to mixed Use Classes A3/A5 (restaurant/cafe and take-away) and installation of extraction system to protrude from the roof

Application No: 2017/08036/PA

CHANGE OF USE OF PREMISES FROM DWELLING HOUSE (C3) TO MIXED USE COMPRISING DWELLING HOUSE (C3) & RESTAURANT USE (A3)

Change Of Use From House To Restaurant

We were approached by an entrepreneurial couple who set up a twice weekly supper club in a room of their house. The client was informed by the council that they needed to apply for retrospective planning permission from residential to mixed residential and commercial restaurant. We took on the case and the application was granted.

Application No: 63312

PLANNING PERMISSION FOR ROOF TERRACE RAILINGS

Planning Permission Granted Roof Terrace Railings

Installation of railings on main roof to facilitate use as a roof terrace accessed via a roof light from the top floor flat.

Application No: 17/05330/FULL

PLANNING PERMISSION FOR AIR CONDITIONING UNITS

Planning Permission Granted For 3 Air Conditioning Units

Preparation and submission of planning application for installation of x3 air conditioning units to be added to a recently purchased commercial property.

Application Reference: 2016/03765/FUL

EQUESTRIAN RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION FOR A CHANGE OF USE

Retrospective Planning Application For Change Of Use

Change of use of agricultural land to equestrian use, erection of stables, mobile field shelter, associated concrete apron (all retrospective), and new parking area.

Application Reference Number: 16/02635/FUL

APPLICATION TO REMOVE CONDITION 3 OF PLANNING PERMISSION

Condition Lifted- Lymington, Hampshire

Condition lifted to remove condition 3 of planning permission.

ref: 14417 (to allow non-agricultural occupancy)

PLANNING APPLICATION FOR ADVERTISING CONSENT & SIGNAGE. LONDON

Advertising Consent Granted, London NW10 6ND

We recently were approached by our client in London NW10 to submit two planning applications. The first an application for advertisement consent for a pizzeria, and the second an application for decking which would be used as a seating area. We successfully argued that both applications were essential to the ongoing success of the pizzeria. Both applications were granted.

PLANNING APPLICATIONS FOR MAJOR UK CONSERVATORY FIRM NATIONWIDE

Major UK Conservatory Firm uses AFA Planning Consultants as Sole Provider

AFA Planning Consultants are the sole provider of all planning applications for a well-known UK wide home improvements and conservatory company. One of the key factors that influenced their decision to use us was that we are able to cover the whole of the UK. The relationship has recently grown in that we are now also assisting with their applications to councils and handling all their planning appeals.

This same client has recently acquired another Company which is the oldest supplier of upmarket oak orangeries & conservatories in the world, their main market being customers with very prestigious homes many of which are listed. Our contribution is to help with the planning applications and supply the Design & Access statements, as well as handle any subsequent appeals.

PLANNING APPLICATION FOR PLANNING PERMISSION FOR SCHOOL SURREY

Planning application for Surrey school

Our client was a school in Surrey which wanted to turn a locally listed office block into a primary school catering for approximately 160 children & 30 staff. The case included several difficulties including Council policies relating to loss of employment space as well as the listed buildings element.

Having carried out an analysis of the challenges that the project presented, we liaised with both the architects and transport planners to produce information supporting a planning application. Following this we approached the Council and conducted pre-application discussions with them. The statement which we prepared and submitted contained compelling evidence and arguments relating to the key difficulties of the proposal. The issues which were addressed included the loss of the employment floor space and the matter of the building’s listing. We also prepared and submitted travel & transport assessments to counter concerns in relation to congestion and the free flow of traffic.

Following a series of negotiations, the application was granted by the Council at the Development Control Committee.

PLANNING APPLICATION TO BUILD REPLACEMENT HOUSE BEACONSFIELD

Planning application acquired for replacement house in Beaconsfield

AFA Planning Consultants gained planning permission from the local Council for our client to build a new 5 bedroom house to replace their previous home.

Although the original house was fairly substantial, our clients had particular requirements which previously they had tried to achieve by means of a large extension. Chiltern District Council however refused two past planning applications for the extension and the case was also lost on appeal. After calling us we advised them that the solution could be to submit an application to the Council for the demolition of the original house and the redevelopment of the site with a completely new house incorporating all the features which they were trying to achieve.

Our client accepted the advice and we began working closely with them to produce the design and architectural drawings for a new two storey detached 5 bedroom house with accommodation in the roof. The new design incorporated all the features which they had not been able to previously achieve.

Our full application to the Council included these architectural drawings as well as a crucial supporting planning statement written by one of our expert chartered town planners setting out in detail the policy arguments as to why the new dwelling should be allowed. Consequently the Council were satisfied that the new house did fulfil the required policy criteria and the application granted.

PLANNING APPLICATION FOR NEW HOMES SUSSEX

Planning application for new homes in Sussex

This application was for several new houses on a site in Sussex. Our client, a building Company, turned to us for help with the application as the site itself presented a series of challenges which if not properly addressed could have caused the application to be refused by the Council. The following is from our client’s letter of appreciation:

“Thank you for your report, it is very impressive. I cannot now imagine the application standing a better chance of succeeding than with your report. It is very professional as one would expect, but more than that it is clinically precise. It was just what I wanted. Many thanks.”

PLANNING APPEAL GRANTED

PLANNING APPEAL GRANTED FOR A SINGLE STOREY REAR CONSERVATORY- High Wycombe

The appeal allowed and planning permission granted for a single storey conservatory on the rear of the property.

Planning Inspectorate ref: APP/K0425/D/16/3151378

PLANNING APPLICATION FOR A3 BUSINESS PREMISES- VARIATION OF HOURS SHEFFIELD

Class A3 business planning application granted for variation of hours

Our clients owned a successful Class A3 business in Sheffield. The Council had previously granted planning permission for the business but with a condition attached restricting the hours of operation. Our clients realised that adhering to the restriction would cause them to lose a valuable additional income stream and so they sought our help to secure a variation of the condition which restrict their hours of operation.

We advised our clients that there were good reasons to appeal to the Planning Inspectorate as the Council had not taken various important matters sufficiently into account when issuing their refusal.

The planning Inspector Mr Keith Hill carefully considered the planning reasons which we advanced as to why the previous restrictive hours of operation should be considerably extended. As a result of this, he granted the requested variation of hours.

PLANNING APPLICATION FOR HOUSING KENT

Kent landowner returns to AFA Planning Consultants for planning applications

Our client is a Kent landowner for whom we have previously handled planning problems which were resolved successfully.

His portfolio includes a complex of 10 units which have been used for various business purposes for a number of years. His long term aim is to completely redevelop the whole site for housing, however the local council have expressed considerable resistance to his proposals.

Our client turned to us again for help. Having carried out an analysis of the site’s planning history and relevant local and national planning policies, as well as planning law, we laid out various options to our client which could result in the achievement of his long term goals. Our recommended option was an application for a Lawful Development Certificate (sometimes referred to as a ‘Cleud’) relating to a part of the site which was proving a particular stumbling block for the Council.

Our client accepted our advice and despite further resistance from the council we have now secured the Certificate applied for principally due to the fact that we assembled and presented compelling evidence which on the balance of probability, meant that the council had no choice but to grant the Certificate. An application for housing is now being prepared.

PLANNING APPLICATION TO BUILD REPLACEMENT HOUSE BEACONSFIELD

Planning application granted from local Council for new 5 bed home in Beaconsfield

AFA Planning Consultants gained planning permission from the local Council for our clients to build a new 5 bedroom house to replace their previous home. Although the original house was fairly substantial, our clients had particular requirements which previously they had tried to achieve by means of a large extension.

Chiltern District Council however refused two past planning applications for the extension and the case was also lost on appeal. After calling us we advised them that the solution could be to submit an application to the Council for the demolition of the original house and the redevelopment of the site with a completely new house incorporating all the features which they were trying to achieve.

Our client accepted the advice and we began working closely with them to produce the design and architectural drawings for a new two storey detached 5 bedroom house with accommodation in the roof. The new design incorporated all the features which they had not been able to previously achieve.

Our full application to the Council included these architectural drawings as well as a crucial supporting planning statement written by one of our expert chartered town planners setting out in detail the policy arguments as to why the new dwelling should be allowed. Consequently the Council were satisfied that the new house did fulfil the required policy criteria and the application granted.

Chiltern District Council’s application number for the new house- CH/2010/1498/FA

RETROSPECTIVE PLANNING APPLICATION, GLASGOW, SCOTLAND LOCAL PLANNING REVIEW COMMITTEE ALLOWS NEW CONSERVATORY

Retrospective Planning Application

Scotland’s planning appeal system differs significantly from that in England and Wales. The Scottish system means that appeals against a refusal issued by a planning officer can only be made to the Council’s own Local Planning Review Committee.

Following a refusal to grant retrospective planning permission for a fairly small but quality new conservatory, we were appointed by Everest to appeal on behalf of their client. Working with Everest’s architects, one of our experienced Scottish Chartered Town Planners skilfully handled the case which if lost would have meant that the householder Mr R, may well have had to demolish his new conservatory.

The background to the case was very unfortunate indeed. In February 2010, Mr R had started to build a conservatory to enhance the family living accommodation of his house, this was following the receipt of a building warrant from Glasgow City Council. At that time Mr R was led to believe that because of the small size of the conservatory it would not need planning permission as it was “permitted development” under planning law.

It was not until the construction of the conservatory was well underway that the Council’s enforcement officer (following a complaint) visited the property and advised our client that planning permission would also be required in addition to the building warrant, this being because the permitted development rights which would normally apply had been removed by the Council at the time of the original planning permission for the property many years before.

Our client then submitted a planning application for the conservatory for retrospective planning permission. In the meantime, however, given the apparent small scale of the development, he was not asked to stop construction pending a decision on the application. As a result, the conservatory was completed in good faith, in the expectation of planning permission being forthcoming.

However, to Mr R’s shock, the planning application was refused which meant that if it was not reversed, he would be faced with the prospect of enforcement action and the demolition of the conservatory with all the upheaval and cost ramifications which this would involve.

The background was clearly very unfortunate, but the planning system throughout the UK is such that it is not in fact directly relevant to whether an appeal should be granted. Our task therefore was to make a strong and robust case that the appeal should be allowed and permission now granted. Clear arguments based on relevant planning grounds rather than sympathy were required.

Consequently our planner skilfully addressed the two reasons for the refusal, i.e. that the conservatory would result in lack of useable private garden space and would also detrimentally affect the daylight to a neighbouring property. Using various relevant arguments based on planning policies, including the Council’s own Design Guide, our planner was able to convince the Local Planning Review Committee that retrospective planning permission should be granted for the conservatory. This of course means that Mr R does not now have to demolish the conservatory.

Glasgow City Council’s ref: 10/00725/DC

RETROSPECTIVE PLANNING APPLICATION, MANCHESTER CONSERVATORY ALREADY BUILT – COUNCIL RELIED ON OUTDATED GUIDELINES

Retrospective Planning Application, Manchester

Our clients were refused planning permission by the Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council for the retention of a conservatory they had already built further to an earlier planning permission. However on completion the conservatory was found to be significantly closer to a boundary than shown on the approved plans. When our clients applied for another (retrospective) planning permission, the Council turned it down. It seemed therefore that the conservatory would have to be rebuilt, clearly a costly exercise.

However our clients then approached us for advice. Having carried out an initial assessment of the case, we advised that the case should be taken to the Government’s independent Planning Inspectorate for an appeal.

Our clients took the advice we gave and so we then appealed on their behalf. In the appeal we argued that there were good reasons why the Council’s decision should be overturned, this basically being that the Government’s national permitted development rules had changed and that the Council had relied on their own outdated rules when making their refusal decision. Mr Graham Garnham, the Planning Inspector appointed to deal with the appeal, whilst making it clear that it was unsatisfactory that the conservatory was not built in accordance with the approved plans, stated that it was also unsatisfactory that the Council had relied on planning guidance that was significantly out of date. He therefore reversed the Council’s refusal and granted planning permission for the conservatory as built.

Interestingly, in his appeal Decision, the Inspector made it very clear that the fact that the conservatory had already been built, did not affect his consideration of the planning merits of the case.

However we would point out that it is certainly not a good idea to build anything that requires planning permission, without first obtaining that permission. The worse case scenario is that the local planning authority could legally require the removal of the unauthorised structure and failure to comply could lead a criminal prosecution.

The Planning Inspectorate Ref: APP/Q4245/A/08/2086216

PLANNING APPEAL, WORCESTERSHIRE, WYRE FOREST SUBSTANTIAL CONSERVATORY ALLOWED IN LANDSCAPE PROTECTION AREA

Our clients’ home is an isolated and detached house on a very large plot, screened by mature woodland and only visible to the public from the front. Yet despite this the Council refused planning permission for a conservatory, stating that it would be a substantial structure in its own right and that the house had already been considerably extended. It was also very relevant the Council felt, that the house is in the Wyre Forest designated Landscape Protection Area.

However in our appeal to the Planning Inspector we argued that the conservatory would not have any harmful effect on the character and appearance of the house or on the surrounding landscape and would therefore actually comply with the Councils relevant policies. The Planning Inspector agreed with us and therefore reversed the Council’s refusal and granted our clients planning permission.

Planning Inspectorate Ref: APP/R1845/A/08/2070954

PLANNING APPEAL, GLOUCESTERSHIRE NEW PRESTIGIOUS EVEREST CONSERVATORY

Everest had applied for planning permission for a new conservatory at the home of one of their clients in South Gloucestershire. The local Council however had refused their application and so Everest turned to us for assistance.

Having examined the circumstances including the refusal notice, the plans and drawings, we advised Everest’s Planning Manager that there was a good prospect that the Council’s decision would be overturned on appeal. Consequently we were commissioned by Everest to launch an appeal on their behalf.

Our argument to the Planning Inspector included that there would be no material harmful effect on the conditions and privacy of the neighbours and a substantial area of garden would remain for the house even with a fairly large conservatory. In addition we contended that for various reasons there would be no conflict with the Council’s design and development objectives. Having considered the arguments which we put before him, the Planning Inspector Mr Andrew Seaman agreed with us that the Council’s refusal should be overturned. Consequently he granted planning permission on appeal for the new Everest conservatory.

The Planning Inspectorate ref: APP/P0119/A/09/2102327.

APPROVED CONSERVATION / LISTED BUILDING CASE STUDIES

PLANNING APPEAL, LONDON NW3, BELSIZE SQUARE GARDEN HOUSE IN CONSERVATION AREA.

Our clients wanted to erect a single storey garden house in the garden of their home which is in a conservation area.

However Camden Council refused to grant Planning Permission as they considered that the proposal would not preserve & enhance the character & appearance of the conservation area; they were also concerned about setting a precedent. In addition some local residents were concerned that the new building would function as an additional domestic room leading to noise & light pollution, as well as overlooking & loss of outlook. For several reasons therefore the prospects for a successful appeal did not appear strong when our clients first came to us for help. However on examination we felt that it would be possible to mount a good case on appeal and that we would be able to present counter arguments to support the appeal. Our clients therefore asked us to appeal for them. The final result was that the Planning Inspector agreed with us and granted planning permission.

Planning Inspectorate ref: APP/X5210A/10/2142052

PLANNING APPEAL, SUFFOLK SINGLE STORY GROUND FLOOR EXTENSION ON GRADE II LISTED BUILDING

Suffolk council refused our clients application for a single story rear extension. After submitting both a planning appeal and listed building consent our client was granted permission on their grade II listed building

Planning Inspectorate ref: APP/D3505/a/12/2172533

Listed Building Consent ref: APP/D3505/E12/2172544

PLANNING APPEAL, CAMBRIDGESHIRE NEW HOUSE WITHIN VILLAGE CONSERVATION AREA

The Council had refused planning permission to our clients to build a new Potton style house on a plot they owned in a very attractive Cambridgeshire village. The grounds cited by the Council for the refusal were based on the scale, design and position of the proposed dwelling and its impact on the village’s Conservation Area. They stated that the proposal was ‘ill considered’ and ‘discordant’ with the street scene and the character of the Conservation Area. However the Planning Inspector, having considered the case we put forward on behalf of our clients, disagreed with the Council and concluded that the proposal would not harm the character and appearance of the locality or the Conservation area. He therefore reversed the Council’s refusal and granted planning permission.

Planning Inspectorate ref: APP/H0520/A/07/2058511

PLANNING APPEAL, LEICESTERSHIRE NEW HOUSE IN VILLAGE CONSERVATION AREA

The Council refused planning permission for a new detached house on land owned by our client in a village Conservation Area. The refusal was issued despite the fact that the Council had earlier granted planning permission for a house of a different design on the plot and despite a recommendation from one of their own planning officers that the different design of house was acceptable and should be approved.

Nevertheless the Council still considered that the new house would be detrimental to the character of the Conservation Area as well as to some nearby listed buildings and so they refused the application. However in our appeal to the Planning Inspector we challenged the Councillors’ concerns and explained why they were not well founded. The Inspector agreed with us and therefore she reversed the Council’s refusal and granted our client planning permission for the house he wanted.

Planning Inspectorate Ref: APP/F2415/A/08/2070960

PLANNING APPEAL, AMPTHILL ,BEDFORDSHIRE LISTED THATCHED COTTAGE IN THE CONSERVATION AREA – LARGE TWO STOREY EXTENSION ALLOWED

The Council had refused planning permission for a two storey rear extension to an 18th century listed thatched cottage owned by our clients in the conservation area at Ampthill, Beds. The Council had refused the proposed extension because they objected to its length, width and height. However the Planning Inspector agreed with our arguments why the extension should be built. He therefore reversed the Council’s refusal and granted planning permission.

Planning Inspectorate Ref: APP/JO215/E/06/2018298

APPROVED REPLACEMENT WINDOWS & DOORS

PLANNING APPEAL, BELSIZE PARK, LONDON REPLACEMENT WINDOWS AND DOORS

The main reason for initial refusal was down to the impact the replacement windows and door would have on the character and appearance of the property especially as it is within a conservation area. The planning inspectorate agreed our reasons for appeal and that the windows and door could be exchanged . He therefore reversed the Council’s refusal and planning permission was given.

The Planning Inspectorate: APP/X5210/A/12/2176051.

APPROVED EXTENSION CASE STUDIES

PLANNING APPEAL, BUCKINGHAMSHIRE TWO STOREY SIDE & ONE STOREY REAR EXTENSIONS

The Council had cited four reasons when they refused planning permission to allow enlargements to our client’s home. The Council stated that the extensions would not respect the scale of the original house, would be visually intrusive and have a detrimental impact on the adjoining Conservation Area and nearby listed buildings, plus it would be overbearing in relation to a neighbouring house. In addition to all of that the Council stated that the access was substandard because of poor visibility. However having considered the case we put forward for our client which carefully addressed all of these issues in turn, the Planning Inspector agreed with us that none of the reasons merited the Council’s refusal. He therefore reversed the refusal and granted planning permission.

Planning Inspectorate Ref: APP/JO405/A/07/2033463

PLANNING APPEAL, AMPTHILL, BEDFORDSHIRE LISTED THATCHED COTTAGE IN THE CONSERVATION AREA – LARGE TWO STOREY EXTENSION ALLOWED

The Council had refused planning permission for a two storey rear extension to an 18th century listed thatched cottage owned by our clients in the conservation area at Ampthill, Beds. The Council had refused the proposed extension because they objected to its length, width and height. However the Planning Inspector agreed with our arguments why the extension should be built. He therefore reversed the Council’s refusal and granted planning permission.

Planning Inspectorate Ref: APP/JO215/E/06/2018298

PLANNING APPEAL, HARPENDEN, HERTFORDSHIRE DORMER & LOFT CONVERSION WITH TWO STOREY EXTENSION

St Albans Council had refused planning permission to our client for a loft conversion and dormer with a two storey rear and side extension as they were concerned about the effect on the character and appearance of the house and the wider street scene. They were also concerned about the effect of the extension on the living conditions of a neighbour.

Our client then turned to us for help. For several reasons, our advice was that there was a good chance that an appeal would succeed. Consequently our client asked us to handle the appeal for him. Having considered the case that we advanced in favour of the project and having visited the site, Mr Huntley, the Planning Inspector agreed with our assessment of the refusal. He noted that one of the houses next door had recently been extended in a similar way with planning permission from the Council, and the house on the other side was currently having an extension built, also with permission from the council.

He also noted various other relevant facts that we set out in our submission to him, including that although our client’s extension would be somewhat wider than the first neighbour’s extension, a terraced effect would not occur. In view of all the circumstances, he did not agree with the Council’s concerns and decided to reverse their refusal and grant planning permission.

Planning Inspectorate ref: APP/B1930/A/09/2104845

REVERSE COUNCILS DECISION AND GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION TULSE HILL, LONDON BASEMENT & GARDEN BUILDING EXTENSIONS FOR ART DECO HOUSE

Our clients own an interesting and distinctive art deco house in fashionable Tulse Hill. They wanted to build a basement extension under the house and enlarge an existing building in the rear garden. They felt that this would considerably enhance the amenity of their home whilst retaining its essential art deco character. However when they applied to Lambeth Council for planning permission, the application was refused.

Our clients then turned to us for advice about a possible appeal. Our initial assessment was that the Council’s primary concern seemed to be about overlooking of, and impact on, the adjoining property as this was specifically mentioned in two of the reasons for refusal. In our view there were various ways that the anticipated problems could be solved.

In addition there was a reason for refusal which was more about the overall scale and form of the building, but we considered that that there were certain arguments that could be put forward on appeal to show that the proposals were not inappropriate and would not harm the character and appearance of the house and the area.

In view of this we advised our clients that there was a reasonably good chance that an appeal would succeed.

Our clients took our advice and asked us to handle an appeal for them. In the event we were proved correct as the Planning Inspector, having considered the arguments we advanced on our clients’ behalf and having visited the site, decided to reverse Lambeth Council’s decision and to grant planning permission.

The Planning Inspectorate ref: APP/N5660/A/09/2100041

PLANNING APPEAL, SURREY TRADITIONAL SEMI-DETACHED HOUSE, TWO STOREY SIDE EXTENSION ALLOWED ON APPEAL

Our clients own a traditional semi-detached house with a garage at the side in Surrey. They wanted to demolish the garage and build a two storey side extension as well as raise the rear patio. The extension would include a new garage, cloakroom, utility room and extended kitchen on the ground floor, with an en-suite bedroom above.

However the London Borough of Croydon Council refused the application as they felt that the proposal was detrimental to the character and appearance of the area.

Our clients therefore asked us to carry out an initial assessment for the prospects of an appeal. Having considered the relevant factors, we advised our clients that in our view for various reasons, the proposal would not detract from the appearance of the house nor be detrimental to the area and that the prospects for a successful appeal were good. Consequently they asked us to handle an appeal to the Planning Inspectorate for them.

Having considered our arguments in favour of the proposal and having visited the site, the Planning Inspector Mr Lyman disagreed with the Croydon Council and granted planning permission. The Council then wanted the Inspector to impose a condition on his permission relating to a detailed landscaping scheme. However he considered that such a condition was unnecessary and unreasonable.

Planning Inspectorate Ref: P/L5240/A/09/2104418

PLANNING APPEAL, HERTFORDSHIRE TWO STOREY SIDE EXTENSION – NOT ‘OVER-DEVELOPMENT’

The Council had refused planning permission for our client’s extension of his house. Our client wanted to demolish an existing garage and construct a two storey side extension comprising of a bedroom and shower room over a new garage.

The Council had refused planning permission stating that the proposal would be ‘overdevelopment of the site’. The Planning Inspector had little sympathy with the Council’s concerns and agreed with our arguments that there was adequate space and that the extension would actually be in keeping with the rest of the house and the surrounding area. He therefore reversed the Council’s refusal and granted planning permission.

Planning Inspectorate Ref: APP/W0530/A/06/2028018

PLANNING APPEAL, HAMPSHIRE RETROSPECTIVE PLANNING PERMISSION GRANTED FOR EXTENSION

The Council had earlier granted planning permission to our clients for an extension and a double garage. However the garage was then erected but on a larger scale than what had been permitted. This was done in order to allow for more living accommodation, i.e. the creation of a bedroom above the garage and a bathroom.

The Council refused to grant retrospective planning permission for the development as built, citing three reasons for doing so. These were that the cumulative size and bulk would now visually detract from the scenic quality of the countryside and that the building was now disproportionate to the main dwelling house. They were also concerned that the building would be tantamount to the creation of a new dwelling within the countryside. However the Planning Inspector agreed with the case we put forward on behalf of our clients that the building should be allowed as it had been built. He therefore reversed the Councils refusal and granted planning permission retrospectively. This meant that our clients were allowed to keep what they had built.

Planning Inspectorate Ref: APP/H1705/A/07/2059760

PLANNING APPEAL, CAMBRIDGESHIRE TWO STORY SIDE EXTENSION

The Council had refused planning permission for a large two storey side extension owned by our client at a village in South Cambs. The Planning Inspector recognised that the extension would just about double the size of the house and would be at odds with the Council’s Local Plan policies. However he agreed with our arguments why the extension should be built. He therefore reversed the Council’s refusal and granted planning permission.

Planning Inspectorate Ref: APP/W0530/A/06/2028018

PLANNNING APPEAL, CHALFONT ST.GILES, SOUTH BUCKINGHAMSHIRE GREEN BELT LAND – TWO STOREY SIDE & SINGLE STOREY FRONT EXTENSION

The Council had refused planning permission for our clients’ extensions to their detached 4 bedroom house in the green belt near Chalfont St. Giles. Their principal concern was with the proposed two storey side extension which would provide additional living rooms and two en-suite bedrooms projecting to both the front and rear of the house. However the Planning Inspector took note of our arguments concerning the positioning of the house in relation to the road. We also argued that when taken together with other additions to the house, the proposals would not be out of scale or at odds with neighbouring properties. The Inspector agreed with us and therefore reversed the Council’s refusal and granted planning permission.

Planning Inspectorate Ref: APP/X0415/A/08/2073762

PLANNING APPEAL, CHESHAM, BUCKINGHAMSHIRE EXTENSION WITHIN GREEN BELT LAND

Our clients wanted to build a substantial extension to their house which is in the Green Belt, near Chesham, Bucks. The proposed development which the Council had turned down was for a two storey side extension, an extension to the garage block and a single storey link between the extension and the garage. The Planning Inspector agreed with us that the development would not be disproportionate or detract from the openness of the Green Belt countryside. He therefore reversed the Council’s refusal and granted planning permission.

Planning Inspectorate Ref: APP/X0415/A/05/1195500

PLANNING APPEAL, SUFFOLK LOFT CONVERSION WITH IMPORTANT CHANGE OF ROOF SHAPE

The Council had refused planning permission for a loft conversion which included changing the present hipped roof to a gable in order to provide more internal space. The Council’s refusal was based on their belief that the nature and design of the extension would have a detrimental impact on the appearance of the house and the character of the street scene.

However the Planning Inspector agreed with the case we put forward on behalf of our client that the extension should be allowed and that the change of roof shape would not be out of character with other properties in the road or detrimental to the street scene. He therefore reversed the Council’s refusal and granted planning permission.

Planning Inspectorate Ref: APP/VO510/A/07/2048594

PLANNING APPEAL, CAMBRIDGESHIRE BUNGALOW CONVERTED INTO A HOUSE, CONTRARY TO COUNCIL POLICY

The Council had refused planning permission to allow the addition of a first floor to a bungalow (thus turning it into a five bedroom house) as well as other enhancements to the property. They felt that this substantial extension and the other enhancements would be out of scale and character. On behalf of our client however, we drew the Planning Inspector’s attention to relevant Government Planning Policy Statements and local policies as well as relevant published documents on urban design all of which seek to encourage improvements to the design of buildings. The Planning Inspector agreed with us that the extension would not be harmful to the surrounding area and would enhance the building. He therefore decided to allow the project, even though the increase in height and the change in the character of the dwelling, as well as its impact on its surroundings, were all in conflict with the Council’s policies. He concluded that the departure from policy was justified and therefore reversed the Council’s refusal and granted planning permission.

Planning Inspectorate Ref: APP/VO510/A/07/2048594

PLANNING APPEAL, CAMBRIDGESHIRE TWO STORY PLANNING APPEAL, ESSEX TWO STOREY SIDE EXTENSION ALLOWED CONTRARY TO DESIGN GUIDELINES EXTENSION

The Council had refused planning permission for a two storey side extension that also involved moving the main entrance of the house from the side to the front. Their reasons included that the extension would not be set back from the rest of the house and that it would have a ridge height that would be the same as the rest of the house. This continuous façade, they believed would be out of character with the street scene and would be contrary to their policies and design guidance. They also stated that the extension would be too close to a neighbour’s property, contrary to their relevant policy.

However having considered the case we put forward on behalf of our client which carefully addressed all of these issues, the Planning Inspector agreed with us that none of the reasons merited the Council’s refusal. Nevertheless he did recognise that the extension did not actually comply with a number of Council’s design guidelines, but despite this he still reversed the refusal and granted planning permission.

Planning Inspectorate Ref: APP/W1525/A/07/2051495

APPROVED LOFT CONVERSION CASE STUDIES

APPEALED PLANNING ENFORCEMENT, LONDON N10 2JE EXTENSION TO ROOF AND L-SHAPED DORMER

The client build and extension to the roof including 3 roof lights to front roof slope and an L-shaped rear dormer. This was carried out without planning permission and so the client was given an enforcement notice to demolish the extension and dormer. The client approached us and once we reviewed the case, we recommended an appeal would be worth while approach. The appeal is allowed, the enforcement notice is quashed and planning permission is granted on the application.

Planning Inspectorate Ref: APP/N5090/C/19/3233535

PLANNING APPEAL, SUFFOLK LOFT CONVERSION WITH IMPORTANT CHANGE OF ROOF SHAPE

The Council had refused planning permission for a loft conversion which included changing the present hipped roof to a gable in order to provide more internal space. The Council’s refusal was based on their belief that the nature and design of the extension would have a detrimental impact on the appearance of the house and the character of the street scene.

However the Planning Inspector agreed with the case we put forward on behalf of our client that the extension should be allowed and that the change of roof shape would not be out of character with other properties in the road or detrimental to the street scene. He therefore reversed the Council’s refusal and granted planning permission.

Planning Inspectorate Ref: APP/VO510/A/07/2048594

PLANNING APPEAL, HARPENDEN, HERTFORDSHIRE DORMER & LOFT CONVERSION WITH TWO STOREY EXTENSION

St Albans Council had refused planning permission to our client for a loft conversion and dormer with a two storey rear and side extension as they were concerned about the effect on the character and appearance of the house and the wider street scene. They were also concerned about the effect of the extension on the living conditions of a neighbour.

Our client then turned to us for help. For several reasons, our advice was that there was a good chance that an appeal would succeed. Consequently our client asked us to handle the appeal for him. Having considered the case that we advanced in favour of the project and having visited the site, Mr Huntley, the Planning Inspector agreed with our assessment of the refusal. He noted that one of the houses next door had recently been extended in a similar way with planning permission from the Council, and the house on the other side was currently having an extension built, also with permission from the council.

He also noted various other relevant facts that we set out in our submission to him, including that although our client’s extension would be somewhat wider than the first neighbour’s extension, a terraced effect would not occur. In view of all the circumstances, he did not agree with the Council’s concerns and decided to reverse their refusal and grant planning permission.

Planning Inspectorate ref: APP/B1930/A/09/2104845

PLANNING APPEAL, WESTMINSTER, LONDON ROOF TERRACE

Our clients have a flat at the top of a mid-terrace residential property in the City of Westminster.
They wanted to use the roof of the flat below as a terrace thus considerably enhancing the amenities and value of their own flat. The area is characterised by residential properties predominantly made up of 3-4 storey terraced houses converted into flats with rear wings and the top floors of several of these wings are used as roof terraces; some are in immediate proximity to our clients’ flat.

However the application was refused by the Council as they considered that the proposed rear roof terrace would lead to an unacceptable loss of privacy for people in neighbouring properties.

Our clients therefore turned to us for advice. Our initial assessment was that there would be a reasonably good chance that an appeal would succeed in this case. In the event we were proved correct as the Planning Inspector, having considered the arguments we advanced on our clients’ behalf and having visited the site, decided to reverse Westminster Council’s decision and to grant planning permission.

The Planning Inspectorate: APP/X5990/A/09/2097016

APPROVED RETROSPECTIVE CASES WON

RETROSPECTIVE PLANNING APPEAL, DARTFORD, KENT FENCING THAT ALREADY HAD BEEN ERECTED

After a previous retrospective planning application was refused, we were appointed to appeal the decision by Dartford Borough Council. Our client was initially refused an application to replace the fencing to the boundary line at the rear of the property. After a successful appeal, permission was granted for the erection of a 2.3m high featheredge close boarded fence on both side boundaries in rear garden.

Planning Inspectorate ref: APP/T2215/D/12/2185297

RETROSPECTIVE PLANNING APPEAL, HAYES, UXBRIDGE CONSERVATORY ALREADY HAD BEEN BUILT

Our clients had been wrongly advised by their builders that their new and expensive conservatory did not require planning permission. However after it was built they discovered that this advice was incorrect and so they applied retrospectively for permission. That application was refused by Hillingdon Council. Our clients were then in the extremely unfortunate position of having to demolish the conservatory or face enforcement action by the Council. They then turned to us to appeal to the Government’s Planning Inspectorate for them.

The outcome was that the Planning Inspector dealing with the appeal, having carefully considered our arguments as to why the conservatory should remain, agreed with us and granted retrospective planning permission.

Our client emailed: “Thank you very much for your help ….. it has been a great pleasure to work with Neill, his professional insight and intervention into our very difficult case helped greatly to reach this outcome. His logical reasons were well acknowledged by the Planning Inspector in the decision letter.”

Planning Inspectorate ref: APP/R5510/D/11/2151426

RETROSPECTIVE PLANNING APPLICATION GLASGOW, SCOTLAND LOCAL PLANNING REVIEW COMMITTEE ALLOWS RETROSPECTIVE CONSERVATORY

Scotland’s planning appeal system differs significantly from that in England and Wales. The Scottish system means that appeals against a refusal issued by a planning officer can only be made to the Council’s own Local Planning Review Committee.

Following a refusal to grant retrospective planning permission for a fairly small but quality new conservatory, we were appointed by Everest to appeal on behalf of their client. Working with Everest’s architects, one of our experienced Scottish Chartered Town Planners skilfully handled the case which if lost would have meant that the householder Mr R, may well have had to demolish his new conservatory.

The background to the case was very unfortunate indeed. In February 2010, Mr R had started to build a conservatory to enhance the family living accommodation of his house, this was following the receipt of a building warrant from Glasgow City Council. At that time Mr R was led to believe that because of the small size of the conservatory it would not need planning permission as it was “permitted development” under planning law.

It was not until the construction of the conservatory was well underway that the Council’s enforcement officer (following a complaint) visited the property and advised Mr R that planning permission would also be required in addition to the building warrant, this being because the permitted development rights which would normally apply had been removed by the Council at the time of the original planning permission for the property many years before.

Mr R then submitted a planning application for the conservatory for retrospective planning permission. In the meantime, however, given the apparent small scale of the development, he was not asked to stop construction pending a decision on the application. As a result, the conservatory was completed in good faith, in the expectation of planning permission being forthcoming.

However, to Mr R’s shock, the planning application was refused which meant that if it was not reversed, he would be faced with the prospect of enforcement action and the demolition of the conservatory with all the upheaval and cost ramifications which this would involve.

The background was clearly very unfortunate, but the planning system throughout the UK is such that it is not in fact directly relevant to whether an appeal should be granted. Our task therefore was to make a strong and robust case that the appeal should be allowed and permission now granted. Clear arguments based on relevant planning grounds rather than sympathy were required.

Consequently our planner skilfully addressed the two reasons for the refusal, i.e. that the conservatory would result in lack of useable private garden space and would also detrimentally affect the daylight to a neighbouring property. Using various relevant arguments based on planning policies, including the Council’s own Design Guide, our planner was able to convince the Local Planning Review Committee that retrospective planning permission should be granted for the conservatory. This of course means that Mr R does not now have to demolish the conservatory.

Glasgow City Council’s ref: 10/00725/DC

PLANNING APPEAL, MANCHESTER CONSERVATORY ALREADY BUILT – COUNCIL RELIED ON OUTDATED GUIDELINES, RETROSPECTIVE

Our clients were refused planning permission by the Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council for the retention of a conservatory they had already built further to an earlier planning permission. However on completion the conservatory was found to be significantly closer to a boundary than shown on the approved plans. When our clients applied for another (retrospective) planning permission, the Council turned it down. It seemed therefore that the conservatory would have to be rebuilt, clearly a costly exercise.

However our clients then approached us for advice. Having carried out an initial assessment of the case, we advised that the case should be taken to the Government’s independent Planning Inspectorate for an appeal.

Our clients took the advice we gave and so we then appealed on their behalf. In the appeal we argued that there were good reasons why the Council’s decision should be overturned, this basically being that the Government’s national permitted development rules had changed and that the Council had relied on their own outdated rules when making their refusal decision. Mr Graham Garnham, the Planning Inspector appointed to deal with the appeal, whilst making it clear that it was unsatisfactory that the conservatory was not built in accordance with the approved plans, stated that it was also unsatisfactory that the Council had relied on planning guidance that was significantly out of date. He therefore reversed the Council’s refusal and granted planning permission for the conservatory as built.

Interestingly, in his appeal Decision, the Inspector made it very clear that the fact that the conservatory had already been built, did not affect his consideration of the planning merits of the case.

However we would point out that it is certainly not a good idea to build anything that requires planning permission, without first obtaining that permission. The worse case scenario is that the local planning authority could legally require the removal of the unauthorised structure and failure to comply could lead to a criminal prosecution.

The Planning Inspectorate Ref: APP/Q4245/A/08/2086216