Case Studies

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.

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.

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.

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 TO REMOVE CONDITION 3 OF PLANNING PERMISSION

Condition Lifted- Lymington, Hampshire

Condition lifted to remove condition 3 of planning permission.

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 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.

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.

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 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.

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 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 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.

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.

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 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.

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 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 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 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 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.

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.