Our Projects

Successful Appeal – 2 Storey Rear Extension – Exeter

/ Exeter City Council /

substantial, three storey, end of terrace property within a conservation area. The application was to demolish single and two storey elements of the dwelling and replace with a full two-storey rear extension. The Council’s refusal was based on the extension being an incongruous addition to the dwelling and the impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding area. We argued that the development does not adversely affect any of the key characteristics or significance of the conservation area. The extension is designed to be subservient, and its impact is limited due to the position of the dwelling and the extent of the plot. The proposal was therefore compliant with local and national policies,

The planning inspector agreed with our argument and allowed the appeal.

Successful Appeal – Rear Extension – Sandhurst

/ Bracknell Forest /

We appealed on behalf of our clients against the refusal at Planning Committee of a single storey rear extension and two air conditioning units at this detached bungalow in Sandhurst. The Council’s reason for refusal was the impact of the proposal upon the living conditions of nearby occupiers, having particular regard to outlook, light levels and noise.

The Planning Inspector agreed with our arguments and granted the appeal, also awarding costs against the Council.

Retrospective Application – Outbuilding of a Dwellinghouse

/ Windsor and Maidenhead / ,

Retrospective planning permission gained for a large (7.5m x 4m) outbuilding to the rear of a dwelling containing a home gym and WC. The outbuilding was subject to an Enforcement enquiry as it did not meet the rules of Permitted Development Class E. We produced a planning statement setting with a strong case for the outbuilding based on compliance with policy, the minimal impact on the streetscene and the neighbours and the subservience to the original dwelling.

The Planning Officer agreed with our case and approved the application.

Variation of Condition Application – Changes to approved plans

/ Richmond Upon Thames / ,

We successfully applied to vary the condition imposed on a previously approved application in the Christchurch Road Conservation Area. On review of the original application, our client deemed the side dormers would be far too small to enable the family to gain adequate space in the loft and therefore wished to change the approved plans to allow for one larger dormer to both side elevations and raise the height of the existing chimneys. We argued that the revised dormer would not appear unduly dominant in scale on the roof slope and would not be detrimental to the conservation area.

Successful Appeal – Extensions to a detached home

/ Windsor and Maidenhead /

Appeal against the decision by RBWM to refuse permission for a garage conversion, part first floor, part two storey front/side extension and a single storey rear extension. In the appeal statement, the four reasons for refusal were addressed and compared against national and local policies and also the site context. The Planning Inspector wholeheartedly agreed with our representation and allowed the appeal.

Retrospective Application – Loft Conversion

/ Wokingham Borough Council /

We successfully gained retrospective planning permission for a client in Wokingham whose Permitted Development rights for loft conversions had been removed when planning permission was granted for the housing development. The application required a biodiversity survey and parking plan to be submitted in addition to the usual plans and elevations.

We would recommend all house purchasers to check the original planning permission for the development on which they are buying to ensure there are no conditions restricting future developments.

Successful Appeal – Front, rear and side extensions, and roof alterations

/ Richmond Upon Thames /

We prepared and submitted the appeal against the refusal of the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames to grant planning permission for this two storey, semi-detached dwelling in the East Sheen Conservation Area. The Council objected to the two-storey extension of the rear outrigger and hipped-roof dormer. Their case had not been based on a site visit and had not taken account other developments in the area. We successfully argued the proposal would not be out of character with the surrounding area and would match the scale, form and appearance of the host dwelling.

The Inspector concluded that the proposed alterations would be appropriately sympathetic and respectful to the character and appearance of the existing building in terms of siting, design, height, bulk and mass.

Variation of Condition – Reinstate Permitted Development Rights

/ Runnymede / ,

A client wished to vary a condition of an earlier permission that removed permitted development rights for this dwelling on a 10 acre plot in the Green Belt . The new owners were querying the plot division when the previous owners sub-divided the dwelling into three separate units. The Local Planning Authority were unhappy with the treatment of the curtilage, not wanting the entire 10 acres to be considered as part of the residential plot for PD purposes.

Following extensive negotiations between the Planning Officer and the client, and many site plans we were able to achieve a satisfactory outcome on the curtilage for each plot and were successful in having permitted development rights reinstated.

Certificate of Lawfulness Granted – Merge three dwellings to two.

/ Windsor and Maidenhead /

We were approached by residents who would live in a terrace of grand Victorian properties (built as one dwelling but subdivided into four in the 1950s).  The central property was for sale and the neighbours either side wished to purchase it and subdivide it so they gain half each to enlarge their dwellings.

We argued that the proposal would not constitute development as the scheme would only require alterations to the interior of the building, and would not affect the external appearance of the building. Both current dwellings and the proposed composite dwellings fall within the same use class.

The Planning Officer agreed, concluding: “The proposed reconfiguration of the internal layout to amalgamate the existing three dwellings, creating two 6 bed dwellings, would not amount to operational development under Section 55 (2) (a) (i) or (a) (ii), or amount to any material change of use under Section 55 (3) (a) of The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).”