Planning Appeal

Appeal against refusal for a replacement dwelling and swimming pool – Approved on appeal

Dwelling located within the Green Belt, a Flood Zone and partially in a Conservation Area. The application was for the demolition of the existing home and the erection of a new dwelling with a detached garage, a swimming pool in the grounds and associated parking and landscaping.

We were instructed by the architects to support the application with a planning statement and provide general advice. Although the Council did not support the contemporary design and refused the application we have submitted an appeal and sought barrister support.

We represented the applicant at an Appeal Hearing and were successful in arguing that the replacement dwelling would not be inappropriate development within the Green Belt. The Inspector also found the Council acted unreasonably by adding one of the reasons for refusal and awarded partial costs.

https://www.absolute-architecture.co.uk/

Successful Applications and Appeal – Extension in St Margarets Conservation Area

There is much history with this house seeking extensions to make it suitable for the C21st. We submitted an application which was refused and then allowed on appeal within 1 week. We have also submitted two other applications, one which has been approved and one still waiting a decision.

The scheme involved: demolition of existing two-storey rear extension and construction of single-storey and first floor rear extensions, extension of roof and raising ridge, installation of rooflights, replacement windows, demolition and part replacement of existing garage and demolition of front boundary wall/fence and replacement with new boundary wall.

Successful Appeal – Two new dwellings at Mannings Heath

Appeal against the decision by Horsham District Council to refuse planning permission for the demolition of an existing timber garage and shed to be replaced by 2 x two storey dwellings with associated parking and landscaping.

We were involved with this application following a previously withdrawn application for a new infill development within a village.

The Council refused the application. However, we appealed the decision and the Inspector agreed that the new dwelling added to the local housing supply and utilised an under-used piece of land.

Successful Appeal – Overturn of refusal against detached outbuilding storage

We were instructed to assist with the appeals against two planning permission refusals for a client.

The first, Hillingdon Council refused a planning permission for a storage building to be constructed to the rear of a restaurant on Swakeleys Road, within a Conservation Area. Cameron Jones Planning managed the appeal submission, supported with a comprehensive appeal statement.

The second against refusal to allow a first floor rear extension and conversion of the roofspace to habitable use to include a rear dormer and 2 front rooflights.

We’re pleased to say that the Planning Inspector rules in our favour on both..

Planning Appeal allowed for the change of use from two flats to one house – Thames Ditton

We were instructed to draft the Grounds of Appeal following refusal of permission by Elmbridge Council for a building to change from two very dilapidated flats back into a dwelling house, for which it was originally constructed and is on a road of other dwellinghouses.  We argued that the revision of the property from two flats to a single family dwelling house would secure several benefits in terms of improvements to the interior of the building, demand for on-street parking, cycle parking, energy and waste refuse/recycling storage.

Success! Appeal allowed

Permission on appeal – Residential extension with rooflight and flue – Mortlake

We were instructed to write the appeal statement following refusal of a first floor rear extension to a locally listed building within a conservation area.  The Council had previously approved a first floor rear extension and the new proposal was 30cm wider which the Council had refused.  The Inspector agreed with our argument that the new extensions would not have a materially different effect on the character and appearance of the area, the site as a BTM, or neighbouring BTMs, to that of the previous approval.