Fuller Long have successfully appealed two refused planning applications in Bermondsey, London.
Our client initially submitted an application for a roof extension to create additional floor space which was subsequently refused by Southwark Council. Our client sought our assistance to appeal this decision, which our consultants were able to do successfully. Our client thereafter decided that he required more space than what was approved for his growing family and decided to independently apply for 3 further schemes, all of which were again refused. Our consultants were able to assess the surrounding area and the additional development and were able to successfully appeal 2 of the refusals.
The first appeal related to an outrigger dormer extension. Refusal was given on two main grounds. Firstly, due to the overly large and tall roof extension which Southwark Council argued would be an overly dominant addition to the property. Secondly, that the size and scale of the proposed roof extension would interrupt the butterfly roof of the property, which the Council argued was a distinctive characteristic of the area. However, a key objective of planning policy is to encourage appropriate development. This is made clear in the NPPF, which states that there should be a presumption in favour of sustainable development. Under the NPPF, it is vital that local authorities support applications for sustainable development wherever possible and without delay, particularly where development would help meet the challenges of housing need. The NPPF also reiterates in Chapter 7 that it is important to plan positively for the achievement of high quality and inclusive design for all development, including individual buildings.
In addition to promoting the increase in housing supply and providing residential space standards, the London Plan seeks to maximise the potential of sites and Policy 3.4 states that boroughs should ensure that development proposals achieve the maximum intensity of use.
Our consultants assessed the local area and found a relatively low number of family homes in the area, and even less with 4 bedrooms or more. The scheme was necessary to provide an extra bedroom for the growing family that had resided in the property for a number of years. We also noted that similar extensions were granted the local area.
Furthermore, the loss of the butterfly roof was argued to not be a huge loss as the property’s existing parapets had concealed any view of the butterfly roofs. The scheme had also been carefully designed to respond to the character of the property as well as the local area.
By putting forward a robust argument that outlined the clear and direct benefits of the scheme, our professionals were able to successfully appeal the first refusal.
The second appeal related to the Council’s decision to refuse a Certificate of Lawfulness for the construction of a roof extension to the rear outrigger on the grounds that the proposal did not comply with all the criteria specified in Schedule 2, Article 3, Part 1 (Development Within the Curtilage of a Dwellinghouse), Class B (additions etc to the roof of a dwellinghouse) and Class C (other alterations to the roof of a dwellinghouse) of the Use Class Order.
However, we successfully argued that the development complied with the criteria as the property was pre-existing and had been in continuous use as a residential accommodation, not the result of a change of use application. The proposed materials for the extension would also match those of the existing property. The development would also not consist of the construction of a balcony, or the installation, alterations or replacement of a chimney.
Fuller Long further demonstrated that the original decision was issued in error. The Officer’s report agreed that the proposed construction of a roof extension to the rear outrigger complied with all the criteria of Class B and C of Schedule 2, Article 3, Part 1 of the General Permitted Development Order, with the exception of the building height restriction point. We also noted that the case officer’s view was different to the criteria and the approach that the Council had taken on other LDC roof applications in the area. It was also noted that these applications actually had a greater roof height than was proposed by our clients.
In light of the evidence put forward by Fuller Long, we were able to successfully appeal the second decision and our clients were able to commence work on their family home.
If you are a homeowner looking for the right consultants to assist with planning permission for your development, look no further. Fuller Long have worked on a variety of schemes across the UK with considerable success. To see how Fuller Long can help with your project, call 0808 164 1288 or email hello@fullerlong.com to speak with one of our consultants today.
