Real cases. Real outcomes.

The situation

A homeowner had extended their Victorian terrace without realising permitted development rights had been removed by a planning condition on the original property. The local authority served an enforcement notice requiring demolition within three months.

The challenge

The extension had been completed two years earlier and the family had already moved in. Demolition would have caused significant disruption and financial loss. The notice cited a breach of condition rather than a straightforward PD rights issue, which narrowed the available grounds of appeal.

Our approach

We reviewed the original planning permission and identified that the condition removing PD rights was poorly worded and arguably unenforceable as drafted. We submitted an appeal on grounds that the condition was not clearly imposed and that, in any event, the development was not harmful to the character of the area.

The outcome

The situation

A developer had converted a large outbuilding on a rural property into a self-contained annexe for elderly relatives. The local authority took the view that this constituted a separate dwelling and served an enforcement notice.

The challenge

The outbuilding had been significantly upgraded — it had its own kitchen, bathroom, and separate entrance. The authority argued it was a new dwelling in the Green Belt, which would normally be refused. The family genuinely used it as ancillary accommodation, but the physical appearance made that difficult to demonstrate.

Our approach

We prepared a retrospective planning application supported by a detailed planning statement arguing that the use was genuinely ancillary to the main house. We provided statutory declarations from family members, utility bills showing shared accounts, and a legal agreement restricting the annexe from being sold or let separately.

The outcome

The situation

A small business owner had been operating a light industrial unit as a mixed retail and storage use for over five years without realising this required planning permission. When they came to sell the property, the solicitors flagged the potential breach.

The challenge

The business owner had no formal records of when the change of use had begun. The local authority had no record of any complaint, but also no record of the use being lawful. Without a Lawful Development Certificate, the sale was at risk of falling through.

Our approach

We gathered evidence to demonstrate that the mixed use had been continuous for more than four years — the threshold for the use becoming immune from enforcement. Evidence included business rates records, delivery manifests, customer invoices, and a statutory declaration from a neighbouring business owner.

The outcome

The situation

A homeowner applied for planning permission to build a modest side extension. The application was refused on the grounds that the extension would be harmful to the character of the street scene and would result in an unacceptable terracing effect.

The challenge

The refusal was based on a subjective assessment of character. The street contained a wide variety of extension styles and sizes, and the officer's report did not identify any specific policy the proposal conflicted with. However, the committee had refused against the officer's recommendation, which made the appeal more complex.

Our approach

We submitted a written representations appeal with a detailed statement demonstrating that the proposal was consistent with the character of the area and complied with all relevant local and national policies. We included a photographic survey of the street showing comparable extensions that had been approved.

The outcome

The situation

A landowner received a Section 215 notice requiring them to tidy a piece of land that had accumulated waste materials over several years. The authority was threatening prosecution if the notice was not complied with within 28 days.

The challenge

The landowner had limited resources and the volume of material on the land made full compliance within 28 days practically impossible. There was also a dispute about the boundary of the land covered by the notice.

Our approach

We engaged with the local authority immediately to negotiate an extended compliance period and to clarify the boundary issue. We provided a detailed compliance plan showing how the work would be phased and completed, and secured a written agreement from the authority to suspend enforcement action while the plan was being implemented.

The outcome