Mr and Mrs Moran contacted us after planning permission was refused for extensions to their house in Coulsdon, in the London Borough of Croydon.
The proposal was a comprehensive scheme to modernise and reconfigure their home. It included a two-storey side extension, a single-storey rear extension and a rear dormer roof extension.
The council refused the application on design grounds. They argued that the extensions lacked subservience and also raised concerns about the potential impact on a protected tree.
At that stage, an immediate appeal was not the best option.
Although we are planning appeal specialists, it is not always sensible to appeal straight away. In some cases, it is better to deal with specific objections first, even if you expect the council to remain resistant. Doing so often leaves a scheme in a much stronger position on appeal.
Here, the tree issue was the obvious distraction. The protected tree stood in a neighbour’s garden and was in poor condition. Before resubmitting the application, the tree was felled and a tree report was obtained confirming that it was no longer an issue.
We also considered whether the design itself should be amended. In this case, our view was that the scheme was well thought through and of good quality. The problem was not the design, but how the council was judging it. The application was therefore resubmitted without changes, supported by a detailed Planning Statement explaining the rationale behind the proposal.
As expected, the council refused the application again. At that point, we were ready to appeal.
The appeal focused on dismantling the council’s design objections. We explained how the extensions related to the existing house and the surrounding development, and why the proposal sat comfortably within a varied streetscene. Photographs and contextual analysis showed that there was no single prevailing style along the road and that many neighbouring properties had already been extended.
A key issue in the appeal was the council’s reliance on vague design concepts. The policies they cited required high-quality design and respect for character, but did not set out rigid rules. That matters, because design judgement is inherently subjective.
We see this issue repeatedly with two-storey side extensions, where councils apply guidance rigidly and refuse schemes that inspectors later find acceptable. We have written more about this pattern here.
Councils often treat design guidance as if it were a checklist. Inspectors tend to take a more balanced view.
The inspector was clear on this point. He noted that he had not been referred to any policy or guidance requiring the level of subservience the council was demanding. He also observed that properties along Howard Road displayed a wide range of designs and that many had already been extended.
Importantly, the inspector focused on the quality of the proposal itself. He concluded that, through its cohesive design, the extended house would be similar in scale to others nearby and that the materials and detailing reflected the existing property.
The appeal was allowed, and planning permission was granted for the redevelopment of the Morans’ family home.
This case is a good example of how design refusals often come down to overly rigid interpretation rather than genuine planning harm. Although this was an appeal in Croydon, we see the same approach taken by councils elsewhere, particularly for larger householder schemes.
Croydon is one of our busiest boroughs for planning appeals, and we regularly deal with refusals based on weak or overly rigid design arguments as part of our planning appeals work in Croydon.
If you have been refused planning permission for extensions and feel that design concerns have been overstated, it may well be worth challenging the decision.
