It is surprisingly easy for homeowners to run into planning enforcement problems without ever intending to do so. A common mistake is to obtain separate approvals for different elements of a project, or to combine planning permission with works that would normally be lawful under permitted development, and then build everything together as a single scheme.
That was the problem in this case at 35 Holders Hill Avenue, in the London Borough of Barnet. The property had the benefit of earlier approvals for rear extensions, while the roof works had also been pursued separately. When the combined development was assessed as one overall scheme, Barnet refused retrospective planning permission. The council’s sole concern was that the extensions, taken together, were said to be too bulky and insufficiently subordinate, causing harm to the character and appearance of the house and the wider area.
That left our client in a very worrying position. The extensions had already been built, so the refusal created a real risk of planning enforcement action and the possibility that substantial works might have to be altered or removed.
We submitted an appeal on the basis that the council’s assessment was too rigid and failed to take proper account of the site-specific context. The house sits within a street where rear extensions, hip-to-gable roofs and large rear dormers are all well established. The adjoining property, number 33, already had a similar hip-to-gable roof extension with rear dormer, and the wider area showed a varied pattern of extensions at both roof and ground floor level. We argued that the appeal development was balanced and harmonious overall, and that the different elements sat together comfortably rather than appearing excessive or incongruous.
The inspector agreed and allowed the appeal. Importantly, the decision accepted that the rear extensions were acceptable, that the hip-to-gable addition was acceptable, and that the rear dormer was not an incongruous or dominant feature. The inspector also found that the varied widths and depths of the extensions helped to break up the structure, and concluded that the cumulative impact of the development was not harmful. Planning permission was therefore granted.
This was a very significant result for the client. Instead of being left with a refusal for completed works and the threat of possible enforcement action, they secured retrospective planning permission on appeal.
The case is a useful reminder that a refusal of retrospective planning permission does not necessarily mean the position is hopeless. In some cases, councils take an unduly strict approach to combined extensions, particularly where different parts of a scheme have been approved separately or could have been lawful in isolation. Where the overall design is acceptable in context, a well-prepared appeal can often succeed.
If you have been refused retrospective planning permission, or are worried about possible enforcement action, we can advise on the best way forward. We regularly assist clients with retrospective applications, enforcement matters and planning appeals in Barnet and across London.
