This case is a useful example of how a planning enforcement problem that appears unwinnable can sometimes be reshaped into a manageable one through careful strategy.
Our client had built two storey side and rear extensions, a single storey front extension, a loft conversion with a rear dormer, and a boundary wall and fence exceeding the permitted one-metre limit on the front boundary, at his property in Romford.
An earlier planning permission had authorised two storey side and rear extensions at the property, but what had been built did not match the approved plans. A subsequent retrospective planning application had been refused, and an earlier appeal against that refusal had been dismissed in January 2024.
The council then served three separate enforcement notices, against which we submitted three appeals:
- Appeal A — against the boundary treatment and a hard surface in the front curtilage.
- Appeal B — against the extensions themselves, alleging they had been built without planning permission.
- Appeal C — against a breach of condition 5 of the 2021 permission, which required gas protection measures to be agreed and installed before the development was constructed.
The council was requiring the extensions to be demolished in full, the gas protection condition to be complied with, and the development then rebuilt in accordance with the 2021 permission. The compliance period was three months.
The strategic problem
The straightforward route — appealing on ground (a) to argue that planning permission should be granted for the extensions as built — was not realistic. That argument had already been tried and lost at the earlier appeal in January 2024. The extensions in their built form were not going to be retained.
But the council’s required steps went significantly further than was necessary to remedy the breach. The 2021 permission was still extant, and it permitted two storey side and rear extensions at the property. If the gas protection condition could be discharged, and the as-built extensions altered to bring them within the scope of the 2021 permission, the planning harm would be remedied without the much more drastic remedy of demolition and rebuild.
The strategic question was therefore not how to save the extensions in their current form, but how to use the existing 2021 permission to shift the position from “demolish everything and rebuild” to “alter what you have to match what was approved”.
Our approach
We submitted a separate application to discharge the gas protection condition (condition 5 of the 2021 permission). The council approved that application in January 2025. By approving the discharge of the condition, it had effectively conceded that the 2021 permission remained extant and capable of being implemented.
With the 2021 permission confirmed as live, we appealed the three enforcement notices on grounds (b), (f) and (g):
- Ground (b) on Appeal C — arguing that the alleged breach (failure to comply with condition 5) had not occurred at the date of the decision, since the condition had subsequently been discharged.
- Ground (f) on Appeal C — arguing that the council’s required steps went beyond what was necessary to remedy the breach. The proper remedy was to alter the as-built extensions to match the 2021 permission, not to demolish them and rebuild.
- Ground (g) on Appeals B and C — arguing that three months was an unreasonably short compliance period for the scale of work involved.
The decision
The inspector accepted most of our case:
- On Appeal C ground (f), the inspector agreed that the council’s required steps were defective. The original requirements went beyond what was necessary and crossed into territory that the courts have held inspectors should not endorse (the inspector cited the principle in Payne v NAW and Caerphilly CBC). The inspector varied the notice so that the requirement was simply to “remedy the breach by making the development comply with the terms, including conditions and limitations, of planning permission reference P1368.21”. This was the critical variation.
- On Appeals B and C ground (g), the inspector agreed that three months was unreasonable given the scale of the work and extended the compliance period to nine months.
- Appeal A (the boundary treatment) was dismissed and the notice upheld. The inspector concluded that the boundary walls and fence exceeding one metre in height were visually intrusive in the suburban street scene.
The outcome was that our client could alter the as-built extensions to match the 2021 permission, rather than demolishing them and starting again, with nine months to do the work. The council’s original demolition-and-rebuild requirement was set aside.
What this case shows
The Carter Drive case is a reminder that enforcement appeals are not always about whether a development can be saved in its current form. Sometimes the development cannot be saved in its current form, and pretending otherwise is a losing strategy. The right question, in those cases, is whether the council’s required remedy is the only remedy available — and quite often it is not.
The key in this case was the existing 2021 permission. By discharging the outstanding condition through a separate application, we shifted the legal position so that the inspector had a different, less drastic remedy available.
Enforcement work of this kind requires careful strategic planning, an understanding of what the council’s notice can and cannot lawfully require, and a willingness to use multiple approaches — applications, appeals, condition discharges — in parallel to reshape the case. If you have a complex enforcement matter (whether in Havering or elsewhere) where the obvious route looks unwinnable, get in touch.
