Failure to identify the relevant planning permission issues of your particular residential development scheme right from the start is like a dentist drilling your teeth without an injection - could be painful!

CASE STUDY ONE

House owners Mr. & Mrs. G. wanted to extend their 3 bedroom detached two storey rural dwelling house on a very large plot to form a substantial 4/5 bedroom family home.  Regretfully they were unaware of the development restrictions imposed by Green belt policy which halved the scale of their development plans through the formal Planning process.

Clever tactics were employed to maximize the sites development by obtaining Planning Consent for a 50% max. increase extension but then implementing the sites unused permitted development extension allowances prior to construction of the extension scheme approved under Planning.  This achieved the clients requirements & virtually doubled the floor area of the house within a very restrictive area.

Correct understanding of the GDO (PD rights), critical scheduling of the works & not letting the Case Planning Officer know the 'final game play'  allowed maximum development for this site well above what most Planning Departments would have preferred to allow.  Had our clients not engaged our services, or presented the information themselves in the normal format they would have been severely restricted in their development plans.

CASE STUDY TWO

Home owners Mr. & Mrs. C had a single storey bungalow that had already been part extended which was within the flood plain & AONB. Their development plans where to add 120% floor area to create a four bedroom home.  Regretfully, Flood plain Planning policy restricted any extension(s) to 30 square meters which fell far short of their goal.  The Planners had already been unfavorable to creating a two story dwelling so our options were much restricted.

Tactics again played an important role in achieving our clients requirements. Fortunately the site had a few established ancillary garden structures that we managed to negotiate a 'trade off' allowance on against the extension area.  A scheme was presented to the Planners that on the surface just showed a single storey extension up to their maximum extension area limits plus trade off allowances but the roof design was such that it allowed for easy conversion into two further rooms later on after the approved plans had been implemented on site.  The loft conversion just using Velux windows fell under Permitted development & did not require another Planning Consent. The structure was designed for easy conversion with minimal fuss or abortive works.

Correct understanding of the GDO (PD rights), critical scheduling of the works & not letting the Case Planning Officer know the 'final game play'  allowed maximum development for this site well above what most Planning Departments would have preferred to allow.  Had our clients not engaged our services, or presented the information themselves in the normal format they would have been severely restricted in their development plans.

CASE STUDY THREE

Mr. & Mrs. G wanted to extend their two bedroom terraced house with a two storey rear extension & a loft conversion to add two more bedrooms & a separate dining room. They had no off road car parking facilities. Planning policy requires any increase in bedroom space to comply with current off road car parking standards which would have resulted in a refusal of Planning.

Tactics were used to present an extension scheme that fitted in with the Planners policy - the scheme excluded the loft conversion as this could be constructed under Permitted Development without Planning. If it was included on the two storey extension scheme the Planners would not have formally endorsed the principal of adding an extra bedroom due to the off road car parking requirements. The two storey extension scheme presented to the Planners merely extended the 'existing rooms' but were designed in such a way that easy internal sub-division would create the additional bedroom required after the approved extension works had been implemented on site.  Our clients achieved their requirements.

Correct understanding of the GDO (PD rights), critical scheduling of the works & not letting the Case Planning Officer know the 'final game play'  allowed maximum development for this site well above what most Planning Departments would have preferred to allow.  Had our clients not engaged our services, or presented the information themselves in the normal format they would have been severely restricted in their development plans.