Residential Development

We are delighted that following our involvement, planning permission has been secured for a garage conversion to enlarge the habitable living space of a mews house in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (RBKC), despite a historic refusal on site for a similar scheme. The result of our recent planning approval will be the creation of a more spacious family home in a central and sustainable location, whilst also future proofing the building through important renovation works.

When a second opinion counts in planning

Our team was initially approached to assist following a planning refusal by RBKC for a similar scheme.  The key concerns raised by the Local Planning Authority (LPA) related to:

• The impact of the proposed design on the conservation area;
• Loss of car parking through the garage conversion and the subsequent additional on-street parking pressures.

As the property was centrally located in London, existing data advised us that surrounding streets were already heavily subscribed with parking permits and therefore could not afford the additional pressures. Furthermore, whilst garage conversions can, in some instances, be undertaken without the need for planning permission, a historic planning condition on the Mews property prevented the occupiers from benefiting from this opportunity.

Following a detailed review of the project, the previous refusal, the site’s context, and the relevant policies in the new Local Plan, we felt that there would be merit in revisiting the scheme and prepared a planning strategy for moving the project forward.

Turning a planning refusal into an approval – collaboration is key

Given the sensitive nature of the site, we worked closely with the team at Haine & Co Architects, to ensure that the revised design responded to the concerns raised in the previous planning refusal. The updated design sought to create a development which would be architecturally sympathetic to the age and character of the host building- reinforcing the original integrity of the site and its environs which was praised in the Officer’s Report.  Furthermore, the additional space at the property would allow for a more comfortable living space and would make best use of the existing footprint.

Regarding the parking issues, we prepared and presented a case to the LPA that a Section 106 legal agreement could be used to make the development “car-free”, given the site’s highly sustainable location. This would assuage concerns over additional pressures to on-street parking in the vicinity.

Following submission of the application, we liaised regularly with the case officer, ensuring they had everything they needed to make a timely determination. Upon completion of the legal agreement, the Council acknowledged that the previous reasons for refusal had been overcome and that Planning Permission could now be granted.

The importance of a strategic planning approach  

The above case is a useful reminder that a planning refusal does not necessarily mean that your development aspirations must come to a halt. Indeed, a refusal can help your proposals evolve, especially when combined with a strategic planning approach.

If you have recently had a planning refusal and would like a member of our team to review your case and explore whether there is a way forward to secure planning approval for your project, then please contact us through either our “Arrange a Call” tab on our contact page or via the email and telephone number provided below:

Chris Moore – Director

T: 01242895008

McLoughlin Planning has successfully obtained planning permission to demolish an existing dwelling and construct a larger replacement dwelling in the Tewkesbury Borough.  The site’s location within the Cotswolds National Landscape (formerly the Cotswolds Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty) and particularly the Gloucester-Cheltenham Green Belt presented significant challenges to achieving the client brief. In partnership with Coombes:Everitt Architects and Willder Ecology –we secured the demolition of a dilapidated dwelling dating from the 1920s, and the construction of a larger contemporary replacement dwelling.

Defining the term ‘materially larger’ in the Green Belt?  A holistic comparison can be key

Councils often provide inconsistent guidance or, more challenging still, no guidance at all in terms of the size of a replacement building one is allowed to construct in the Green Belt. The key planning policy test for this application was that the new dwelling could not be “materially larger” than the existing dwelling, which inevitably raised the question: what is meant by this subjective term?

McLoughlin Planning successfully negotiated with the case officer to agree that the proposed dwelling was not materially larger, thus allowing planning permission to be granted. One of the key lessons learnt from this project is that it is not simply a question of comparing the existing and proposed floor areas. The Council will also take into consideration the differences in height, footprint, and volume, in addition to floor area, when deciding whether a replacement building is “materially larger”. Providing a holistic comparison can be the difference between approval and refusal.

I own a property in the Green Belt – how can I obtain planning permission for my project?

We are absolutely delighted with the positive outcome on this project, which will turn an almost unusable dwelling into a well-designed home.  The team at McLoughlin Planning are very experienced in the nuances surrounding these types of development projects and navigating the complexities of challenging land designations.   If you have a project that might benefit from our expertise, then get in contact with one of our planning consultants to find out how we can best assist you.

Joe Seymour – Associate Director

McLoughlin Planning is pleased to have helped a property owner secure Permission in Principle (PiP) with the London Borough of Sutton for an upward extension (airspace) development for 9 new flats. This is the first approved Permission in Principle granted by this London Borough.

Due to the significant number of reports and plans required through validation for full planning permissions, we have been approached by SME developers to find a means of managing development risk and to ensure the principle of their aspirations is something which can be agreed with the Council before investing in the technical work required. This is particularly applicable to constrained inner-city urban development sites where upward extensions for airspace development can be met with resistance.

Following previous success in London in using Permission in Principle, we worked with the landowner to develop a scheme which could be presented through a PiP to secure the principle of airspace development for the property. As this application type considers only the location, land use and amount of development, the level of supporting information is a fraction of a full planning permission. Whilst it does not remove the considerations and risks of subsequent technical considerations, it does provide an opportunity to agree with the Council whether the amount (i.e. number of residential flats) and location of the airspace development is acceptable. As PiP’s are limited to up to 9 residential units, this type of proposal is ideally suited for smaller development proposals in urban areas.

Following submission, McLoughlin Planning worked closely with the Council and case officer to ensure the proposal was being determined correctly and to agree with the officer on the appropriate amount of development which would be realistic to approve for further technical consent.

We are so pleased to have helped provide the landowner with reassurance through the PiP of their property’s development potential and to secure another first with a London Borough.

📞 If you would like a FREE initial consultation call to explore whether your property could benefit from PiP, then please get in touch!

Chris Moore,