Five projects, four told from the record.

The brief

A single three-bedroom house on a generous plot outside Epping, and a developer who could see three homes on it: the existing house split and extended into a pair of semi-detached four-bedroom houses, and a new detached house alongside. The client bought the site with planning permission already granted, in November 2024.

The obstacle

A permission is not a licence to start. This one came with a section 106 agreement and a string of pre-commencement conditions (surface-water drainage, a tree protection plan and arboricultural method statement, site set-up, materials), each of which has to be submitted, negotiated and formally discharged before a spade goes in. Developers lose months here, usually because the conditions are treated as paperwork rather than design.

What we did

We treated the conditions as the first stage of construction, not the last stage of planning. The drainage strategy, tree protection and site logistics were resolved together with the technical design, so the details submitted to the council were the details the builder would build from. Seven conditions went in as one application; the council issued its decision on 1 July 2025, with the drainage condition following. All conditions have since been discharged.

Alongside that we produced the full construction set (plans, street elevations, sections, wall details) and the CDM risk assessment, and ran the drawing issue register so everyone on site was working from the current revision.

The outcome

Three houses being built from one address, with the council's conditions dealt with as part of the design rather than after it.

1 → 3 homes on a single plot

From the record: Epping Forest District Council decision notices of 29 November 2024 and 1 July 2025.

The brief

A 1930s semi with a narrow, deep garden and a kitchen that had nothing to do with the living room. The owners wanted the full six metres the permitted development rules allow, so the two rooms could become one space opening onto a new patio.

The neighbour

A six-metre extension on a 1930s semi runs close to the boundary, and what the council weighs is the next-door neighbour's outlook, not the rulebook. So the scheme is drawn to the neighbour's window: the eaves along the boundary held at 2.48 m, a glazed box to break the length of the wall, and the extension shaped at the neighbour's side so the full depth reads as a garden room rather than a wall.

What we did

Rather than waiting for the planning answer, we took the scheme through Building Regulations full-plans approval and prepared the Thames Water build-over submission in the same weeks, so that the day the approval arrived the owners could price and start.

The outcome

On 4 August 2025 Havering confirmed that prior approval was not required. With the building regulations already approved, the owners had a buildable six-metre extension the same day.

6 m deep, approved, with building regulations already in hand

From the record: London Borough of Havering decision notice of 4 August 2025.

The brief

A large house down an unmade lane, with a detached garage block the owners wanted to turn into living space. By the time they came to us, in November 2025, they had already been refused and had lost an appeal: a scheme to make the garage a separate house had failed on the access track, on drainage, and on the site being in the wrong place for a new dwelling.

The obstacle

The temptation after a dismissed appeal is to argue harder: a new report, a new consultant, the same application. The inspector's reasons were about a new dwelling, and they were not going to change.

What we did

We read the appeal decision for what it did not say. Converting a garage into rooms for the existing house is not “development” at all under section 55 of the Planning Act, and the external changes (new doors, rooflights front and back) fall within permitted development. None of the inspector's three reasons touched that. So we drew the conversion the owners actually wanted (kitchen and living room, study, utility, two bedrooms and a shower room above) and applied for a Lawful Development Certificate rather than planning permission.

The outcome

Central Bedfordshire issued the certificate on 12 March 2026. The owners have a legally watertight document, the space they wanted, and no committee. The wider questions (guest accommodation, splitting the site) are now going through pre-application advice with the council on the strength of that certainty.

A refusal tells you what the council won't accept. Our job is to find what they can't refuse.

From the record: Planning Inspectorate appeal decision of 25 March 2025; Central Bedfordshire Council lawful development certificate of 12 March 2026.

The brief

A family house at the end of a short terrace with an integral garage that had never held a car. The owners wanted the garage back as a room and a modest single-storey extension to the side, done quickly and without drama.

What we did

We measured the house on 12 March, drew the proposal and the three-dimensional views by 21 March, and the application was registered by East Herts on 30 March. Eighteen days, including a round of changes with the owners. The drawings show the neighbour's house on the front elevation, so the officer could see at a glance how the extension sits against the neighbouring house.

The outcome

Permission granted with conditions. The notice records that the council “considered the applicant's proposal in a positive and proactive manner”, which is what happens when an application arrives complete, with nothing for the officer to chase. As a householder application it was exempt from biodiversity net gain, which we confirmed up front rather than letting it become a question.

18 days from survey to validated application

From the record: East Herts Council decision notice, 2026.