This matter concerns a judicial review of a London planning authority’s decision to grant permission for the construction of a basement swimming pool, gym, plant room, and bathroom beneath a residential property.
The claimant, a neighbouring property owner and former legal professional, challenged the permission on the basis that a sewer pipe runs beneath both properties and that the development poses a flood risk. It was alleged that the local authority failed to make adequate enquiries before granting permission.
A fallback planning application was submitted, relocating the pool further down the garden to avoid the sewer. This design is functionally inferior and severs the pool from the main house. Thames Water has since approved a diversion of the sewer, but the original Build Over Agreement (BOA) was based on the first application.
The planning authority has indicated it will sign a consent order to quash the original permission, citing procedural deficiencies and conceding that its initial enquiries were insufficient. This undermines the applicant’s position and increases litigation risk.
The claimant has secured agreement from the authority and seeks to recover costs. If the judicial review proceeds, the applicant may be liable for both the claimant’s and the authority’s legal costs.
The fallback scheme is less desirable but may be more cost-effective. The original scheme is technically viable but requires urgent submission of detailed engineering evidence, drainage strategy, and revised planning documentation.
Counsel advised that the fallback scheme could proceed with reduced risk and cost, but recommended resubmitting the original design with enhanced technical detail. The client was advised to withdraw the second application and replace it with a revised submission supported by a detailed planning statement, updated drawings, and a drainage strategy.
Coordination with Thames Water was recommended to confirm the diversion agreement and structural integrity of the proposed works. The planning authority should be asked to delay validation while revised materials are submitted.
The claimant should be invited to engage with the updated proposal. If they refuse, the client may proceed and challenge any objections as unreasonable. This approach was considered the most cost-effective and time-efficient route, preserving the quality of the proposed development while avoiding unnecessary litigation.
Call us – Mon-Fri 8:30am – 6:30pm
+44 (0) 20 3034 0077
By submitting this form, I accept this website’s Privacy Policy