The client sought consent to replace six deteriorated sash windows in a Grade II* listed flat; the Local Authority refused the application twice for lack of existing and proposed window details, concluding the submission did not demonstrate replication of measurements, reveals, proportions and opening styles, contrary to local policy and the NPPF. The client’s contractor, who previously secured consent for similar works in an adjacent flat, maintains the submitted drawings replicate moulding profiles and frame sections and confirms the openings will not be altered, but is prepared to provide further detailed sections through jambs and reveals.
Counsel needed to identify the precise technical information the authority required to show the replacements would preserve the building’s special interest, advise on whether to resubmit or appeal after two refusals with inconsistent officer handling, specify the drawings and evidence (sections, reveal details, fixing methods and proportions) required to meet the refusal grounds, and propose a pragmatic process that minimised delay and cost while preserving escalation options.
Counsel advised that the refusal turned on missing sectional and reveal details rather than substantive objection to replacement, and that focused technical drawings of existing and proposed vertical and horizontal sections through jambs, heads and sills, including fixings, would directly address the stated deficiency. Counsel recommended resubmission as the first step, supported by a clear validation statement and a covering letter noting this is the third submission and requesting any further information be specified up front. Counsel also advised demonstrating parity of proportions and siting, obtaining one or two neighbour support letters, and confirming the same contractor who completed neighbouring works would supply and fit the windows to strengthen the application, while preserving appeal and complaint options if the authority persisted in procedural refusals.
Outcome and Barrister Successes
Counsel diagnosed the core evidential defect quickly and translated planning requirements into a practicable specification for the contractor and draftsman to follow, securing a proportionate, low-litigation route focused on resubmission with enhanced sectional details. Counsel’s validation and engagement strategy reduced the risk of repeat procedural refusal, preserved the client’s escalation rights and provided a clear, cost-effective roadmap to advance the works promptly.
Next Steps
Instruct the contractor’s draftsman to prepare detailed existing and proposed vertical and horizontal sections through the jambs, heads and sills showing reveals, proportions and fixings; assemble a brief condition survey and supporting photographs; obtain one or two letters of neighbour support; and resubmit with a covering validation statement requesting confirmation the submission is complete or specifying any additional information required before determination.
Call us – Mon-Fri 8:30am – 6:30pm
+44 (0) 20 3034 0077
By submitting this form, I accept this website’s Privacy Policy