On behalf of our client we applied for the erection of a dwelling on a plot of land he owned set close to Llanrwst Road, Upper Colwyn Bay and which was refused by the LPA. They were dissatisfied with the proposed size and how it would intrude upon the character of the area, including some intrusive window placements. We then entered a stage of discussions with the Officers who were extremely helpful and various amendments were made to the design of the proposed new dwelling. A second application was then submitted, incorporating the officer’s suggestions and amending the plans accordingly. With the revisions made the Local Planning Authority approved the changes and permission was finally granted. After many months of discussions, amendments and dealing with substantial local objections, our client was delighted with our work and is looking forward to the challenge of building a new home.

Our client owns a property known as Horeb in Pwllheli which was granted planning approval but subject to a Section 106 Agreement, restricting occupancy to a Local Person. The property itself is a large 3-bedroom house which includes a large fitted kitchen and living room with access to a balcony and stairway to the garden. As the property is of a particular size it was reasonable to assume that it would normally be outside the scope those in need of an affordable home. Owen Devenport were asked to submit an application to remove this occupancy restriction following previous positive results in discharging other local occupancy conditions. We set together a strong case using these previous successes as evidence to justify the impracticality of this condition. We were pleased to let our client know that the Authority had discharged this occupancy limitation leaving our client with a dwelling free from this restriction.


Our client owned land in a Penycraigwen which is a village close to Rhosybol, where he wanted to erect a new dwelling to occupy as a family home. We were initially instructed to submit an application on our client’s behalf which was refused on the grounds that the proposal would represent an unacceptable form of development which would impact upon the rural landscape to the detriment of that area’s character.

We were further instructed to put together an appeal in which we strongly disagreed with the LPA's grounds for refusal. We argued that the proposal would in fact be a modest and acceptable contribution to the area and fitting to the village’s form. We also argued that the Council had misinterpreted their own policies in reaching their decision. Following the Inspector's site visit we were pleased to inform our client that their appeal had been allowed and the client was ecstatic with the news that he can now pursue the final design for their new family home.

Our client wished to erect a dwelling along with a few associated works that involved the demolition of an existing garage in order to erect a new double garage along with the creation of a vehicular access and garden area. The site had previously been granted permission to erect a single dwelling but had now expired. Owen Devenport applied for a new permission and justified why the new (larger) design was an improvement over the old design. After due consideration the application was granted and allowed the client to proceed with his ideal home in a rural Anglesey village.

Our client wished to erect a small detached bungalow on a brownfield site in his ownership. As the appointed planning consultants we put together an application to submit to the Local Planning Authority to demonstrate that the development was in line with all the relevant planning policies. However it was several months later before the LPA agreed with our contention and even insisted upon an application for Lawful Use be submitted (for the existing use). When this was approved the LPA were then and only then, disposed to approve the original application. A frustrated but satisfied client now has the planning permission he required. 

Owen Devenport were instructed to submit an application to discharge the section 106 agreement which restricted occupancy of the property to ‘local’ people but the application was refused. Even though an identical appeal conducted by ourselves was upheld against the same Authority only a few months earlier. Using this first appeal as a clear precedent a strong case was submitted on behalf of our clients once again proving that the cost of the dwelling was not affordable even with a reduction in a third of its value and therefore the planning obligation would not be deemed to fulfil it’s purpose. The Planning Inspectorate took this into consideration and reached the conclusion, which we were pleased to say discharged the Obligation. It is regrettable though that our client had to go through the appeal process when it was evident that the Authority’s decision was flawed.