A sample review
Five pages of synthesis closing on a standalone verdict page. This is a redacted real assessment — a backland site in Battersea (LB Wandsworth).
Page 1 · The site and the question
The site and the question
What the client asked. “I can put this under offer at a figure. I think there are eight or nine homes here, probably a two-storey new-build across the yard. Should I buy it, and is that the scheme?”
What they sent. The agent’s particulars, the address, a sketch massing for a two-storey scheme, their intended purchase price, and the planning history they were aware of.
The question underneath the question: is the number of homes they are underwriting actually consentable here, or are they about to pay for units the borough will not grant?
Page 2 · Planning context
What this borough actually approves here
Wandsworth approves small-site schemes slightly more often than its caseload would predict — about 69% across 531 decided cases. That is the borough tailwind. Against it sit two things specific to this site.
First, type. Backland is the lowest-approving small-site type across London (about 52%, against a ~57% average). Wandsworth has decided too few backland schemes (22) to read a reliable local rate — so the risk on this site rests on its specific constraints and the thin local record, not on a low borough base rate.
Second, the comparable record. The transferable pattern is clear once you read it:
| Comparable | Ref | Outcome | What it tells you |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nearby garages (single-storey + basement) | 2021/1236 | Approved (committee) | The basement-then-single-storey template has cleared committee here three times (2014/7233, 2018/2630, 2021/1236). The most transferable move on this site. |
| Single-storey backland dwelling, elsewhere in borough | 2024/0303 | Approved (committee) | Low massing clears committee. Same discipline this site needs. |
| This site’s own prior scheme (two-storey) | redacted | Refused (delegated) | A two-storey workshop scheme, refused on massing, tree impact and character. The site is unchanged — any new scheme must answer these directly. |
Cohort: backland / small residential, Battersea and borough-wide comparators, conservation-area context. The record rewards low massing and punishes height on exactly this plot.
Page 3 · Development potential
What the site is really worth building
Realistically six to nine homes — but the client’s two-storey assumption is the wrong end of the range.
Six units come almost for free through the prior-approval conversion route (Class E to C3), capped by the existing fabric and carrying the lowest planning risk. Pushing to eight or nine means new-build behind a retained frontage — single-storey above ground plus a habitable basement — and a committee decision. Two storeys above ground is the line not to cross: the one two-storey scheme on the comparable template next door was refused, and so was this site’s own prior two-storey attempt.
The scheme the record supports
- Single-storey above ground, basement below — match the massing that has been approved three times nearby.
- Retain part of the workshop frontage — the site is in a conservation area, so demolition needs heritage justification; a hybrid that keeps part of the fabric is the lowest-risk route.
- Design around the central trees — shape the footprint around the mature tree-line rather than through it.
- Protect daylight to neighbouring gardens — keep heights low, set the building back.
So: the eight-to-nine homes the client wants are achievable — but only as single-storey-plus-basement, not the two-storey scheme they were about to underwrite.
Page 4 · Risks and what I’d need to know
The major risks, and the unknowns
| Risk | Severity | What it means / how it’s answered |
|---|---|---|
| Two-storey above-ground refusal precedent | High | Two-storey has been refused on the comparable template and on this site before. Default to single-storey + basement, which avoids it entirely. |
| Conservation-area demolition justification | High | Demolition needs a heritage case. Commission a heritage assessment of the workshops before committing to a route; if they are positive contributors, retention becomes mandatory. |
| Central tree-line (no TPO confirmed) | Medium-High | Design around the trees; budget for an arboricultural assessment. Tree-loss objections were not raised on recent nearby consents, so retention is achievable. |
| Committee above seven units | Medium | Wandsworth routes small-site schemes above seven units to committee as a matter of course. Programme the extra time from day one. |
| Daylight / sunlight to neighbouring gardens | Low-Medium | A daylight study at design stage; single-storey + basement materially reduces this. |
What I’d need to know before confidence could be High
- The conservation-area boundary, verified against the borough’s published GIS layer.
- Tree Preservation Order status for the central tree-line (not confirmed).
- Whether the existing workshops are positive heritage contributors — a heritage assessment answers this and can flip the route to mandatory retention.
Recommended next steps
Commission a heritage assessment of the workshops and a feasibility sketch from the architect before any pre-application engagement. Pre-application is recommended here — it surfaces the case officer early — and the conversation lands far better with both papers in hand.
Page 5 · The verdict
My verdict
“I’d proceed — carefully.”
Confidence: Medium
A professional judgement, not a prediction. Information, not advice; no reliance. Confidence is Medium, not High, because a heritage assessment and a TPO check are outstanding — either could tighten the buildable scheme.
There are homes here, and a route the record supports — but not the scheme the client was about to buy. I’d proceed at a price set by the single-storey-plus-basement scheme, with the heritage and tree questions resolved first — not by the two-storey scheme that has already been refused on this plot.
Appendix
Evidence, market signals and terms
Market signals (run your own appraisal)
The local inputs, not a bid. Plug in your own finance rate and margin — those move the answer less than sales values do.
| Achievable sales | ~£585k / unit (borough small-site average; check recent local sales for your mix) |
| Build cost (BCIS) | £3,700/sqm (tender-price benchmark, indexed 2026 Q1) |
| CIL | ~£542/sqm (Wider Borough zone: £448 borough + £94 mayoral MCIL2; net new floorspace only) |
Determination timing
Backland runs materially longer than the 56-day statutory norm — a ~140-day median here, roughly 2.5× the target, up to ~220 days at the borough P90. Programme committee from day one. If an Extension of Time is not requested by about week six, expect a refusal at the statutory deadline rather than a negotiated outcome.
Method and caveats
Drawn from comparable decided small-site applications across London and this borough, coded by site type, area, PTAL, conservation status and outcome; every claim traces to the borough’s own decisions by application reference. Officer track records rest on small numbers of decisions and are directional, not precise. Historical rates are history; the possibility of policy change is stated, not assumed away.
Terms
Due diligence. This review provides data-driven planning intelligence to support your acquisition decision. It is a professional opinion on planning risk — not a planning application, a formal valuation, or a guarantee of outcome. Verify all figures against your own QS estimates, lender terms and sales evidence before making a bid. A site visit, professional design advice, and legal due diligence on title, access rights and any encumbrances are essential complements to this analysis.
The guarantee. If, after reading the review, you genuinely don’t think it was worth the fee, I’ll refund it. The walk-away promise. If I tell you to walk away from the site, and you do, I’ll review one replacement site at half price within the next six months.
That’s the format. Now your site.
An independent second opinion before you commit six figures. £950, five working days; £1,250 for the 72-hour fast-track.