What to expect
| Typical duration | Weeks to months — driven by meeting frequency and resubmissions |
|---|---|
| Cost band | Figures live in the cost index |
| Permit required | Required before the building permit where applicable |
| Seasonal constraint | Not seasonal |
What it is looking at
The review is about the external result and how it sits within its setting, not about your internal layout.
- Form and massing — how the volume reads against neighbouring buildings and against the settlement as a whole.
- Materials and finishes on every visible surface.
- Colour, within the palette applicable to that settlement.
- Openings — size, proportion, rhythm and subdivision.
- Roof form, parapets, and anything projecting above the roofline.
- Visible equipment: air conditioning condensers, solar, satellite, extract terminals.
- Boundary treatment, terraces and balustrades visible from public areas, and from the caldera and the sea.
Why schemes get sent back
From the patterns we see, four reasons dominate.
- The scheme was designed before the controls were checked. The elevation is simply outside what is permitted, and everything downstream has to change with it.
- Modern glazing on a visible elevation. Large unbroken openings and frameless glass balustrades on a caldera-facing elevation are the most common single point of difficulty.
- Visible plant. Condensers, solar equipment and terminals shown on a visible elevation because nowhere else was designed for them.
- Material and colour outside the permitted range, frequently on a scheme that is otherwise fine.
Designing to get through first time
- Establish the applicable controls for the specific settlement before scheme design starts, not after. See traditional settlement compliance.
- Test the elevations against those controls as the scheme develops, at each stage rather than at the end.
- Design the plant positions in from the start — screened, grouped and concealed. See air conditioning and photovoltaics.
- Where a modern element is wanted, propose it in a form that has a realistic chance: glass below a solid parapet rather than full-height frameless; a large opening broken into a permitted rhythm.
- Present the scheme in its context. A drawing that shows how the building sits against its neighbours makes the case better than a drawing that shows it in isolation.
Our part
The submission is your architect's work. Ours is practical support around it: making sure the materials proposed are ones that can actually be sourced and executed to the standard the approval assumes, that the concealment details for plant are buildable, and that the programme carries realistic time for the review and for a possible resubmission.
We also flag, before submission, where an approved detail will be difficult or expensive to build on a site with the access yours has — because an approval for something that cannot be built economically is not a win.
Questions people actually ask
Does every project go before the Council?
No — it applies in designated settlements and other controlled locations. Whether yours does is established from the property's designation, and it is one of the first things to check.
How long does the review take?
Weeks to months, driven by meeting frequency and by whether the scheme is sent back. Designing within the controls from the start is the main lever you have on that.
Can I appeal a decision?
There are routes to respond and resubmit, and your architect will advise on the specific position. In practice, addressing the objection and resubmitting is usually faster than contesting it.
Can I make internal changes freely?
The review is about external appearance. Structural work still needs a permit regardless, and anything that changes something visible externally — an opening, a terminal, a terrace — comes back into scope.
What if my neighbour built something that would not be approved now?
It happens, and it is not a precedent you can rely on. Some of it predates current controls and some of it is unauthorised. Neither helps your application.