Planning appeal?

yschean

Hi I have recently apply for a planning application to build a single storey 2 bedroom detached house with basement over a corner plot in a conservation area. The neighbour has been supportive to the scheme and even have one support comment on application with no objection. There is a semi-D house next door which has been converted to 4 flats (1 basement flat and 3 upper floor flats).

There is an existing single storey storage garage on the plot. Both the land and garage have been derelict for some time.

The application has been refused with reasons below. Would anyone here be able to advise if I will have a chance of winning if going to appeal? Any comments/ advise is very much appreciated.

Reason for Refusal 1:
The proposed development by reason of its design, site coverage of built structure and scale, and bulk would impact negatively on the character and appearance of the host site and the area, in general, and would result in a discordant and obtrusive form of development that would fail to respect the spacious character, layout and built pattern of development in this part of the Westcombe Park Conservation Area. As such, the proposal is contrary to policies SD1, D1, D16, H7 and H10 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan, 2006, policies DH1, DH(h) and H(c) of the Royal Greenwich Core Strategy (Submission Version) September 2013, the principles of sustainability of the National Planning Policy Framework (2012) and the London Plan (2011).

Reason for Refusal 2:
The proposed living accommodation in terms of the provision of the bedrooms in the basement with limited natural lighting, in particular to the north facing bedroom, and ventilation, would result in an unacceptable internal living space that would create a substandard accommodation and living environment for the intended occupants. The proposal is, therefore, contrary to policies H7 and D1 of the Unitary Development Plan, 2006, and policies H5, H(c) and DH1 of the Royal Greenwich Core Strategy (Submission Version) September 2013.

Reason for Refusal 3:
The proposed single storey house, over basement, in the garden of the site, by reason of its design, site coverage and scale, and bulk would result in a cramped overdevelopment of the site, which in turn would result in an obtrusive and incongruous form of evelopment that would have a harmful impact on the living conditions of the occupiers of the main building and the continued enjoyment of the garden/amenity area to the west in terms of loss of outlook and an un-neighbourly sense of enclosure. As such, the proposal would be contrary to policies SD1, D1, H7 and H10 of the Unitary Development Plan, 2006, and policies H5, H(c) and DH(b) of
the Royal Greenwich Core Strategy (Submission Version) September 2013.

Noodles123

Ok well it doesn't look good to be honest especially reason 2. Have you spoken to the planner to see if there are changes you make to make it acceptable?

princeofpounds

Actually reason 2 can probably be overcome with architectural alterations. It might be a compromise but potentially doable.

The other rejections, basically about massing and character, are harder to overcome.

I do feel for you in some ways; the planning bureaucracy obviously see derelict garages as more important than homes.

Johnandabby

yschean wrote: »

Reason for Refusal 2:
The proposed living accommodation in terms of the provision of the bedrooms in the basement with limited natural lighting, in particular to the north facing bedroom, and ventilation, would result in an unacceptable internal living space that would create a substandard accommodation and living environment for the intended occupants. The proposal is, therefore, contrary to policies H7 and D1 of the Unitary Development Plan, 2006, and policies H5, H(c) and DH1 of the Royal Greenwich Core Strategy (Submission Version) September 2013.

This is simple to test, you could appoint someone to calculate internal daylight provision. There are specific daylight targets that should be achieved, and you would look to increase glazing areas to achieve these. For basement accommodation you would need to have lightwells, and you may need to increase the depth of these to improve daylight provision.


You would definitely need to look at this in detail before thinking about an appeal.

yschean

Thanks for all replies!

The officer in charge simply said if you are not happy with the result then go to appeal. Basically refusing any constructive discussion about the scheme.

No.2 is the one I think can be resolved as suggested by princeofpounds and Johnan. A desktop daylight analysis could probably prove the design is working? There is a lightwell in the design which complies with building regs. for minimum window area vs. room size.

The No.1 & 3 are more subjective... The plot is actually come with it's existing boundary brick wall almost 2m height. The building has been design to 'sink in' with green flat roof so from the street scene its almost 'invisible'.

BornAtTheRightTime

You can change the appearance through design, but ultimately No1 says the bungalow is too small in relation to the neighbours and No 3 says it's too *big for the plot.

If you intent to appeal successfully you'll need to have examples of nearby properties of similar size to your proposal to counter argument No 1, and you need to find out what the maximum plot development is (by reading up on the quoted policies) and ensure the design is within it.

*ETA: by big I mean width and depth, ie square footage, rather than height.

princeofpounds

The proposed development by reason of its design, site coverage of built structure and scale, and bulk would impact negatively on the character and appearance of the host site and the area

These 'character' policies are one of my personal favourite obstructionist measures.

I call them the medusa policies; everything must be preserved in stone!

(actually, I don't object to them being used in small conservation-type areas, as this happens to be, although to be honest some of the bars for this designation can be pretty low these days.)

CH27

Have you tried asking the planners what they would allow?

princeofpounds

Have you tried asking the planners what they would allow?

That would be helpful, wouldn't it? But it doesn't work that way.

The officer in charge simply said if you are not happy with the result then go to appeal. Basically refusing any constructive discussion about the scheme.

You can of course pay extra to them for 'pre-application consultation', but when I've seen self-builders on the forums talk about it I think their experiences tend to be quite disappointing. There's a lot of generalities, not so much willingness to propose solutions.

Annie1960

yschean wrote: »

Reason for Refusal 1:
The proposed development by reason of its design, site coverage of built structure and scale, and bulk would impact negatively on the character and appearance of the host site and the area, in general, and would result in a discordant and obtrusive form of development that would fail to respect the spacious character, layout and built pattern of development in this part of the Westcombe Park Conservation Area. As such, the proposal is contrary to policies SD1, D1, D16, H7 and H10 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan, 2006, policies DH1, DH(h) and H(c) of the Royal Greenwich Core Strategy (Submission Version) September 2013, the principles of sustainability of the National Planning Policy Framework (2012) and the London Plan (2011).

This is the subjective view of the planner, and the Inspector who conducts the appeal could well have a different view. I appealed a number of years ago and the Inspector over-turned this ground.

Reason for Refusal 2:
The proposed living accommodation in terms of the provision of the bedrooms in the basement with limited natural lighting, in particular to the north facing bedroom, and ventilation, would result in an unacceptable internal living space that would create a substandard accommodation and living environment for the intended occupants. The proposal is, therefore, contrary to policies H7 and D1 of the Unitary Development Plan, 2006, and policies H5, H(c) and DH1 of the Royal Greenwich Core Strategy (Submission Version) September 2013.

I have no idea about this, you would need to seek advice from someone who knows about lighting. Have you seen those Sarah Beeney programmes on TV where she uses a device - can't remember what it's called - to increase light inside the property?

Reason for Refusal 3:
The proposed single storey house, over basement, in the garden of the site, by reason of its design, site coverage and scale, and bulk would result in a cramped overdevelopment of the site, which in turn would result in an obtrusive and incongruous form of evelopment that would have a harmful impact on the living conditions of the occupiers of the main building and the continued enjoyment of the garden/amenity area to the west in terms of loss of outlook and an un-neighbourly sense of enclosure. As such, the proposal would be contrary to policies SD1, D1, H7 and H10 of the Unitary Development Plan, 2006, and policies H5, H(c) and DH(b) of
the Royal Greenwich Core Strategy (Submission Version) September 2013.

Another very subjective reason. The Inspector may well have a different view.

Have you spoken to your local councillor to see if you can get support for your scheme from an elected official, and perhaps get it 'called-in' if you resubmit (with some amendments) to the Council before going to appeal?

yschean

BornAtTheRightTime the building footprint is around 60m2 over 130m2 plot. The remaining area is for rear garden and car park. Existing garage is 25m2 footprint which will be demolished.

Spot on princeofpounds! The recent years of planning reform doesn't seems to change anything.

Annie1960 is local councillor support would really make a difference if go for resubmission? We find it impossible to negotiate with the officer so it would be hard for us to work out what to amend in our current scheme apart from proving the daylight to basement room is sufficient and comply with building regs.