Problems with Planning Department

tintin_1929

i all,

Hoping someone can provide some advice and guidance.

We currently have a detached home with an attached garage (new user so I am not allowed to post pics just yet). Above the garage is a bedroom but the eaves in it make it almost uninhabitable. So we've put in planning permission to build this room to a full height (like the others) which means the roof will match the existing roofline.

Planning have come back and said we are not allowed to match the existing roof height! They want it stepped down by a meter. The reason given is:

Currently the proposed development is considered by virtue of its scale, design, appearance of bulk and impact on neighbour amenity, to create a visually intrusive and dominant form of development within the street scene.

None of the neighbours have a problem with it and are willing to sign a letter/petition to say so. Furthermore, everyone agrees that it would look better if the roofline were matched to the existing height.

Am I going crazy here? Can someone please offer up their opinion and better still, can someone please chime in with some help as to how we can fight this?

Thanks

Doozergirl

Lots of councils expect extensions to be visually subordinate to the house.

They expect the roofline to be lower and the extension set back. It can often be by only 50cm or a metre, but they do not like houses simply being made wider. They want visual interest.

Google your local council and 'supplementary planning guidance'. These provide the guideline that they expect extensions to meet, amongst other things.

You should be able to raise the eaves but keep the roofline lower. It just means you need a well designed roof for that area.

Who drew the plans for you to submit?

tintin_1929

Thanks for the info (have clicked Thanks!). We have employed an Architect but not very happy with his service, he's not been very helpful unfortunately.

We are able to adjust the pitch of the roof above the bedroom but that means we end up with an unusable loft. Was really hoping to have the best of both worlds :-) I wish I could post up some pictures to make it easier for everyone to visualise!

ProDave

How about creating a gable end on the front? A bit like a bog dormer but without the sides cropped off (as is normal with a dormer)

Something like I am doing on my new build:

[IMG]http://ardross.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!/Wilowburn/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/render_5.jpghttp://[/IMG]
http://ardross.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!/Wilowburn/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/render_5.jpg
[IMG]http://ardross.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!/Wilowburn/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/render_5.jpghttp://[/IMG][IMG]http://ardross.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!/Wilowburn/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/render_5.jpg[/IMG]

That, combined with raising the roof level as much as the planners will allow, will almost certainly give you standing room over all the floor area.

EDIT the forum does not like the link to my picture. Replace the !!!!! with alter vista dot org

parking_question_chap

tintin_1929 wrote: »

Thanks for the info (have clicked Thanks!). We have employed an Architect but not very happy with his service, he's not been very helpful unfortunately.

Sounds like the problem is with your architect rather than the planning department.

As doozergirl says, having extensions stepped down from the host property is usually whats done. Are you able to modify your achitects drawings and submit them?

It doesnt matter how many people sign a petition, could be a million. If its against local or national policy they are not going to approve the scheme.

Mossfarr

Take a walk around your local area and look at other properties which have been extended. If there are any that have the type of extension you are proposing you could go back to the planner and appeal as the precedent will have been set.
This is what I did and I now have the extension we wanted. We had to submit some additional calculations regarding the roof supports but got what we wanted in the end.
After about ten years some neighbours across the road has the same issue so they borrowed our plans to support their application and it was granted.

G_M

What your neighbours think/like is not relevant if your plans breach planning guidelines.

It is normal for an extension or outbuilding to be required tohave a lower roofline than the main house.

There will be other requirements, and before drawing up newplans, make sure you (or your architect!) fully understand both national and local planning rules.

parking_question_chap

Mossfarr wrote: »

Take a walk around your local area and look at other properties which have been extended. If there are any that have the type of extension you are proposing you could go back to the planner and appeal as the precedent will have been set.
This is what I did and I now have the extension we wanted.

The appeal would need to be to the Planning Inspectorate rather than the planning officer. The planning department would make their case (ie reasons for refusing he application) and OP would need to make theirs (ie reasons the appeal should be allowed), its then up to the inspectorate to either allow or dismiss the appeal.

In terms of other extensions that have been built, it would only be relevant if they were permitted recently and therefore against current policy. Extensions decided against previous policies would not be relevant to OPs case.

martindow

Mossfarr wrote: »

Take a walk around your local area and look at other properties which have been extended. If there are any that have the type of extension you are proposing you could go back to the planner and appeal as the precedent will have been set.
This is what I did and I now have the extension we wanted. We had to submit some additional calculations regarding the roof supports but got what we wanted in the end.
After about ten years some neighbours across the road has the same issue so they borrowed our plans to support their application and it was granted.

You can't bank on this working. Planning guidelines change and what was acceptable 10 years ago may not be approved today.

Can you have an informal chat with the planning department to see what they may accept? Some authorities will discuss without charge, others have fees.

planning_officer

It's pointless arguing "precedent", as it's well established in planning that there is no concept of precedent. However, what some of the above posts really mean is that if there are other similar extensions then they start to form part of the character of an area. When that happens, another similar extension could be argued to respect the character of the area, and be acceptable. Obviously the LPA don't feel that is the case here, for whatever reason.


I have to say too, that their reason for refusal (if that's a quote in the original post?) is appallingly written. It's a mix of two issues: character of the street scene and neighbour amenity - which are entirely separate. To say that due to its impact on neighbour amenity results in harm to the street scene is a nonsense - in planning terms it makes no sense whatsoever.


I would read the officer's report (on their website) to find out exactly why it was refused - it could be do to with closing off a characteristic space to the side boundary, therefore appearing more cramped in the plot than other nearby dwellings.

planning_officer

parking_question_chap wrote: »

In terms of other extensions that have been built, it would only be relevant if they were permitted recently and therefore against current policy. Extensions decided against previous policies would not be relevant to OPs case.

Yes and no. Whilst they might be under previous policy, the fact remains that they exist and therefore now form part of the character of the street scene. If there is only one similar extension locally, then clearly it is almost irrelevant - as it is not an important part of the character of the area. But, if there are lots of similar extensions, then they form part of the area's character and another one could then be argued to respect that - irrespective of when the others were permitted. But that latter scenario is unlikely, otherwise the LPA probably wouldn't have refused it!