Planning Application Refused - Did I expect too much of the Architect?

CustardCream_2

I am a newbie self builder, currently renovating our family home.
Plans have been submitted and refused due to a rear roof terrace on the designs, I understand that it is a tricky task to have a roof terrace approved, so I am not overly disheartened by this, (we were given the option to remove the roof terrace in order for the plans to be approved). The reason that we did not do this, is mainly due to the feeling that, in my head, the whole point of using a reputable architect is to ensure that designs would have met the appropriate local planning requirements before submission. , e.g. "Policy 32 (iv) of the Local Plan 2030, and design code E7 of the adopted Design Guidance, 'Residential Extensions, New Dwellings, and Small Infill Developments 2000'."
If this was not to be the case then surely upon submission of the plans, he would have opted for pre application advice with the case officer so that the plans could either be updated to remove the offending item, or modified to accommodate regulations. When we were offered the option to remove the terrace from the designs he advised that this would be at a cost of 4 hours (£280), I feel as if due diligence wasn't taken during the design process, further compounded by not receiving pre application advice.

No doubt we will end up having to pay the architect the £280 to have the plans resubmitted without the roof terrace, having not previously worked with an architect and been through a planning application submission, are my expectations of how it should have been handled unrealistic?

GDB2222

Pre application advice would not have been free. That could have taken four hours, plus the council's charges. The advice would not have been definitive, anyway.

Around here, such terraces would not be permitted. They are regarded as too intrusive for neighbours.

victor2

Getting planning permission is fraught with obstacles. If the architect has a good local reputation, he could have created a plan that stood a chance of getting approved, but the council decided otherwise.
We used a friend of a friend who was an architect for planning permission many years ago. He was local himself and knew how the council operate, but it still took two attempts to get approval, and there were no objections from neighbours to either plan.

CustardCream_2

GDB2222 said:

Pre application advice would not have been free. That could have taken four hours, plus the council's charges. The advice would not have been definitive, anyway.

Around here, such terraces would not be permitted. They are regarded as too intrusive for neighbours.

Understand that pre approval advice is not free, but not being given the option for the advice, seems underhanded, bearing in mind that with an architect acting as an agent, you're trusting that they're acting in your best interests

Section62

CustardCream_2 said:

No doubt we will end up having to pay the architect the £280 to have the plans resubmitted without the roof terrace, having not previously worked with an architect and been through a planning application submission, are my expectations of how it should have been handled unrealistic?

It depends whether or not you wanted the roof terrace.

If this was something you really wanted then it would be appropriate to include it in the design submitted for planning consent.  Refusal of the application was not guaranteed, because each application is considered on its own merits.  It may be contrary to a local plan policy, but that doesn't mean automatic refusal.

Refusal now opens up the possibility of appeal to an independent inspector.  It is relatively routine for planning consents to include features which are contrary to policy/guidance, and submitted solely for the purpose of getting a refusal from the LA to enable appeal to the planning inspectorate.  If the architect thinks you wanted the roof terrace then this approach would be in order - but they should have explained the strategy to you.

Pre-application advice can be helpful, but is not compulsory and serves little purpose with an application the LA are likely to refuse, but the client intends to appeal.  At best it is evidence the applicant was trying to be reasonable in finding an acceptable design, but the planning inspector shouldn't refuse an application based solely on the reasonableness of the applicant.

The architect should have told you of the risk of refusal with a feature such as a roof terrace, and guided you on whether or not to include this in the final plan.  And obviously, if you never wanted the roof terrace then there's a question to be asked why they included it in the design.

The main point from this is that when a planning officer suggests a feature be amended it is generally a good idea to take the hint.  Whether the architect has done wrong here depends on the conversations they had with you when that feedback was given by planning.  Submitting an amended plan is a lot less hassle than resubmitting an application following refusal.