Havkey100

LPA response is no change to their assessment, but they recognised the incorrect versions of the plans had been referenced in their report. Final comments are open until 12th November. Still awaiting a site visit date from the Planning Inspector.

Yes, already done as recommended by the planning consultant.

Inspectorate have come back to me asking that I attach the relevant plans from the refusal notice, which I thought I had. It seem not, the refusal notice is referencing the outdated drawings that were superseded and formed part of the re-consultation we had to go through. I have now had to go back to the planning department and ask what the process should be. I am not sure if they need to issue a corrected decision notice and new circulated report! Can't make this up.

Any particular reason for the delay?

Planning appeal now submitted. Speaking with the consultant we are looking at 4-6 months of a delay based on what they are seeing in the area. The consultant is confident that we have a very strong basis for appeal. On prepping the appeal it really puts into cold hard light how the planning department have had to work hard to find a reason to refuse permission. They are required to apply an overall planning balance and should have given weight to the sensitivity we had placed across the design, orientation, scale and mass. Instead they have ignored every area where we excelled in design and effectively pointed to one subsection of a technical advise note, made a subjective judgement that it should be applied, and then used that as the entire basis for refusal. From their own guidance: "Determining planning applications and considering enforcement investigations is a process of balancing and mitigating the impacts of development. In order to do this, Planning Officers apply varying degrees of weight to different aspects of the development depending on the level of harm. Therefore, it should not be assumed that a proposal which fails to meet all, some, or even any of the above tests would be refused. An application would only be refused when, on balance and in the public interest, the cumulative impact of the development outweighs the benefits." Hopefully we will have better news around Christmas...

Thanks all. Joe, on your point, the issue we faced was the following rejected application nearby: xxxx Lane streetscene appear to exclusively consist of two storey dwellinghouses. Whilst the proposed dwelling would contain a first floor, it is proposed to be constructed in a dormer bungalow style, and would be of a reduced height when compared to the host. There do not appear to be any other properties constructed in a similar style in the immediate area, and in this respect, it is considered that the proposed dwelling would appear as an out of character addition. This is 30m from our site and the planners stated clearly they preferred 2 storey dwellings 2 years ago. We raised this with the case officer. Absolutely no consistency

Formal refusal received today. Have already got my appeal document drafted and ready for a review by a planning consultant and our architect. The planning consultant had already initially reviewed the decision and feels it is all a bit bizarre. We are mulling whether or not to in parallel submit a revised design, but given we believe we currently comply with all policies, we may still find we are refused again without a compelling reason based on policy.

Really can't make this up now. The district councillor referred this to the planning committee. The chair of said committee has now rejected this request because: "3-desion does not appear finely balanced" So mistakes in the officers report on the height of the proposal in relationship to the neighbour, reliance on a subjective element of planning policy to argue overbearing effects, contradictory statements in the report around compliance with policy, support of the parish is not enough....

Good news is that my district councillor is calling it to planning committee.

To start with: 5.22 Due to the dominant and overbearing impact upon (bungalow), the proposal does not comply with CS1 or PSP8 5.26 The proposal is considered to be acceptable in terms of residential amenity, and is in accordance with policies PSP8 and PSP43.

Recommendation for refusal. We are hoping to get it to committee but will see. Material mistakes in the recommendation, including wrong height of the proposal, contradictions and piecemeal application of technical guidance on residential amenity. Highly frustrating...

Indeed. We have a refurbed house almost ready to sell, but can't do that until we have planning in order to set boundaries etc... We have had good offers for the full site from us, but that is not why were are doing this.

Yes, we have already advised that this would be our course of action. Back at the parish planning committee today, we are hoping for a recommendation for approval as opposed to no objection from them, as they in some ways gate keep the subjective elements of local design. If they are satisfied then it all adds up. We have a lot of supporting comments on there now, probably a dozen or so. No further objections thus far during the re-consultation.

Survivor bias though, no images of the thousands that didn't last

Render of view from dining area. The door is a bit narrowed due to perspective, but the ratio of building to glazing is accurate.