Havkey100

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.

It's ok, we are back in the consultation phase so open for comments for another 10 days. We have quite a few favourable comments from neighbours now, so the trigger should be met. The architect is also preparing a render from within the bungalow which should help our case. I have also approached my councillors.

I expect not as the process as I understand it is: 1. We must get more than 3 supporting comments which mandates that any recommendation is published on the circulated notice 2. The planning officer makes their recommendation and due to 1. publishes 3. A committee member reviews the circulated notice and should they decide, can pull the application to the planning committee, irrespective of the case officers recommendation 4. The planning committee then becomes the decision body. The planning officer would make a case to defend their recommendation and we would make a case for approval as applicants. 5. Final decision is then documented on the application.

Yes, we definitely won't give up on this as our feeling is that this is a marginal subjective view.

Already done

I think once we get down to subjective elements of planning it is often the case. As mentioned, we are facing from the planners are opinions: "I’ve read through the comparisons and whilst I note your points, I don’t believe any of them are directly comparable. Whilst the proposal likely would meet BRE guidelines in terms of light, and the amenity area is over that required in PSP43, due to the layout of the site the rear outlook from the bungalow would be entirely taken up by the proposal, resulting in an overbearing impact upon any future residents. This is not down to one factor, but the combination of layout, size, scale and proximity for this particular proposal." We do disagree with this statement. The bungalow has French windows that are 2.9m tall. The position of the proposes dwelling is 10m away, set at a 35 degree angle the view from the rear window intersects the dwelling at 20 degrees, much better than right to light and overlook guidelines stipulated by South Glos from the BRE guide.

Agreed, the comments on ours around access just conveniently overlook the fact that there is a driveway there which got planning in about 1985. All the increased traffic they refer to came from a development of about 100 houses in the early 2000s. As mentioned, most comments are on opinion, however I would add that we are now down to highly subjective elements of planning with the case officer. It is therefore helpful to have more vocal support.

"This corner plot is very prominent in the village and approving a 2 storey home there will result in a house that looks forced onto the plot, not in keeping with the area at all. The driveway access also, being so close to a blind corner has to be considered dangerous. The appletree sighted as "providing shade" has actually been cut down, so the plans are inaccurate. Finally, I question the validity of some of the previous comments supporting the development as I have been reliably informed they are personal friends of the site owner" 1. Every other house in the area is two story except our bungalow 2. The driveway already exists and highways have approved the plan 3. The apple tree is still there, he is getting confused 4. Sorry for having lived in the road for 10+ years and making friends who are supportive and who we spoke with before we even submitted the application. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, I get it, but for some reason this gent has decided that our proposal, and not the other 10 houses being built in the area, is the problem!

Our planning officer has updated the application with our revised design for public consultation. It is less impactful than the original design so a little odd that this was needed, however this may be helpful. We have quite a lot of local support for the application, and people are now adding this on the planning application, which is helpful. One disgruntled person has now commented 3 times! The planning officer has helpfully advised that if we have sufficient local support it will trigger a notice on the circulated schedule, and if the case officer were to refuse approval, a councillor could still call the application to the planning committee. This may be our best route as the planning officer has indicated that despite our application complying with objective elements of the local policy and BRE guidelines, their line manager still feels it is subjectively overbearing.

we have considered that. There is likely space for 3 buildings and valuation post built would net profit, but would be a huge headache I don't want to go through. We have had some informal advice from a planning consultant who indicated that we would have a strong case on appeal, and that was before we had identified any of the other comparable applications that have been approved.

Devastating isn't it!

South Glos. Back to Back is 20m The technical guidance states: Where houses face each other at an angle: The more oblique the relationship between dwellings (typically 30⁰ or more), the less likely it is that there would be inter-visibility between rooms. In these instances, the separation distance may be reduced without a detrimental impact on privacy levels Where the impact on privacy levels can be satisfactorily mitigated: For example, through the use of obscure glazing and restricted openings (for the avoidance of doubt, it would not be acceptable for principal rooms to only have obscure glazed windows). We are oblique, side to back and have proposed obscured windows to fully mitigate privacy concerns to kitchen sink it. There is also this in the technical guidance: There are no minimum separation distances where dwellings front one another across the public realm, for example a street, as the land is usually already subject to overlooking. However, consideration will be given to the prevailing separation distances in the locality. Proposals that fail to respect the existing development pattern are unlikely to be considered to meet the highest possible standards of design. Everything else in the area is built closer.