Havkey100

Yeah, only my 11 year old was around at the time. Had to use him for emotional support lol.

Submitted mid August Started 25th September Site Visit 18th December Decision this week.

Appeal Decision notice attached for anyone who is interested. 3350167 Appeal Decision (1).pdf

In my opinion having a clear island is much better. When hosting, you have two separate congregation points, without cooker mess and paraphernalia in the way. Cooking than then be kept separate. I used to think otherwise, but having just been to a friends new home, they have the cooker against the wall, a similar sized island to your proposal, and it worked really well as a gathering space.

Relevant sections: 12. One of the closing paragraphs of the TAN deals with the planning balance in the determination of planning applications. In this case I have found that in terms of the main issue that most of No 37’s external areas would not lack acceptable outlook or be dominated or suffer adverse visual impact if the proposed new house were built. The same would apply to the large room served by the French doors. I find differently in respect of the bedroom. However, having regard to the many factors in the development’s favour, this is insufficient reason, in itself, to refuse permission. 13. In conclusion, I find, on balance, the proposed development would not unacceptably harm the living conditions of No 37’s future residents. Accordingly, I find that no significant conflict arises with those provisions of Policy PSP8 of the South Gloucestershire Local Plan Policies, Sites and Places Plan directed to ensure that new development should not have an unacceptable impact on the residential amenity of occupiers of nearby property. At some point I will drop in my appeal document. It is hefty, but I tried to leave no stone unturned.

Massively. It has added a 7 month delay. We are lucky in that we are at my in laws, the house is spacious so we have no real issues.

Another one to many! Should never have got there, but still...

Appeal successful. I need to sit down for a while 😁

I think the consensus is to try and not take it personally. I feel the same, that comments should be restricted to addressees impacted directly by the development in the direct vicinity. However, defining the cut off would be challenging. We had all sorts commenting on ours, none of which were deemed valid. The only comment that was valid in my view was from a parish councillor, and after a minor redesign he was satisfied.

Thankyou. Seems the reports are trickling out from that weeks appeal visits so we may hear something soon!

Yes, he seems to do 5 or so visits in a day then write them up over a few weeks.

Site visit now done. The inspector was there for about 10 minutes, not sure if that's good or bad! Checked the kitchen/diner view and the dual aspect bedroom. Went outside and asked about the intentions for replacing the lleylandi, which will be a dry stone wall with native planting. He seems to take 3 or so weeks to issue a report. Fingers crossed.

A few thoughts. Just thinking about what the case officer might say: 1. Very close to rear boundary. What's behind the house? 2. Turning for vehicle will be required if it is a new build. They assume people will not reverse onto their drive. 3. Front garden will not count as private amenity space. Looks tight. Here it would be 70sqm for a 4 bed. What will you have? 3. Planner may say it is contrived as it does look a bit shoehorned in. Are there similar builds in the area?

Indeed. We had an objection from someone who claimed our proposal would lead to an overdevelopment of the locale. That same person lives in their parents old house because their parents built a new house next door. The irony was clearly lost on them. What they really meant was that they don't want someone they don't see a "local" building in their area.

Have spent a lot of time on it. As many others have experienced, we just want a fair shake at it. It seems we are being held to the whims of a personal opinion from one person, given our case officer was actually happy with even our original design. We made several changes to offset the concerns of the authorising officer, but they pretty much ignored them. I did have this from the inspectorate: "In the interests of clarity, and having regard to the appellant's initial correspondence and grounds of appeal, would the appellant produce a list of the plans, with references, it wishes the Inspector to consider, and which it considers was subject of the Council's determination. " Maybe that says a lot about the lack of clarity from the council on which version of the plans their report was based on. I have clarified again, which aligns with my appeal documents.