Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

Havkey100's Achievements


Member (3/5)



  1. 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
  2. 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.
  3. 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....
  4. Good news is that my district councillor is calling it to planning committee.
  5. 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.
  6. 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...
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. Survivor bias though, no images of the thousands that didn't last
  10. Render of view from dining area. The door is a bit narrowed due to perspective, but the ratio of building to glazing is accurate.
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. Yes, we definitely won't give up on this as our feeling is that this is a marginal subjective view.
  14. 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.
  • Create New...