Havkey100

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.

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.

Thanks. We originally considered the mirrored option but wanted to remain within the main build line of the row of adjacent houses (the edge can be seen in red). This was seen as best practice to give a consistent build line as we are on a corner plot, the bungalow acts as the 45 degree pivot to the row of houses to the west. We have elevations and street scene and will update for the changes we have made so far. There is another property approved nearby where they place 5 houses in front of a bungalow, the nearest of which is 1m from the fence line of the only amenity space available. This is 400m from our site.

The last message said: The distance between the rear of the bungalow and the two-storey property would still result in an overbearing impact upon future residents of the bungalow, given this is their main rear outlook and amenity space. It is likely that only a single storey dwelling would be accepted here due to the plot restrictions. When referencing BRE guidelines we are significantly better than 25 degrees for protection of light and outlook. Additionally, the two "affected" rooms in the bungalow are dual aspect, with entirely unimpacted views retained to the west and south. There are two images attached of our plan and one of another approved application where a bungalow was demolished and replaced with a larger two bed. Our proposed footprint is very similar to the neighbouring bungalow with a ridge difference of 1.4m. The approved example has a closer spacing and a ridge difference of 1.9m and is situated to the south east. By definition it is larger in relative mass and more overbearing than our proposal, yet the delegated report stated that it was not overbearing on the neighbouring bungalow (note there are habitable rooms on the south east side of that bungalow). We are proposing that all glazing on the western upper floor is obscured to protect privacy, similar to the approved example, and also to modify the boundaries further to give a larger rear garden to the bungalow. Maybe I am reaching at the comparison, but it feels that we are being held to a different standard to other recent applicants, which is somewhat frustrating.