oldkettle

Unfortunately, the councillor said he talked to the senior planner and "the bulk and mass" were too important to him as well, so not getting any help from there. Our architect has offered to speak for us. He is a nice guy but he had a few conflicts with the planner in the process. I spoke with the Councillor so it is probably down to me - if I can get the neighbours on board of course. The planner raised 2 issues, requesting to hip the roof (which we did but at the front only, not at the back) and to decrease the depth by "at least 30cm" (which we did not). So I was quite surprised to find references to the height of the house and the ridge level difference with the neighbours among the issues - these were never raised as concerns. 30cm on 11.75m or 12.71m wall - and impossible to see from a public land.

Thank you, Jeremy. Well, I think there are a couple of points that we could suggest to be spoken about safely, such as maintaining the height of the shrubs between our front gardens, i.e. not replacing with a standard low fence. He could also mention that there is a phone cable above both his and our front garden serving our other neighbours. I would probably accept having to arrange for a new pole or underground cable to replace it - but I don't think it has anything to do with planning. On the other hand I wish I didn't need to speak as I am certainly not good at it. I've gone through the document so many times and have not found a single point he made that I - trying go be absolutely objective - could accept as a real problem and would complain if somebody else was doing it. Not one. Makes me so angry.

Thank you for the suggestions. In our case it is the external size that is the issue and taking into account a lot of our neighbours have been here for 30 years (and more) only a couple of properties have been on the market. Called the council today and got a confirmation I will not be allowed to speak (unless someone objects) but I am welcome to send the comments. Not surprisingly, the lady who is a maternity cover and probably contacted the planners, asked for a copy to sent to her to share with the planners ? Not sure yet whether I want to give them the opportunity.

Oh, I did. There haven't been much development in our area over the last 15 years for which documents are available. There are houses with larger footprint but these are bungalows. One of them is absolutely massive semi-detached, but who can see from the outside that it is indeed the case? Anyway, I was going through his document again and it finally struck me that there are more interesting measurements. He claims that the depth is going to be 13.25m, where is it is clear from the plans the north wall (exposed, according to him) is 11.49, and the south one is 12.71. I guess he's measured the roof size but even my usually calm wife was disgusted when she saw it. He also claims our ridge is going to be 1m higher than that of the neighbours where as it is no more than 0.65m. I've created a couple of superimposed images - I know they are amateurish but that's all I've got. In black - our neighbours, in grey - our current house, dashed and dotted - the proposed size. Honestly, can't see what all the fuss is about - but I am biased. The satellite image to confirm I have not invented the sizes.

I probably search using a wrong set of terms and cannot find anything regarding building the largest house on the street. Is there a limit on how much larger than neighbours we can go? I guess nothing is set in stone otherwise our experienced architect would certainly let us know but any rule of thumb may be?

Well, I wanted to get the precise measurements so yes, the hard facts. Yet from the map it seems their house is smaller than what we propose, so I probably won't be able to use it for comparison anyway.

Yeah, I tried that, started there. Most applications are quite old and the scanned copies are so bad. You can't figure out what the scale is and the numbers are completely unreadable. I am not a big fan of getting out of the house and talking to people in person ? so I try anything to avoid it first.

Thank you. I know how to get this information but I am not sure whether people would misinterpret it as "I know where you live" message. Not sure how large Peter's council is but ours is reasonably large so most councillors probably have no idea where we are. Still putting together the message. Went to neighbours with a similarly positioned house asking whether I could measure theirs for comparison, got a very polite "no" as they are worried the planners would retaliate (for helping me) when they ask for PP of their own. I understand them but the situation where we the public are afraid of public servants' retaliation is quite ridiculous. The neighbours recommended superimposing Google images instead which is what I am trying.

It is bad but may be I misunderstand the rules, have to check with the councillor. The way it's worded on their site is not perfect ?

I can honestly say I have considered this already. I think I could ask my neighbour to speak in support - he is a very nice person. Not sure what the reaction would be, though.

I had an exchange with the planner after the refusal of the original application trying to figure out how he arrived at his numbers and pointed out that the height was not measured fairly. He chose to ignore it. He had a proper fit just before the cut-off time for getting documents ready for the meeting claiming certain plans have not been updated when in fact they have been sent to him over a month back but he chose to ignore them. But IMHO most importantly claiming overdevelopment he showed malice, not lack of attention. Unless, of course, somebody points be towards a document which explains why this would actually make sense. I am trying to make my case and this is why I posted here, but at the moment I doubt very much I will be allowed to speak - see the citation above in response to Peter.

Thank you, Peter. May I ask 1) How did you manage to deliver the letters in person? I.e. did you visit them at home? On a weekend or in the evening? 2) Was somebody speaking against your application or were you allowed to speak regardless? Our council states " If the objector fails to appear then the applicant/agent will not be entitled to speak." ?

Thank you, @AliG. I do need to be certain and of course I'd not use the word lie when addressing the committee. 1. The issue here is he has measured from the bottom of the steps which are on the sloping ground hence even below the ground level. I'd also note that as the ground is sloping both forward and to the right we could easily add some ground level at the front - or more vegetation. On the left it is probably 25cm between the ground and GFL, on the right - 80. In the middle there are steps hence the ground level can't really be seen. But the more important point I was making was the couple of houses built recently nearby have comparable height, 8.5m GFL to ridge + some more below. And they are much closer to the neighbours and way taller as is clear from the picture. With regards to the length. What he claims somewhere else is our house can be seen from the north, left side. But this is a shorter side :-) In reality neither side can be seen, at least no more that a tiny part of the first floor plus roof, certainly not the scary "mass" of the two-storey 13m wall.

Thanks. Well, this is certainly a reason not to mention this alternative if I were to speak. Regardless, the cost of this trick is prohibitive, if I had that much money I'd rather demolish and rebuild moving the house a bit back and digging it a bit deeper to address their fake concerns.

I had a significant number of emails sent to them both in the previous months. A few mentioned for example the 9.1m height issue as it has not changed from the first application. The planner ignored it completely. I guess I have little choice but try again hoping it'd be distributed to the other members. The chairman is the person who pulled our application so he will not vote unfortunately.

Do you mean restrict as a condition of the first PP?

Thank you. What is quite annoying is that I have a "clear" way of getting what I want and more 1) apply for a first floor extension only - I guess, impossible for them to decline. 2) build it 3) use permitted development rights to extend 4m back which is MORE that we are trying to add now. We would have to compromise a bit on the right side as it's within 2m of the boundary but that's no more than 1m of the width. This way we'd get an even larger house but at an enormous cost to us and to the environment. I don't see how it would be beneficial to anybody.

Sorry, a genuine question just so that I don't miss the tone here: you are serious, this is not a sarcasm?

Well, an update (and - again - questions) The good news is it's going to be decided on the 4 September by the planning committee. The expected news is the recommendation of planners is obviously refusal. The less expected news is the document they produced is full of lies. Some are obvious, some - less so. What I want to understand is whether I have any way of addressing these lies if nobody registers to speak against our application. It seems to me that I only get 3 minutes when somebody speaks against first. I will list what I consider lies here - please tell me what you think. 1) The description of our proposal claims "Erection of a first floor extension, two-storey front extension...". In reality we decrease the foot-print at the front by removing the bay window. 2) The entire two-storey element is proposed to a have rear gable and a front hip, with a ridge height of 9.1m This is as measured from the bottom of the steps leading to the front door, way below the GFL. The ridge-GFL height is 8.6m. If measured from the ground level there are recently built houses of the same height. 3) A single-storey, flat roof front extension is proposed following demolition of the existing front bay window. This is a complete lie, most likely he confused the first version of our drawings with the last one. There is no flat roof whatsoever. 4) The proposed extended house would have ridge height of 9.1m, a depth of 13.25m Half truth here. One side of the house is 13.25, the other is 12.7 and the height is again a lie. 5) This would be further accentuated by the fact that the dwelling is set forward numbers... which means there would be clear views of its deep flank (north) elevation within the street scene. Well, I posted pictures here. There is no way to see even two houses at the same time, let alone see the whole left wall of our house as it is completely blocked by both the hedging and our neighbours' house. He than repeats most of this in the conclusion part, adding - "... which would create a large bulk and massing which would appear cramped and overdeveloped within its plot and not in keeping with neighbouring houses on Hermitage Road." It did make my blood boil but on the other hand I thought it might be in my favour (in appeal if it comes to it). A claim of overdevelopment with a house occupying just over 20% of the plot feels completely wrong - but is it just because I have no clue? TIA for any comments and recommendations.

I'd guess when the boiler HW overheats it happens quite quickly and I saw the temperature rising above 80C many times.

I know I've missed the discount (work and family commitments) but in case a good deal comes up again I have a question. We currently have a vented system with a relatively small hot water tank. Water is heated by a condensing boiler and there is an immersion heating element which we use regularly as washing long hair (not mine -:-)) takes a lot of time. The boiler short cycles quite often while heating water. We have hard water with no softener. As it a is not clear when we're going to get PP and following that builders to actually do anything I want to know whether it could be possible and feasible at all to buy a 12Kw Sunamp and hopefully directly replace the existing tank. Again, the idea is at some point it would be moved and the system would change quite a lot. Hopefully, the connections can be redone. Thanks in advance for any suggestions.

@AliG Thank you, I pretty much told him we would appeal and win. They can claim anything but overdevelopment, this one I am quite certain about, we have plenty of space. But I hope the planning committee will be reasonable. The last thing remaining - figuring out whether to keep the rear gable, and we are good to go.

How about this view? That's the same from the side. Had a wonderful chat with the planner. He is absolutely adamant we have to cut back these 30cm. Why? Because we refused your first application and this one is even larger. OK, but we addressed the roof line - why can't you compromise? Because your house will be massive, larger than anyone else's around. OK, but nobody minds and I have 50m of garden space, surely it doesn't matter whether I still have 47 or 47.30 remaining? No, this is over-development. Yep, over-development. I naively thought that term was used for concreting over 80% of the green or similar, but no. Shocking. It seems it'd be better from their POV if we extended by 2m, then the neighbours extended by another 2 and step by step we'd get to where we want to be. Who said it'd be wasteful?

Well, another update and another question. I've been told by the councillor to do the hipped roof. Too tired to argue about it any more. Planners also want the extension to be "at least a foot shorter" - that's on an 12m deep building with no objections from the neighbours. "The word I think I'd use is pathetic" :-) (c) Hello, Dolly So it will have to go to the committee as planners are dead set on this second request. Anyway, hipped would have been easy it was not for the protruding part on the right side, so just wanted to check that the option that I sketched below is feasible. TIA! For reference, the existing plan and at the end - the hipped rood sketch. I also noticed the sketch looks similar to a picture provided by @bassanclan

Congratulations!