Bluebaron

I think maybe I don’t understand the way things are done. I had an application in that was refused for being to big so now I’m attempting to reduce it but maintain a good size internal space. As such I’ve gone up a level, lost the garage and gone back a bit. now I’m trying to get a good floor plan together that works. previous comments in my last post said that making it more “L” shaped works better for the plot so that what I’ve gone back to. This reduced the overall frontage and is less imposing on the perceived corner .

This was my appeal if it helps: 1. Site context and “corner plot” status The appeal site is located at the end of XXX, adjoining XXX and a public recreation ground. While the site is visible from more than one public route, it does not occupy a formal road junction, nor does it perform any defined townscape, visual or spatial function. The Council places significant weight on describing the site as a “prominent corner plot” and treats this characteristic as a determining constraint to development. However, neither the XXX District Planning Framework nor the National Planning Policy Framework identifies corner plots as inherently unsuitable for infill or redevelopment. The term “corner plot” is descriptive only and does not, in itself, attract any policy-based protection. Private residential garden land does not benefit from a presumption of retained openness unless such protection is explicitly identified in policy or designation, which is not the case for the appeal site. Inspectors have repeatedly found that the perception of openness arising from an unusually large residential curtilage does not amount to protected openness in planning terms. The correct test is therefore whether the proposal responds appropriately to its context in terms of scale, massing, layout and appearance, rather than whether it preserves an incidental gap within the built form. 2. Openness and character of the street scene The officer report repeatedly refers to the site as providing a “visual break” and contributing to a “sense of openness”. However, no evidence is presented to demonstrate that this openness is deliberate, planned or subject to policy protection. The site is not designated as open space, does not form part of a planned vista, and is not subject to any policy seeking to retain undeveloped frontage or gaps. The surrounding area exhibits a varied suburban character, including semi-detached, terraced and detached dwellings, with irregular plot sizes typical of cul-de-sac layouts. Corner and end-of-run plots within such estates are frequently larger and are commonly capable of accommodating additional built form without harm to character. The proposal would not introduce development of excessive scale or prominence. The dwelling would maintain a typical two-storey height, domestic proportions and conventional separation distances. Importantly, the Council acknowledges within the officer report that: • separation distances are typical for the suburban context; • there would be no unacceptable harm to residential amenity; and • there are no objections on highway, arboricultural or environmental grounds.In this context, the conclusion that the proposal would nevertheless appear “cramped and visually intrusive” is not robustly substantiated and appears to be driven by a preference for the site to remain underdeveloped rather than by identifiable planning harm. 3. Scale and massing The proposed dwelling would be materially smaller in overall massing than the existing semi- detached pairs that characterise XXX. When assessed as a single built form, the appeal dwelling would be approximately three-quarters of the combined scale and bulk of the adjoining semi-detached properties. As a result, the proposal would read as a modest and subordinate addition within the street scene rather than as a dominant or overbearing form. This reduced massing directly addresses concerns regarding visual impact and reinforces the conclusion that the proposal would not erode the established suburban character of the area. This proportional relationship is a material consideration and weighs significantly against the suggestion that the proposal represents overdevelopment or an unduly intensive use of the site. 4. Design and windows – correction of factual error The officer report refers to the presence and impact of a side-facing window, implying potential overlooking and character impacts. This is factually incorrect. The submitted drawings clearly show that: • the proposed dwelling includes no side-facing habitable room windows; • side windows have been intentionally omitted to minimise overlooking, enclosure and visual intrusion; and • fenestration is primarily confined to the front and rear elevations, consistent with the prevailing pattern of development. This factual error materially undermines the reliability of the Council’s assessment. Conclusions relating to perceived cramping or character harm cannot reasonably be sustained where they are based on an incorrect understanding of the scheme. 5. Policy assessment (HDPF Policies 32 & 33 and the NPPF) Policy 32 (Quality of New Development) and Policy 33 (Development Principles) require development to respect local character, avoid overdevelopment, and achieve appropriate scale, massing and spacing. The proposal complies with these requirements by: • maintaining typical suburban heights and separation distances; • providing adequate private amenity space for both dwellings;• presenting reduced massing relative to surrounding built form; and • avoiding overlooking through careful fenestration design. Paragraphs 135, 136 and 139 of the NPPF (2024) confirm that development should respond positively to local character without imposing unnecessary uniformity or preventing the appropriate optimisation of sites. The appeal proposal represents a proportionate and well-considered form of residential infill consistent with these objectives. 6. Appeal precedent and Inspector reasoning Appeal decisions consistently confirm that: • corner plots are not inherently constrained from development; • perceived openness of private garden land carries limited weight in the absence of policy protection; and • efficient use of land within built-up areas is supported where character and amenity impacts are acceptable. Inspectors have repeatedly found that resistance based solely on the retention of an incidental gap or sense of spaciousness does not justify refusal where scale, massing and amenity impacts are otherwise acceptable. The Council’s approach in this case conflicts with this established reasoning. 7. Planning balance The Council has not demonstrated a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites, engaging the presumption in favour of sustainable development under paragraph 11(d) of the NPPF. The proposal would: • deliver an additional dwelling within the built-up area boundary; • make efficient use of land in a sustainable location; and • do so without giving rise to unacceptable technical or amenity impacts. The alleged character harm relies on an overstated interpretation of openness and is further weakened by a material factual error regarding the scheme’s design. When weighed against the identified benefits, any perceived harm does not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the Framework as a whole. Conclusion The appeal proposal represents a proportionate, well-designed and policy-compliant form of residential infill. The refusal places excessive weight on the incidental openness of private garden land and relies, in part, on an incorrect understanding of the proposal. The development accords with Policies 32 and 33 of the XXX District Planning Framework and the objectives of the National Plan

The proposed development, by reason of its scale, footprint and siting on a constrained corner plot, would result in a cramped and visually intrusive form of development that fails to reflect the established pattern, spacing and character of XXX Avenue. The creation of a reduced and constrained garden for the host dwelling, materially smaller than neighbouring properties, would further emphasise the sense of overdevelopment. The proposal would therefore appear as an incongruous and overly intensive addition to the street scene, harming the character and visual amenities of the area. The development would conflict with Policies 25, 32 and 33 of the XXX Planning Framework (2015), which require high-quality design that respects local character, ensures appropriate townscape integration and safeguards amenity. It would also be contrary to the design and character-based provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework (2024), including paragraphs 135, 136 and 139, which require development to respond positively to local distinctiveness and avoid poor design. So i'm reducing the footprint by around 15%, reducing a third off the front to single storey. It's really the internal layout i'm looking for advice on. thanks

Well I’ve spent £4k on him already so don’t want to start from scratch. I’m hoping he will just amend this plan for a reasonable amount.

It’s on appeal now but doesn’t look hopeful so trying to get ahead with a redesign.

My planning has been knocked back for the second time due basically to size. I'm now falling back on a 3 floor design that my designer originally suggested but i rejected. I don't like the dormer at the back so i've ditched the single storey rear kitchen and gone 2 storey. I've also ditched the garage and brought the left side down to one storey to give an extra downstairs room. (this was the main planning issue, to imposing) I've attached my designers early plan and my 'very' rough ideas but wondered if anyone could suggest something better before I ask him to do the same. Also to note a separate issue i can't go any further to the left or right although slight movement back may be allowed. (but not the left single storey). first photo shows rejected plan Thanks everyone.

The guy that did my original floor plans has said he can do my a full set of building control plans for round £4000. I’m considering going timber frame and assume the design team will cover most of the elements for building control. Do timber frame companies normally provide full BC or is it a case of combining the two elements?

Yes I did consider this however it not materially affect the planning decision and I didn’t want to dwell too heavily on it apart from point out that it was missed, perhaps adding weight to overall this assessment of the site.

thank you all for your continued input. The design ideas are interesting but i doubt the planners would agree in this case! I have prepared an appeal statement and welcome any comments: appeal statement.pdf

No

thanks for the input everyone. does anyone think the case officer was correct in stating this was a "prominent corner plot", as i think this will be the main basis of my appeal.

I have been attempting to replicate similar properties that have had extensions like this.

The house opposite was actually original although they have planning for a two storey (set back) side extension. I was attempting to mirror the street scene with my original proposal.

Not really it was an after thought after I realised the land registry was incorrect and I owned more land than originally thought.