Planning permission query

[sw879]

Hi all

 

I was wondering if any one could help me with an planning issue I've been having. 

 

We purchased a lower ground/ground floor terraced flat in Westminster and we are planning to build a double height extension.  The extension is over our garden area which backs out onto a road/car park.   There are a number of other properties on our road that have completed similar extensions, most recently in 2017.  

 

There haven't been any objections to the extension itself but the council have said that it needs to be reduced by 200mm from our boundary line.  This is in spite of the fact that there is an existing brick wall and door already in place at our boundary line.  The council have said that there have been a couple of recent permissions on our road that have accepted this reduction but surely this does not mean that it is a precedent?  We've asked the council to come and view the property for themselves but they have refused.

 

I would appreciate it if you have any thoughts or recommendations you can give to us.   Our architects seem less than enthused to help us and they actually changed the plans to reduce the extension without telling us (I found out by looking at new drawings on the planning website myself).

 

Many thanks

 

S

[Mr Punter]

What grounds did the council give for requiring the 200mm reduction?

[sw879]

This is exactly what the council have said:

 

"The proposed extension should be set back from the existing closet wing in order to remain subservient to the existing rear closet wing. It should be set back to allow there to be a clear difference in the original closet wing and the proposed extension, this should be at least 0.2m."

 

and then provided two similar examples of recent permissions.

 

 

[ProDave]

We built a side extension to a 1930's semi.  The key thing was they wanted the extension to be clearly an addition rather than trying to look too much like the original building.  In our case they insisted on the front and rear walls were stepped in by 100mm from the original walls though we "bent" the rules and tiled the roof without such a step (just a bigger overhang on the extension)

 

If I am reading this right you already have a rear extension and you want to joint up to that but the planners are saying leave a gap?

 

I would argue you can differentiate the extension in other ways, e.g by having the rear wall of the extension stepped in or out with respect to the existing rear annex, or making a clear difference at the roof line.

 

A sketch of what you are planning might make it clearer.

[sw879]

I've attached an image (hope it's big enough) of the existing and proposed plans.  Thank you for your help.

[Ferdinand]

Wrt to your architect making decisions and representations freelancing, you may need to bang the table or act on a decision pdq. Key question: "Who is the client?".

 

I think you need to explore the distinction between "basement" and "lower ground floor" in the Westminster Council policies, and what in reality applies to yours. As you know there has been huge flapping about Basement extensions for years; if yours is not one, it may help. Also, is there a policy requiring this - worth asking the Planning person? If there is not, you may just be able to say no.

 

It does seem to be a bit of an idiosyncratic demand.

 

I would verify that you are going to get away with extinguishing a parking space, and just check whether that is the best option.

 

If I was the Council I would be giving you  a Paddington Stare and asking about the proposed locations for bins and bikes.

 

I would take a moment to consider whether you want to extinguish your rear access routes as it appears you do.

 

I would have a dig for some precedents where the appearance rather than physical position of the new part has been approved as meeting a "distinctive" or "subservient" criteria (eg fenestration, material, texture or colour). Proposals such as yours are one source; looking at how the facades of mews houses have been treated, eg the former stables bit, may be another.

 

I would wonder about arguing that caring about the facade facing an 'orrible windblown carpark where tired and emotional MPs may sleep rough every night is not that important (if it is genuinely unattractive).

 

If you end up with a 200mm set back, I would probably make them oriel bay windows on the set-back side, reaching to the boundary.

 

According to the property sites, that extra 0.2m x 2m x 2 is worth the best part of 15k ! If only we had that up here ...

 

Ferdinand

 

Edited July 24, 2019 by Ferdinand

[sw879]

Thank you Ferdinand for your help.  Your suggestion of oriel bay windows is a good idea which I hadn’t considered before but I get the feeling that the council may reject it.

 

No our property is definitely not a basement flat.  The rear of the lower ground floor is at street level but the front of the property is not.  The front of our property has two vaults and a courtyard area where the previous owners (who had lived there for some 30 years) kept their bins and a kayak!

 

There is plenty of empty resident parking on our road and the council do not seem to mind that we are converting the garage into living space.   They aren’t questioning any changes apart from the 200mm set back.

 

I’ll look into the appearance issue, which is a great point.

 

Thanks again for your help, it’s greatly appreciated.

 

Best wishes

 

S

[Temp]

If I've understood your drawings correctly you want to add a room above the existing ground floor room. So the planners/architects proposal for a 200mm set back requires you to demolish the existing rear wall and rebuild it 200mm back before building the room above.  

 

Is it the need to demolish or the loss of 200mm that's the main problem for you? Would you have to demolish that wall anyway?

 

You could stick with the original plan and offer to differentiate the extension in other ways, perhaps with a different external finish to the main house? Has anyone else done that?

[Mr Punter]

I am with @Temp regarding the change of materials so this could be worth exploring.

 

I know you did not ask for comments on the design but I am happy to make some unsolicited!

 

1.  On the first floor you have moved the wall by the bedroom a little to make a wider corridor. If you remove it you can incorporate this into you living room.

 

2.  The bathroom at first floor could be replaced with a WC and handbasin and the 600mm or so of space incorporated into the kitchen diner. You could make the landing a little wider as the WC would not need to be as deep as the bathroom. Also, 3 bathrooms are not needed for 2 bedrooms and losing the window means you cannot revert the middle room to a bedroom. If you want to put up occasional guests, get a quality sofa bed.

 

3.  Not sure why you want the nibs of wall in the living room.

 

3.  Pocket doors are a PITA. Difficult to open and close and the walls can be flimsy and poor at sound insulation.

 

1 and 2 will give an extra 2.5m2 in the living room, and 2.5m2 in the kitchen / dining.  I think the room shapes and sizes will be much better too.

[sw879]

@temp thank you for your help.  Unfortunately there is no existing ground floor room.  The area on the floor plan is currently a courtyard/garden which we are looking to turn into internal space.

 

I’m just baffled why the council need this 200mm recess, especially since there is a wall there already.  I’ve put your suggestion about differentiating the extension to my architect so hopefully i'll hear some good news.

 

Thanks for your help.

 

@Mr Punter

 

Actually I’m quite happy to hear any suggestions about changing the internal space. Just to answer your points (using the same numbering) as below:-

 

1. We initially wanted to do this but because the room has a double height ceiling and the corridor has a slope running down, making it a single height (because of our neighbour’s stairs), it doesn’t look right at all, hence we decided to keep the wall partition.   

 

2. I like your idea of reducing the bathroom space but I’m having trouble visualising it.  Because of our situation we knew we needed two bathrooms downstairs and one upstairs (the vault space is too small to have a second bathroom).  The only reason we made the upstairs bathroom bigger is to be able to fit a bathtub (we personally don’t want a bathtub downstairs and our elderly parents would have a hard time getting in and out of one). 

 

3. Our structural engineer says that this is necessary in these types of buildings if we plan on removing the wall.

 

Thanks for your help and tips!

[Mr Punter]

2 hours ago, sw879 said:

1. We initially wanted to do this but because the room has a double height ceiling and the corridor has a slope running down, making it a single height (because of our neighbour’s stairs), it doesn’t look right at all, hence we decided to keep the wall partition.   

That is a shame as it would give a really generous room and the corridor is wasted space.

 

2 hours ago, sw879 said:

2. I like your idea of reducing the bathroom space but I’m having trouble visualising it.  Because of our situation we knew we needed two bathrooms downstairs and one upstairs (the vault space is too small to have a second bathroom).  The only reason we made the upstairs bathroom bigger is to be able to fit a bathtub (we personally don’t want a bathtub downstairs and our elderly parents would have a hard time getting in and out of one). 

I did not see a bedroom on the first floor, so I thought there was no point in a bathroom.

 

2 hours ago, sw879 said:

3. Our structural engineer says that this is necessary in these types of buildings if we plan on removing the wall.

Pocket doors are not structural, so I think there may be some confusion here. They can be useful for saving space but restrict the opening width and are more difficult to operate. Your plans show them in all bathrooms and the kitchen on what appear to be non-structural walls.

[ToughButterCup]

3 hours ago, sw879 said:

[...] 

I’m just baffled why the council need this 200mm recess,

[...]

 

200mm: Just over 6 inches - 7, sorry.

 

In the big scheme of things such a small amount just doesn't matter: you'll have more to stress about than that.

Let them have their way and get on with it. Get it back some other  - hidden - way. You'll think of something

[ProDave]

Rather than move the existing wall IN by 200mm, amend the plans to build the existing garage wall OUT by 200mm.

 

It will give the step they want, I doubt they will notice what you have done, will give you more space, and is no hardship since you have to build up where the garage door was.

[Mr Punter]

1 hour ago, ProDave said:

amend the plans to build the existing garage wall OUT by 200mm

 

This is in Westminster. If there was a spare 200mm of land, I suspect it would have been built on.

[the_r_sole]

.

Edited September 26, 2019 by the_r_sole

[Temp]

17 hours ago, sw879 said:

3. Our structural engineer says that this is necessary in these types of buildings if we plan on removing the wall.

 

We have a pocket/sliding door on an ensuite bathroom door. I would only have one as a last resort. In our case it was needed to save space.

 

It may seem strange but the main problem is the extra time it takes to open and close them. You can't just whip them open and shut like a regular door. They feel heavier and you have to pull the door to get it moving then slow it down so it doesn't slam into the end stops as it opens or closes. That doesn't sound too bad but its enough to be annoying on regularly used doors.

 

The door handle and set up also needs to be done carefully. The part of the door with the handle reduces the clear opening width because it cannot disappear into the frame (unless you have motorised doors?) so you need larger doors. If not set up correctly the handle can trap your fingers between itself and the frame when opened. 

 

 

 

[Temp]

17 hours ago, sw879 said:

@temp thank you for your help.  Unfortunately there is no existing ground floor room.  The area on the floor plan is currently a courtyard/garden which we are looking to turn into internal space. 

 

I’m just baffled why the council need this 200mm recess, especially since there is a wall there already.  I’ve put your suggestion about differentiating the extension to my architect so hopefully i'll hear some good news.

 

It's very common for planners to want extensions to appear differentiated or subordinate to an existing house. Sometimes it just looks wrong if you try to make an extension appear to be an original part of the house. The bricks rarely match perfectly and it can make the house look out of proportion. Many councils publish residential design guides that give examples of good and bad practice that mention this subordinate issue. Here is an example from Malvern in Worcs..

 

 

 

In a village near me they recently built a very large _new_ house and due to it's size (8 bedrooms?) they made it looks like a 4 bed house with about four side extensions on the left, each getting slightly smaller, some with set back and some in different materials. Looks fabulous.

[Temp]

I had a look to see if I could find a design guide from Westminster Council. Google found this which includes Policy CM28.4 on page 21. Google says  "you" were consulted about it in October last year so it may have been formally adopted by now.

 

Hope link works.

 

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwifirbf28_jAhXwQUEAHeUnDFoQFjACegQIAhAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Ftransact.westminster.gov.uk%2Fdocstores%2Fpublications_store%2FDesign.pdf&usg=AOvVaw1Efq8zD6c4Z4Ik1p9NWxBK

 

Quote

In addition, extensions will:
1 be confined to the rear in most cases ;
2. be clearly subordinate to the existing building in scale and design; and
3. incorporate a high standard of thermal performance and appropriate sustainable design features.

 

and

 

Quote

Subordinate Overly large extensions can disfigure a building and upset its proportions. To remain architecturally subordinate to the main building, rear extensions should terminate at the penultimate storey level (i.e. one storey below the established parapet level) or lower; not extend rearward beyond the existing general building line on uniform terraces and should not usually occupy the full width of the rear elevation above garden level. Well-detailed, lightweight infill extensions can be appropriate where consistent with other requirements of this policy.

 

 

 

I note it does NOT mention they must be setback only "subordinate" in other ways.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 25, 2019 by Temp

[sw879]

Wow wow wow!!!! You guys are simply amazing. Thank you so much and thank you temp for that link! What an incredible find.

 

I’m sending it all to my architect who will see what the council have to say.

 

Again I’m so very grateful for your help.

 

 I will let you know how it turns out. Fingers crossed ?? 

 

Best wishes

 

S

[Rob99]

13 hours ago, Temp said:

 

We have a pocket/sliding door on an ensuite bathroom door. I would only have one as a last resort. In our case it was needed to save space.

 

It may seem strange but the main problem is the extra time it takes to open and close them. You can't just whip them open and shut like a regular door. They feel heavier and you have to pull the door to get it moving then slow it down so it doesn't slam into the end stops as it opens or closes. That doesn't sound too bad but its enough to be annoying on regularly used doors.

 

The door handle and set up also needs to be done carefully. The part of the door with the handle reduces the clear opening width because it cannot disappear into the frame (unless you have motorised doors?) so you need larger doors. If not set up correctly the handle can trap your fingers between itself and the frame when opened. 

 

 

 

We have a pocket door between kitchen and utility which slides completely into the pocket. It has recessed handles to each face and a finger pull on the edge so you can just pull it out of the pocket and then use the larger handles to close it.

 

I do agree they can be a faff and are best when not in regular use. We had one because a standard door would get in the way in our utility and also because we tend to leave it open most of the time. With our old layout I took the old utility door off completely but there were occasional times when we wanted it closed. Our solution was the pocket door and it works well for us.

[sw879]

Update:

 

Hi everyone,

 

There's still no word from the council regarding the 'set back' of the extension.  Our architect says that they can't get a hold of them and that the planning officer will not comment on using a contrasting material to show the extension is diminutive so he thinks we will have to accept that this is the policy.

 

On top of this the conservation officer has said:

 

Quote

 

"the window proportions need amending to balance the façade.

• the window to the extension should closely match the scale and proportions of the windows to the rear wing – at least in height. There appears to be too much glazing and not enough solidity being retained – ie. Windows are too wide.
• The window replacing the garage needs to be inline with the window above and reduced in width.  
• A condition should be added requesting details of the new roof light."

 

 

 

I can understand why they want the windows to match but there are a number of extensions on our road that have mismatched windows.  I've asked my architect to go back to them again on this point and show them a video I took of the other extensions on our road.  

 

If the council refuses to comment or budge on anything, is it worth going to appeal?  Any suggestions or help would be greatly appreciated.

 

Many thanks

 

S

[Ferdinand]

You need to choose your battles. Some you can win anyway, sometimes.Soem you might win. Some you may lose. What do you want and what can you live without?

 

Some you can split up.

 

For example, is there any reason why you cannot just replace that garage door with a big window in the same opening now or as a separate project? the whole thing? I do not know the rules and the conservation area rules, which I assume you are in if the CO has weighed in.

 

Can you replace the garage door with another garage door with windows in it now without violating CO regs, and then say in your PP that you are preserving the appearance (with an even bigger window than the one they hate) because of the conservation area ?  Or do that as Project 1, and the extension as 2 .

 

Saw one here where County would not change the parking setup because there was no access into the building. So he got a door, and screwed it to the wall, which presumably covered someone’s backside sufficiently to avoid blowback and prevent the inattentive authorities discovering the questionable decision ie they  can blame him and claim Nelsonian, because they then changed it. Screwing the door on the wall was suggested by County people verbally...

 

If you get into detailed and open ended arguments you than have to close off all their escape routes t9navoid your proposal or an acceptable alternative.

 

Or you  could get a basic pp then go back for a variation etc. How much elapsed time do you have?

 

Can you manipulate the CO to get what you want from the planner?

 

I think the Planner sticking his head down an ostrich hole is unacceptable. Perhaps try via  your local councillor or the Planning boss .. “I wondered whether your planning officer Courtov Caractacus was on holiday” etc? That is an escalation, though.

 

But you need to choose your points to dispute or it becomes a game of chess where you can lose sight of the overall thing. I think you will have to give them the smaller 1st Floor window, in exchange for the bigger ones downstairs.

 

An objection to an Appeal just lost here cos the Inspector decided that my temporary close board fence to mitigate the current disturbance for a T was good enough that the Planning Conditioned Acoustic Wall the developer was trying to avoid building would be insufficient improvement over the existing to justify the condition, which has now been erased Win some .. lose some. Now the Dev has got to go back and agree something suitable with the Carncil from scratch, so back into the planning machine it goes.

 

F

Edited August 12, 2019 by Ferdinand

[Mr Punter]

Regarding the materials, if the rest of the house is brick, you could do the extension in render or vice versa.

 

Regarding the windows, the CO makes a reasonable point and I do not think the rear elevation looks well resolved. It is hard to see where floor and ceiling levels are, but I would want a decent ceiling height in the kitchen and the new extension looks a bit squat.

[sw879]

Thanks everyone for your help and Ferdinand your comment about the door made me laugh!

 

So after weeks and weeks of silence the council have said "the windows need to be smaller and more consistent with the host building and the extension should be set back from the main building, regardless of the materials used".  They didn't respond our request for them to visit the site nor did they say why our suggestion to make the extension subservient by using different materials wasn't acceptable.

 

This means we will have to redesign the kitchen, bedroom and bathroom.  Since its taken over a month to get this one line answer, i'm thinking of just going ahead with their approval and then submitting new plans to the council and hopefully getting a new planning officer take a look.  Do you think this would be better or going straight to appeal?

 

Thanks for all your help so far.

[Ferdinand]

1 hour ago, sw879 said:

Ferdinand your comment about the door made me laugh!

 

It's actually exactly the sort of thing that sometimes works and is expedient. Like repairing a wall in 3 sections to get a different wall without engaging awkward bureaucracy.

 

Consider a 3000 sqft workshop somewhere in North Notts I sold to somebody in about 2010 (for 35k!).

 

It has what looks like a drop kerb (probably a swing pavement for bigger lorries) and a yellow line and a post-strorage drop. Bloke wanted  parking / waiting / unloading, Council said - can't move the yellow line as there is obviously no unloading point in that wall. If there were access there we could do something maybe.

 

But anyway, a yellow line extinguishing requires a traffic order doodah at County, which takes months and this is low priority.

 

 

A more recent piccie and what they did a bit later.

 

Edited September 3, 2019 by Ferdinand