Planners love our ‘beautiful’ old house but how to make it better

[Robert Clark]

Have been trying to get planning permission to demolish our 1920’s house and replace with a Passivhaus, but the planners and neighbours are not supporting the scheme. We live in an AONB and they say any scheme must be of the highest quality.

 

They say that our house is ‘beautiful’ , which it is from a distance....
 

 

But look a little closer and the mix of brick types and the state of them certainly leaves a lot to be desired 

 

 

 

 

by bay windows 

 

 

 

 

As well as the dodgy brickwork I really hate the Tudor boarding and the painted render and would prefer something much lower in maintenance.

 

Inside the house has loads of character features including oak beams everywhere 

 

 

so in many respects a refurb would possibly give us much nicer outcome than a new build.

 

Thinking about a single storey extension to create a large kitchen/family room and to knock the current (small) dining room and study into one to create a large lounge.

 

Any ideas for improving the exterior brickwork and Tudor boarding?

 

Also don’t like the UPVC windows as the Georgian bars spoil our view of the garden.

 

Any other comments and suggestions would be appreciated.

 

Thanks 

Edited December 29, 2019 by Robert Clark
Added detail

[Simplysimon]

have to ask, if you dislike it that much, why did you buy it? personally, i like it, apart from the pvc windows.

[Robert Clark]

When we bought the house 15 years ago it was the only one we could find locally that gave us the space we needed in the location we wanted to live in.

 

Love most of the house only certain aspects we would prefer to be different 

[Thedreamer]

Are you still needing to live in that location, would you not sell up and buy a plot and build?

 

I like the house as well.

 

I don't understand how you won't lose a lot of equity. 

 

 

[Robert Clark]

8 minutes ago, Thedreamer said:

Are you still needing to live in that location, would you not sell up and buy a plot and build?

 

I like the house as well.

 

I don't understand how you won't lose a lot of equity. 

 

 

buying a building plot was our original plan. However they are like hens teeth and they are not available with views like we have so we decided to either re build here or re develop 

[PeterW]

Could clad it with something like this which is low maintenance 

 

 

Other option is a Weber render. 

[Robert Clark]

3 minutes ago, PeterW said:

Could clad it with something like this which is low maintenance 

 

 

Other option is a Weber render. 

that’s one option I’m thinking about and it’s traditional for this area.

 

As is tile hanging 

[SteamyTea]

Cladding

1 hour ago, Robert Clark said:

that’s one option I’m thinking about and it’s traditional for this area.

 

As is tile hanging 

Do something really horrible with the cladding, then ask the neighbours/planners if they still love your house.

 

[Mr Punter]

I don't see why it cannot be replaced.  It is not listed and neither are you in a conservation area.  Get a decent scheme designed and submit it, as I cannot see why it should be refused.

 

What the planners and neighbours "like" or dislike has little bearing on things, it is a matter of policy and a refusal would need robust justification.

[Ferdinand]

What are their reasons for refusal, or is it all just hot air?

[Robert Clark]

7 minutes ago, Ferdinand said:

What are their reasons for refusal, or is it all just hot air?

we haven’t been refused yet however the planning officer has just noticed us that the local ward member is very much against the scheme and will be visiting shortly. The scheme was approved by the Parish Council.

The planning officer has also said that out scheme is also ‘monochrome’ and that we should re consider finishes.

 

Will post some pics of the scheme in a minute 

Edited December 29, 2019 by Robert Clark
Spelling error

[Robert Clark]

Here are some pics of the scheme which is a Passivhaus designed by a local approved passivhaus designer

 

2199-CAL-XX-ZZ-DR-A-114-S4-P4 Proposed South and West Elevation.pdf

 

2199-CAL-XX-ZZ-DR-A-115-S4-P4 Proposed North and East Elevation.pdf

 

2199-CAL-XX-ZZ-DR-A-119-S4-P4 Selected Perspective Views 01.pdf

 

2199-CAL-XX-ZZ-DR-A-120-S4-P4 Selected Perspective Views 02.pdf

[Robert Clark]

Here is what the planning officer wrote to our Architect a few days before Christmas

 

"Councillors AGREED to recommend Approval but made the following points:

·         . The footprint of the proposed new house is excessive compared to the original 1940’s

property.

·         Councillors recommend that the bathroom windows looking towards the north are opaque.

·         Councillors would like it to be stipulated that the track is maintained to keep it in its current

state during the construction work and that it is returned to its existing condition after works

have been complete

·         Councillors would like it stipulated that the current house must be demolished once the new

property has been completed to prevent there being two dwellings on the site in the future.

 

I have also been contacted by the Ward Member, who is very much against the scheme, particularly the design of the replacement building.  I understand he will be visiting the area between now and new year, and will come back to me with his views.

 

Given the above, I discussed the application with the Team Leader.  He has very strong reservations regarding the scheme.  Like the Ward Member, he considers that the existing dwelling is very pleasing to the eye, but the replacement falls short of the same standard in terms of design; given the location of the site in the AONB, his view is that we should not support it.  He was particularly critical of the materials, but I suspect that this may be allied to the graphics used in producing the plans, which give the first impression of a large monochrome building.  He will also be visiting the area over the holidays.

 

I did discuss materials with the applicant on site, and he advised that he had not given too much thought to any actual choices; it might be worth giving this a little more thought"

[joe90]

8 minutes ago, Robert Clark said:

Councillors would like it stipulated that the current house must be demolished once the new

 

property has been completed to prevent there being two dwellings on the site in the future.

Seems strange when we have a housing shortage (as long as the plot is big enough?) and the council get more in council tax.

[Mr Punter]

The design is not controversial.  I would be very surprised if they could find good reason to refuse.

[Simplysimon]

1 hour ago, Robert Clark said:

·         . The footprint of the proposed new house is excessive compared to the original 1940’s

property.

·      

·         Councillors would like it stipulated that the current house must be demolished once the new

 

property has been completed to prevent there being two dwellings on the site in the future.

 

it doesn't look to be much larger in the footprint and looks to be placed where current house is

[Robert Clark]

22 minutes ago, Simplysimon said:

it doesn't look to be much larger in the footprint and looks to be placed where current house is

It’s 330m compared with 250m

though this has not been an issue with the planners.

The new house is further to the south of the plot so a little way forward of the existing house which is stuck tight in the north west corner 

[Russell griffiths]

I sort of agree with the ward member, the new design doesn’t have much wow factor compared with the old house

thinking back to when the old one was built it was probably very grand and drew plenty of admiration, whereas the new one looks a bit lacking. 

I can see from the drawings it could be the way it has been produced, so maybe some new drawings with a different printing process. 

 

Apart from increased footprint  I cannot see a reason for refusal. 

 

Regarding increase in size, have you looked at how big you could make the current house under permitted development ?

we did this, we stated that our current place could be increased massively, to be nearly as big as the proposed one, after we bought this to the planners attention it passed. 

[ToughButterCup]

6 minutes ago, Russell griffiths said:

I sort of agree with the ward member, the new design doesn’t have much wow factor compared with the old house

[...]

 

Quote

130. Permission should be refused for development of poor design that fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions, taking into account any local design standards or style guides in plans or supplementary planning documents. Conversely, where the design of a development accords with clear expectations in plan policies, design should not be used by the decision-maker as a valid reason to object to development.

 

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/national-planning-policy-framework/12-achieving-well-designed-places (acessed Dec 2019)

 

I see no mention of 'wow'   anywhere.

 

Quote

125. Plans should, at the most appropriate level, set out a clear design vision and expectations, so that applicants have as much certainty as possible about what is likely to be acceptable. Design policies should be developed with local communities so they reflect local aspirations, and are grounded in an understanding and evaluation of each area’s defining characteristics.

(ibid)

 

@Robert Clark, access the document referred to immediately above (if your area has one) and then follow those guidelines.

If there are no guidelines, then ask them what is meant by   '....they say any scheme must be of the highest quality ....' 

 

As written above, you cannot be expected to follow non-existant guidelines . You appear to have been put in an impossible situation. Put the ball back in their court. 

 

The only other thing I can suggest is to do a comprehensive review of what has been recently (2 years or so) been deemed to be acceptable in your area and draw conclusions from that. Might be worth doing anyway....

 

[joth]

One thing this brings to mind is several of the architects we spoke to locally prefer to make planning applications with black and white / line drawings only, rather than colour "impressions" of the property. Ours went through this route no problem, we're in conservation area (but not AONB). The rationale is that if you put colours on the application then they're more likely to add conditions holding you to them, or get upset if you don't exactly keep to it, but with black and white and only a terse description of materials used it leaves a lot more flexibility in choice.

 

More generally it was implied that unless they really go to town with detailing and photo realistic perspective ray-traced renderings,  there's a risk that "cartoon like" block-filled colour illustrations can actually remove a lot of the 'wow factor' that the viewer's mind might have otherwise been willing to fill in for itself when looking at basic B&W elevations & plans, if you see what I mean? I wonder if that's in part what is happening here.

 

[Sjk]

honestly, I prefer the look of the old house.

[ToughButterCup]

3 minutes ago, Sjk said:

honestly, I prefer the look of the old house.

 

And that's exactly the point. You say Tomaytos, I say tomaaaaatos.

How the  Hell can @Robert Clark guess which way the Planners want him to pronounce the damn word?

[SteamyTea]

1 minute ago, AnonymousBosch said:

You say Tomaytos, I say tomaaaaatos.

But can you say squirrel?

[ToughButterCup]

57 minutes ago, joth said:

[...]

The rationale is that if you put colours on the application then they're more likely to add conditions holding you to them, or get upset if

[...]

 

Bang on.

We had endless irritation because on our application, the illustration of our house  showed the correct colour for new cedar (WRC) - not the faded grey we knew  would develop after a few years.

We wanted to make the point that our house would fade into the background. As a consequence of the foregrounding of the building (because of the colour, the eye is drawn to it in the illustration) the Planners decided to ask for a reduction in what they called 'Massing' - nett effect - lose two rooms and gain a flat roof.

And that is causing endless hassle. Still.

 

Keep detail to a minimum: just enough to get through. Thats an art.

[ToughButterCup]

10 minutes ago, SteamyTea said:

But can you say squirrel?

 

Tja!

Eichhörnchen