What next after appeal rejection

[Dicky]

Today I had the news that my planning appeal had been rejected to build mine and my partner's dream home on the grounds of "Street scene". The plan was to demolish an old house and garage on the land and build new. But the current house is part of a row of 3 identical detached houses from the 1930's, our house being the last of the 3. Next to us sits a tiny bungalow and also across the road from that is a small bungalow.

They have taken "street scene" as these 3 houses yet there are other houses on the road of different character and materials choice such as brick and so forth. They seem to have disregarded any other house on the street in our report.

 

Now our appeal has been rejected I want to know where can I go from here??

Have others been in a similar situation where they have been rejected on both but still managed to build the house that they like/love??

 

The council have basically told us we can build to the same that's currently there, but for me that's not an option as we have a big family and need the room.

 

Any help or advice will be so appreciated

 

Thanks

 

Stay safe 

[AliG]

Sorry about the bad news.

 

It sounds like you need to get a planning consultant and look to make another application.  They will advise you on what is more or less likely to get approval based on their knowledge of the area.

I am more familiar with the Scottish system and here an appeal can only be based on information that you presented at the time the application was made. If you did not include information on different types of house in the street then they do not have to go and find this information out for themselves.

 

Was there more information than street scene? If your house was much larger again and those are already the largest houses in the street was that the reason? Or was it design and materials that could more easily be tweaked?

 

I don’t really like street scene objections and don’t see many of them around here unless the house is wildly inappropriate. But they may take a different view in your area.

 

There is probably a compromise possible but it might take a while.

 

i just looked up your original post. It doesn’t exactly look like what you want to knock down is a thing of beauty. Out of interest do you have some information on what you applied for?

 

Did the architect do much work to justify it or just slap in the application?

 

Edited April 8, 2020 by AliG

[Dicky]

21 minutes ago, AliG said:

Sorry about the bad news.

 

It sounds like you need to get a planning consultant and look to make another application.  They will advise you on what is more or less likely to get approval based on their knowledge of the area.

I am more familiar with the Scottish system and here an appeal can only be based on information that you presented at the time the application was made. If you did not include information on different types of house in the street then they do not have to go and find this information out for themselves.

 

Was there more information than street scene? If your house was much larger again and those are already the largest houses in the street was that the reason? Or was it design and materials that could more easily be tweaked?

 

I don’t really like street scene objections and don’t see many of them around here unless the house is wildly inappropriate. But they may take a different view in your area.

 

There is probably a compromise possible but it might take a while.

 

i just looked up your original post. It doesn’t exactly look like what you want to knock down is a thing of beauty. Out of interest do you have some information on what you applied for?

 

Did the architect do much work to justify it or just slap in the application?

 

 

Thanks for the reply @AliG. We had a planning consultant so our appeal and to be honest looking back now feel a bit bullshitted by him. Was told what we want to build can be done on PD rights and put that in his case but i now realise that they can't and never could be.

 

The house we want to build is alot larger than the original but the plot, land can take it and we will still have over half the land to still use for a garden.

 

The planners refused it on design and not fitting in with the street but again only used the other 3 similar houses.

 

There is a compromise to be had and that's build what the council wants us to build and it to look the same as it does now, albeit bigger and render only.

 

I have included a pdf of the elevations 

Current Proposed Elevations.pdf

[joe90]

I went to appeal after 4 planning applications were refused, sorry to say (to you) that we won!. Our council kept telling me the bungalow (room in roof) next door was only 6.9 meters high, when they were  out I nipped round and measured it and it was 1.4m higher than there planning application, which was many years ago. Our plot was large, our footprint was only 10% larger than the old bungalow. Our planning consultant was useless so I did my appeal myself. The planner even suggested we build smaller then extend it in a few years, they also said if I went to appeal I would probably win, go figure!!!!. Not sure what to suggest you do but a portfolio of photos of houses in your area may help, but I think you may have to compromise and plan to extend in the future . Best of luck ?

[AliG]

For reference this is what you want to replace.

Is the main bone of contention that the replacement isn’t rendered?

 

If that’s all it takes to get the house built then even if you don’t want render I’d just go with it. I think you’ve tried hard and it is probably now time to compromise. I can see how they might think the front elevation is too different.

 

The plot looks plenty big enough and so it seems that the only concern is making the front look similar to the other houses. Is there any other issue like the shape of the windows or the proportions?

 

I am trying not to be mean but I can’t see how anything new wouldn’t be an improvement. 

 

Edited April 8, 2020 by AliG

[joe90]

15 minutes ago, AliG said:

I am trying not to be mean but I can’t see how anything new wouldn’t be an improvement.

I have to agree, surely if the plot is big enough it’s a winner fir the council as the banding will be higher so get more income.

[Randomiser]

39 minutes ago, Dicky said:

 

Thanks for the reply @AliG. We had a planning consultant so our appeal and to be honest looking back now feel a bit bullshitted by him. Was told what we want to build can be done on PD rights and put that in his case but i now realise that they can't and never could be...

Might be worth deleting some of the personal info from those plans before posting.

[Dicky]

1 hour ago, joe90 said:

I went to appeal after 4 planning applications were refused, sorry to say (to you) that we won!. Our council kept telling me the bungalow (room in roof) next door was only 6.9 meters high, when they were  out I nipped round and measured it and it was 1.4m higher than there planning application, which was many years ago. Our plot was large, our footprint was only 10% larger than the old bungalow. Our planning consultant was useless so I did my appeal myself. The planner even suggested we build smaller then extend it in a few years, they also said if I went to appeal I would probably win, go figure!!!!. Not sure what to suggest you do but a portfolio of photos of houses in your area may help, but I think you may have to compromise and plan to extend in the future . Best of luck ?

 

@joe90 and that's another thing, the planners have said if I do compromise and take off the front "bay" and stone they will grant me permission, BUT will also aim to take my PD rights off me aswell so I can't. 

 

 

[Dicky]

1 hour ago, Randomiser said:

Might be worth deleting some of the personal info from those plans before posting.

 

@Randomiser ah I didn't think about that

[Dicky]

1 hour ago, AliG said:

For reference this is what you want to replace.

Is the main bone of contention that the replacement isn’t rendered?

 

If that’s all it takes to get the house built then even if you don’t want render I’d just go with it. I think you’ve tried hard and it is probably now time to compromise. I can see how they might think the front elevation is too different.

 

The plot looks plenty big enough and so it seems that the only concern is making the front look similar to the other houses. Is there any other issue like the shape of the windows or the proportions?

 

I am trying not to be mean but I can’t see how anything new wouldn’t be an improvement. 

 

@AliG most of the new build will be render other than where we want the stone. They ain't bothered about the back end of the house and also have said that we can put stone on the garage front cause "it's down the back" as the woman put it.

They said if we moved the house over and changed the roof to a half hipped instead of gable then the other parts may be ok. Her words were "don't give us all of the changes at once as it may keep her boss happy if we do one or two". Yet during a phone call with said boss, she hadn't sat down with the woman dealing with our planning to discuss changes and that our planning handler was the one requesting the changes.

The communication level seemed nonexistent in the office from multiple phone calls I had with the boss.

[Dicky]

 

7 hours ago, joe90 said:

 ?

 

Edited April 9, 2020 by AnonymousBosch

[Dicky]

@joe90 first picture is the house at the bottom of my street, probably been up about 8yrs.

The 2nd house is a house on my mothers street about 2 minutes drive from me, not a single house looks like it on the street and as you can see from the rear, it's literally dwarfs everything around it, this got build at the start of 2019. And the case worker for this house is the one that dealt with mine ? ??‍♂️ and did I mention he's a local builder and owns a building firm ?

 

[joe90]

Well there are certainly all types round you. Did you go to committee before going to appeal?

[Dicky]

@joe90 no we didn't. I assume now we have gone to appeal the chance to go to committee is gone now is it?

[joe90]

1 hour ago, Dicky said:

@joe90 no we didn't. I assume now we have gone to appeal the chance to go to committee is gone now is it?

I don’t know but would have thought not. We knew our planner had a problem with our design but others councillors did not which is why we went to committee, but on the day we lost the vote (and none of the councillors that supported us would look me in the  eye!!!!) we heard on the grapevine it was because I didn’t give them a big enough bung, which I did not and would not do. I would canvas various councillors in your district to get their opinion and get them on your side, look up planning applications fir those houses you cite above and see if there are similarities to what you want. It will take time but you need to understand what “the council”want, not what “a” planner wants, when you are confident you’re application meets their needs it will be time to re apply, best of luck.

[AliG]

I assume that the house isn't in a conservation area or anything like that?

 

Did the appeal include pictures of these various different finishes nearby?

 

The whole planning process is oddly personal in that planner may like a design and be happy with it and someone else may not. This really is why design should not be that important, it is very subjective. I would have thought the planning inspectorate would take this view and with information on a large number of different finishes nearby would have approved it.

 

TBH though, this is all moot.

 

You can either put in a slightly different application with more supporting information and try again which will probably take some time and expense.

 

OR

 

I know it may seem tough on you, but considering the cost of building a house and the value of it to you as an asset, if all you have to do is make a change from stone to render and a minor design change to get it approved then that is probably the best course of action.

[Gone West]

12 hours ago, Dicky said:

Now our appeal has been rejected I want to know where can I go from here??

Have others been in a similar situation where they have been rejected on both but still managed to build the house that they like/love??

We had two planning applications refused by the LPA and then went to appeal which was also refused. We took all of the Planning Inspectorates comments into account with our third application which was also refused by the LPA. We then, with support from our local councillor,  took the application to the Planning Committee which supported us unanimously and overturned the refusal. There were lots of compromises made to get the approval, but we still like the design. 

[AliG]

I had a look on Google Maps.

 

It looks like the house is at the end of a row of 8 houses that all look broadly similar in that the have totally flat fronts and are mainly render with some bricks. Indeed virtually all the houses in the street are rendered some with more brick than others, but there is very little use of stone. There are a couple of bungalows about 150m away at the end of the road with some stone on them. They are close to the house you show opposite the end of the street and around half of the houses in that street use stone, it has quite a different mix to your street.

 

Now would I mind your use if stone, no not really, but is it an unusual material for the street, yes it is. The street doesn't look that uniform that I would care but it is not being entirely unreasonable to try and keep some similarity. There is a wide variety of architectural styles in the street I live on with houses built at various points over the last hundred years. But every house is mainly rendered and planning like to see some continuity of materials.

 

Also no house on that side of the street has any kind of porch or anything jutting out of the front. Most of them are totally flat, so again I can see the request to be the same.

[Ferdinand]

2 hours ago, Dicky said:

@joe90 no we didn't. I assume now we have gone to appeal the chance to go to committee is gone now is it?

 

 

I think the Appeal System in Wales stops at that point, unless a Minister intervenes or you take them to the High Court.

 

I think you are into a new application to meet the Council concerns, or a change of plot.

 

F

[Ferdinand]

Let me see if I can find a couple of useful thoughts.

 

 

I've read the Appeal Decision, and a number of docs from the original application (not all 36), including the D&A, and the Planning Officer report. I can't find a dimensioned plan of the existing house or plot; I may have missed it. 

 

I think your Design and Access document does not address these concerns sufficiently, rather it is a list of statements - it needs a planning argument (is that in a document I missed?). It provides an argument based on your build, but does not address the planning policy concerns expressed by the Council in terms understood by the Council. 

 

I think the Appeal Report is quite short because the Inspector felt that the couple of concerns he mentioned sink it, but any future application would need to address the points in the Council report too. The Council had clear planning grounds for rejection, so the Inspector has only gone into it far enough to establish his verdict (that is normal).

 

To be honest, I agree with them on the rejection, because the App does not make a convincing planning argument imo, and - if I have understood what happened correctly - not meeting the full procedural bat report requirements of the Natural Wales body (or whatever it is called), such as 3 occasions of survey not one, is fatal to an application. I accept that I could be wrong on that last point if it has been addressed via docs I have not read.

 

Your application was rejected for reasons architectural, and also for some details that are actually procedural. The importance of the streetscape is in rhythm and appearance, as it is a ribbon development on a route from the community. It is not a question of being just generally acceptable; the Council want some features to be regular, repeated well, because that row of houses set the backbone of the street pattern.

 

If you had that bungalow they then may have been adaptable; as it is they wish to keep the rhythm of the housing row.

 

It is my view that the Council want the roofs to be quite regular, and gaps between the houses, and the windows, to be similar. These were all mentioned in the documents for the Committee, but at ground level there seems to be variety. Some gaps have a garage; but some others have a wall or tree. 

 

The  Assessment also mentions dreaded bat reports; you have one but they say it has not been done quite sufficiently. And so they say bats may still exist in your vicinity.

 

I would say that this is what a Planning Consultant should have done. That is, discovered the requirements and addressed each of them one by one.

 

So what can you do to fulfil the demands of the committee, whilst still building a pleasant dwelling for your family? 

 

Trying to be practical, I think:

 

0 - You are probably stuck with the roof and house size profile on the first floor upwards, and the width of the existing house. That likely means you are stuck with the existing footprint of the house except for maybe going backwards perhaps 50% on the ground floor. The external material and fenestration needs to be essentially unchanged - even maybe consider just putting skylights on the rear not the front. Though perhaps in-roof solar panels would be good on the front. I would also put the frontage of the dwelling on the building line, since that was mentioned. Can you establish whether the Council would have *any* flexibility on footprint, is you preserve the general "face" of the house? Even 1 or 2m in width may help.

1 - You could perhaps do a full width single storey 'extension' around the back, for a kitchen diner or whatever depending on the sun and so on.

2 - I think you should consider a full footprint basement.

3 - I think you could also consider a garden room for an office or a gym or a cinema room if these are in your requirements.

4 - I think you will need to consider your treatment of the side  

5 - Find a treatment of the gaps between the houses that largely conceals  your rear single storey extension, eg a 2m or 2.5m wall with an archway for your drive, or evergreen bushes etc.

6 - Is it possible to get an extra storey in the loft in the existing envelope but with a basement?

 

You may also need a basic Planning Strategy. Since the Council objections are about the size and look, I would perhaps put in an applying for a Certificate of Lawful Development for extensions up to the same size and approx appearance as your intended final version under Permitted Development. That should help poleaxe any objections to something very similar when you apply for a newbuild, as Planning should not really be concerned too much with internal layout on a house that far from its neighbours.

 

Then do a full planning app for a newbuild in the same building envelope.

 

That is assuming that you come up with something that is Ok for your needs that meets those terms.

 

Ferdinand

 

Decision 3243827.pdf

19_1187_FUL--236970.pdf Current Proposed Elevations.pdf

Edited April 9, 2020 by Ferdinand
One para did not scan properly.

[Mr Punter]

Did you get a price to build your proposed house.  Given values in your area it may be a better option to do as large a 2 storey rear extension as you can - a bit like at no. 14.

[AliG]

Thanks @Ferdinand that's a lot of useful information.

 

@Dicky what advice did the planning consultant actually give you?

 

I think this is going to sound a bit blunt, but really I want to be honest and help you get your house built. That is what the planning consultant should have done.

 

The house is larger, taller, different materials, different design and differently placed on the plot to the other houses in the street. Virtually no compromise has been made to try and get it approved.

 

It seems clear from the report that they gave you the chance to alter these things. Many people on here have had very difficult dealings with planning and would often love them to be specific about what the actual problem is. TBF it also seems that they are somewhat obsessive about the bat issue and have ample time to write up massive reports.

 

Three very easy changes can be made that would make the house much more likely to be approved.

 

1. Render the front, the stone would look out of place.

2. Remove the front bay and make the centre window smaller, I can see that breaking up the front might improve the look of the house which might also be your thinking, but planning disagree. It doesn't really add much useful space inside and can easily be designed out if planners don't like it.

3. You could change the windows to have a vertical aspect. Pairs of windows with a vertical aspect on the front would be more in keeping with the street and might actually look better.

 

These things are all mentioned in the report and changing them doesn't really alter the house. I think if you compromised on these you would probably get away with the size, height, spacing etc. However the fact it has already been refused won't help. But I would make these changes, put it back to planning and see what they say.

 

4. If the wanted a larger gap to next door, you could probably lose 500mm off the width, making the dining room narrower, turning the table around and moving the wall across at the entrance to the kitchen if you want to keep the lounge the same size. Narrowing the entrance to the kitchen wouldn't lose much useful space. I don't think it would compromise the bathroom or bedroom which are quite long.

 

5. It would be useful to show the height of the existing house relative to the proposed house. The planners seem to be assuming it is much taller, it probably is, but it is hard to argue without the numbers. If it is much taller and they really object to it, you could knock about 800mm off by making the centre part of the roof flat. Often this has to be done when a house is quite deep to stop the roof getting really high. It would be more expensive to build but it would considerably reduce its bulk from the street.

 

Of note when I looked at the plans,  two things that I though so odd I had to comment.

 

1. The stairs are 800mm wide and turn back on themselves. This would leave not only a narrow 800mm wide hall upstairs, but harder to see is the return would be less than 1.5m above floor level in the downstairs hall, narrowing the downstairs hall to only 800mm at that point. I am not sure if it is to be boxed in putting an odd wall across the hall or maybe the stairs are to be open. When you come in the front door you would be looking at the back of half the staircase. It is not a great design, I cannot fathom what the architect was thinking about. A wider(0.9-1m) straight stair, 3m long, would be much better although it might a bit tight to fit in front to back, downstairs you could move back the entrance to the kitchen, but the problem would be the master bedroom entrance. If this is the case you could have a quarter turn in it with the bottom turned 90 degrees in the now wider hall. People would also be able to see right through to the kitchen, really improving the sight lines.

 

2. Downstairs and upstairs ceilings are both 2500mm high then the kitchen is 2640mm tall which would mean it has a step in the ceiling randomly across the room. Why not make downstairs 2600mm tall and upstairs 2400mm tall which would more befit a large house anyway and make the kitchen ceiling all one height.

 

Hopefully with a bit of compromise you can get your house built.

 

Edited April 9, 2020 by AliG

[Dicky]

Wow I didn't expect this much of a reply and help/advice and questions.

 Really appreciate you're input @Ferdinand @AliG.

 

I've read through all of your points and do have more detail and Information.

 

The bat report

@Ferdinand The report we originally had done wasn't enough for them. So we went back to the bat people and they wrote up a mission statement and a method of how we are to tear down the house. I have been in contact with the NRW regarding this.

They gave us an option to get a method statement and tear down method or have a full bat study done.

 

The plans (design)

When I had an onsite meeting to try and iron certain problems out, the case officer mentioned the gap at the side and she wanted it a big bigger, so we moved the house over a meter to the driveway and she was happy with that. She didn't like us having gable ends in the original plans so we placed half hipped roof instead and again she said they would consider it.

The thing they are adamant on the most is the stone and frontal bay, which for me is what makes it feel like my house and not the council's house. I can see what you are saying @AliG that it doesn't add any beneficial room to the house and the council won't grant us permission unless it's gone.

I left it on the plans to see if the two changes we made would suffice and the fact other houses around the area don't fit in with street scene yet got built. I have since read on the forum while searching that president stands for bog all with planning applications ?.

 

@AliG with regards to the stairs I only noticed after plans had been finally submitted that they double back but they should have been changed to straight up and not a return.

With regards to the ceiling heights that is something we can definitely look at and change.

 

There are probably loads I've missed out to comment on.

Sorry the reply comes across all over the place.

[Dicky]

@PeterStarck I'm not sure where we go from here tbh. I'm looking to contact the local councillor next week and see what I can do or if I can go to some sort of committee.

I've not heard much good reports about the planning office for the county so not holding my breath.

[AliG]

Thanks for coming back and taking what has been said on board. I think you should be able to get it approved with some changes.

 

I thought that the stone was probably a bit of a personal decision. We are in the middle of planning for my parents' house and my mum is absolutely adamant she doesn't want stone on the outside of it. As a lot of houses around here have a bit of stone and we thought they might ask for stone, I would have been in the same situation and told her she would have to accept the stone to get her house built. She wouldn't have been happy, but getting the house built is more important. It is easy for me to say though because I am less fussed about the exact look and more interested in living inside the house, I know for some people the exact look may be more important.

 

I think you can make a few changes, put it back into planning and start again. The main comments in the appeal report give you a good starting point. Also,  I don't know how the architect is charging for it, but really if you start with the simple change to render that is no effort in terms of redoing the plans. Changing the look of the front isn't a big job either so hopefully it shouldn't be too expensive to reapply.