Planning Consultant Fees

[Russdl]

Wouldn’t one of the problems be insufficient parking space? You’ve not mentioned that. 

[torre]

10 hours ago, Bluebaron said:

overbearing and cramped

 

So you didn't directly address the first reason for refusal and made only a minor change to somewhat address the second? 

 

It sounds like you had misgivings about the consultant's approach and maybe should have trusted your instincts - what did they submit that was likely to change the decision? Because on the face of it, the planners were almost bound to refuse again.

 

If the consultant addressed this up front and suggested you'd need to go to appeal to keep the original design then your course is surely set that way, but otherwise they so far haven't demonstrated much understanding of the local planners or how to address the reasons for refusal and I'd be tempted to scale down a bit in a fresh application as it'll be quicker and lower risk. 

 

E.g. Make the garage into a smaller extra room but with the width reduced a bit and set back to still allow parking by the tree, look to utilise the loft space, perhaps accept going to 3 bed. You may help retain the value of the original property too by making it's new neighbour less overbearing.

 

Edited 15 hours ago by torre
more clarity

[Bluebaron]

14 hours ago, Russdl said:

Wouldn’t one of the problems be insufficient parking space? You’ve not mentioned that. 

no highways had no objections and planner noted that scheme was acceptable. 

 

4 hours ago, torre said:

 

So you didn't directly address the first reason for refusal and made only a minor change to somewhat address the second? 

 

It sounds like you had misgivings about the consultant's approach and maybe should have trusted your instincts - what did they submit that was likely to change the decision? Because on the face of it, the planners were almost bound to refuse again.

 

If the consultant addressed this up front and suggested you'd need to go to appeal to keep the original design then your course is surely set that way, but otherwise they so far haven't demonstrated much understanding of the local planners or how to address the reasons for refusal and I'd be tempted to scale down a bit in a fresh application as it'll be quicker and lower risk. 

 

E.g. Make the garage into a smaller extra room but with the width reduced a bit and set back to still allow parking by the tree, look to utilise the loft space, perhaps accept going to 3 bed. You may help retain the value of the original property too by making it's new neighbour less overbearing.

 

yes that's correct. 

 

I queried what amendments i should make (primarily make it smaller) and in his professional opinion by amending the plot size we could skirt the 'cramped' comment. 'Overbearing' is subjective and the design is such that any change would look out of character and odd in the street scene. As such apart from some changes to the driveway/internal we basically resubmitted the same thing.

 

I did mention appealing the original decision but we had a few technical issue around trees/RPA's so they needed addressing.

 

i'm speaking with both the local planning officer and the consultant tomorrow to discuss options.

 

 

Edited 10 hours ago by Bluebaron

[Bluebaron]

What really grates is the report mentions “ prominent corner plot” at multiple times .This plot is the end of a cul-de-sac. 🤷🏻‍♂️ 

 

[Nestor]

Did you purchase the property in September 2024 with the sole purpose of building on the corner plot?

You are taking full advantage of the plot size so not surprised with some push back.

Another attempt with the planning consultant should get you your result.

[Bluebaron]

50 minutes ago, Nestor said:

Did you purchase the property in September 2024 with the sole purpose of building on the corner plot?

You are taking full advantage of the plot size so not surprised with some push back.

Another attempt with the planning consultant should get you your result.

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

[ProDave]

1 hour ago, Bluebaron said:

 

Looking at that aerial view I see another detached house on the other side of the road.  Was that also built after the original houses on the side garden?

 

How does that one opposite compare in size and bulk to what you are proposing?  It looks to me only slightly wider than the original semi detached houses with a single storey garage.  If you submitted something like that, and it was still refused, you would have very good grounds to appeal.

 

Just because you have used a planning consultant to get this far, an appeal can be done yourself for virtually no cost if you are just appealing a refused application.

[Bluebaron]

2 hours ago, Nestor said:

 

[Bluebaron]

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. 

[Nestor]

2 hours ago, Bluebaron said:

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

That was a bonus.

Your proposal  (Double fronted) and the corner home opposite yours, you can understand the comments cramped and overbearing.

Difficult design to compromise if wanting the double frontage.

You will get there.

Edited 6 hours ago by Nestor

[ProDave]

If you really want the double fronted, make the left hand half above the garage set back a little with a stepped roof line, making it look right from the start like a subservient extension on the side (probably like has been approved for the house opposite)

[Nestor]

9 minutes ago, ProDave said:

If you really want the double fronted, make the left hand half above the garage set back a little with a stepped roof line, making it look right from the start like a subservient extension on the side (probably like has been approved for the house opposite)

Good point and I would switch the garage to the right hand side to create more visual space to no 35.

Worth doing a few visuals.

[Bluebaron]

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

[Nestor]

This was your second refusal?

Some random grabs from a quick search, 2 have a front facing gable which are probably not suitable and 2 hipped with garage on right hand side.

Looking at past planning applications, your neighbours have planning for only single storey extensions, the only 2 storey application was refused in 2006.