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

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 December 11, 2025Dec 11 by torre
more clarity

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 December 11, 2025Dec 11 by Bluebaron

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

 

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.

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. 

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.

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. 

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 December 11, 2025Dec 11 by Nestor

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)

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.

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

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.

 

 

 

 

Enclosed are the drawings of the application for a 2 storey extension at no 33 back in 2006. Was refused.

You have also had 11 objection letters from your neighbours.

Also the removal of 2 mature oak trees prior to planning does not go down well with the locals.

Not sure your planning consultant is listening.

Good luck.

Edited December 12, 2025Dec 12 by Nestor

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.

With even fairly simple extensions like the post above being refused, I have to ask, are you in a conservation area?

12 minutes ago, ProDave said:

With even fairly simple extensions like the post above being refused, I have to ask, are you in a conservation area?

 

No

1 hour ago, Bluebaron said:

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.

It is all subjective but I would not call this " a prominent corner plot"  even though the case officer seems to be on your side.

It is overbearing and cramped.

All are semis with a driveway between except number 42 with a separate garage at the rear.

You have had 19 letters of objection. 

Upset the Arboricultural Officer and Natural England.

No property in the street has had a  two storey extension built. All single storey wraparound.

Look at no 33 for ideas, looks like garage with a mono pitch roof or imagine no 42 with an attached garage.

 

 

1 hour ago, Bluebaron said:

does anyone think the case officer was correct in stating this was a "prominent corner plot"

On the face if it, no - "tucked away around the corner of a quiet cul de sac" sounds more appropriate, but if your street is the main walking route used by people to visit the park or whatever at the top of your aerial view then yes it would be prominent and a large house there might seem overbearing.

Edited December 13, 2025Dec 13 by ETC

Just a few thoughts…..

54 minutes ago, ETC said:

Just a few thoughts…..

Progress, Option 1. Huge improvement.

Great to see a contemporary new build design instead of rehashing the existing vernacular.

Personally, it is a tricky site with minimal parking for both properties, I think a 3 bed with attached garage would be acceptable.

11 hours ago, ETC said:

Just a few thoughts…..

"That valleys gonna give me problems down the line"?

10 hours ago, Nestor said:

Great to see a contemporary new build design instead of rehashing the existing vernacular.

I agree, but if you thought 19 objections last time was a lot, this will probably stir up more and open up other possible grounds for refusal (not in keeping with the area)

1 hour ago, torre said:

I agree, but if you thought 19 objections last time was a lot, this will probably stir up more and open up other possible grounds for refusal (not in keeping with the area)

I. agree, you agree. It was really a comment on @ETC contributions. 

Addressing overbearing and cramped should get this passed.

 

11 hours ago, Nestor said:

Personally, it is a tricky site with minimal parking for both properties, I think a 3 bed with attached garage would be acceptable.