Planners playing games

[Moonshine]

My application is still in planning! ?

 

Crossing licence granted.

 

Building regs submitted Wednesday night, spoke to the allocated BCO this morning, they have already looked over the plans, they don't see any major issues and likely to grant permission end of next week subject to me sending them SAP and structural info today.

 

Worlds apart between planning and BC!

[DragsterDriver]

A delay like that will bankrupt me. Planning is collapsed around here, I paid £400 for a pre app in January which I did over zoom and still haven’t had the results back. Now I’m going to build my original scheme and apply for an extension on one end of it because I know planning will Never approve what I really want before my bridging runs out.

[shuff27]

I recently applied for a NMA and was amazed to get the decision (approval) just 10 working days later. Now considering submitting another NMA to get the ridiculous dummy chimneys removed (I'm buying the plot with existing FPP) but at £245 every time it's a gamble.

 

I also have to apply for a dropped kerb and to move a bus stop sign which is in the way of the new access. 

[DragsterDriver]

1 hour ago, shuff27 said:

I recently applied for a NMA and was amazed to get the decision (approval) just 10 working days later. Now considering submitting another NMA to get the ridiculous dummy chimneys removed (I'm buying the plot with existing FPP) but at £245 every time it's a gamble.

 

I also have to apply for a dropped kerb and to move a bus stop sign which is in the way of the new access. 

*apparently* I can use a section 96 notice or something?

[MikeSharp01]

1 hour ago, shuff27 said:

bus stop sign which is in the way of the new access.

I think somebody else here tried to move a bus stop and found out that although they are only a sign the invisible red tape was difficult to break.

 

[shuff27]

48 minutes ago, MikeSharp01 said:

I think somebody else here tried to move a bus stop and found out that although they are only a sign the invisible red tape was difficult to break.

 

I've considered that so I'm applying to move it even before I've actually completed the plot purchase. It's a small sign on a post, buried in concrete in the grass verge, already leaning over so I'm hoping the parish council will look positively at my offer to move it securely before it 'falls over' ?. 

[saveasteading]

re

2 hours ago, shuff27 said:

NMA to get the ridiculous dummy chimneys removed (I'm buying the plot with existing FPP) 

 

 

 

In my experience, (suggesting that all fake chimneys be removed from a 40 house development proposal) planning officers had not previously questioned that fake chimneys were a silly idea, but were then happy to consider the subject.

You can help them in their decision.

 

Architectural  taste.....how can the use of a plastic, pretend chimney be of any artistic or historic merit? 

(I particularly dislike that you can see the same brick pattern in every one.)

 

Sustainabilty....a useless and pointless piece of plastic, plus additional framing.  (wasting  a lot of carbon)

 

Design integrity.....the useless thing requires a hole in the roof , then flashings, and so increases the chance of leaks.

The fake chimney has weight, but onto a normal area of roof, and catches the wind, so there is a considerable chance of it moving and leaking into the void below it.

That links into maintenance and longevity.

 

It will save you quite a fair bit of money too, including hoisting, but don't mention that.

 

 

 

[shuff27]

1 hour ago, saveasteading said:

re

 

In my experience, (suggesting that all fake chimneys be removed from a 40 house development proposal) planning officers had not previously questioned that fake chimneys were a silly idea, but were then happy to consider the subject.

You can help them in their decision.

 

Architectural  taste.....how can the use of a plastic, pretend chimney be of any artistic or historic merit? 

(I particularly dislike that you can see the same brick pattern in every one.)

 

Sustainabilty....a useless and pointless piece of plastic, plus additional framing.  (wasting  a lot of carbon)

 

Design integrity.....the useless thing requires a hole in the roof , then flashings, and so increases the chance of leaks.

The fake chimney has weight, but onto a normal area of roof, and catches the wind, so there is a considerable chance of it moving and leaking into the void below it.

That links into maintenance and longevity.

 

It will save you quite a fair bit of money too, including hoisting, but don't mention that.

 

 

 

Thanks, all good points that I can use. I'm going to email the PO who approved my NMA first asking for guidance but it might be he refuses to advise without a new NMA. 

 

Ironically the house next door, built in 1970s, is currently being refurbished and has been granted permission to remove its chimney ?. I'll certainly refer to that too. 

[Dave Jones]

7 weeks to validate ours. I involved the councillor and MP. Both were useless. I did ask the portfolio holder for planning why he hasnt sacked the head of planning for gross misconduct. no reply.

 

There was talk a couple years ago of privatising the planning process  to take it out of the hands of councils, needs to be looked at again.

 

[shuff27]

I give the PO credit for replying to my email about dummy chimneys, here's his reply:

 

"The Council encourages the use of chimneys on nearly all new dwellings, as it is consistent with advice contained within its Design Guide (Chapter 4.15.6):

 

‘Chimneys are on most buildings within South Northamptonshire and are a key characteristic of the area, punctuating the roofscape and add interest to the roofline. The

opportunity of creating chimneys on new buildings or building extensions should be taken whenever possible, even if containing flues to boilers and heating appliances rather than open fires. The chimney should be integral with the house rather than added externally onto the gable.’

 

The Council does take a strong position on them, although you are correct to highlight that they are not always included on new properties and it can sometimes be acceptable to remove them. The Council assesses each site on a case by case basis, and only if reasonable comparisons can be drawn between two sites or situations will previous decisions be afforded significant weight.

 

Removing what is regarded by the Council as an important design detail from the scheme would not, in my opinion, fall within the remit of a ‘Non-Material Amendment’. Given it  changes the roofscape of the building, which is going to be a prominent addition to the street scene even if the street scene is quite varied already, this alteration requires a more careful assessment, and as such the amendment should be submitted as a Section 73 ‘Variation of Condition’ application.

 

This attracts the same £234 fee, but takes eight weeks to be assessed and will trigger a new consultation process.

 

I hope this is helpful in clarifying the Council’s position."

 

The whole design guide makes for interesting reading - it's dated 2017 but reads like something more relevant to 1957.

[saveasteading]

I respect the difficult job of the overstretched  planners.

So I suggest make an impressive and easy to understand schedule of why a plastic chimney is a bad thing.

Carbon, weakness in structure (drawings of extra work) , maintenance (what is the life to replacement or repainting the faded bricks?) , and of course pastiche.

Throw in 'vernacular' where you can.

ie make it easy for the planner to agree with you, and difficult to answer each of your points.

You might, for balance, also state why it is a good idea.....because the planners  may like the roofline.

 

Any precedents? 20 years ago, housebuilders were adding fake Elizabethan beams, screwed onto block walls, and using new bricks stained to look like recycled.  

Again the planners were strangely unaware that these were pastiche until told. Have these fads passed?

I found that most people , including planners, favoured the roofline effect, but had no idea that these were dummies. The use of the terms 'plastic, dummy and fake'  helped the argument.

 

Planning officers are especially skilled at understanding  the rules and in diplomacy. They are not usually so good with drawings, architecture or the practical side of construction.

 

Vernacular architecture is described as a built environment that is based upon local needs; defined by the availability of particular materials indigenous to its particular region; and reflects local traditions and cultural practices.

 

Does a plastic chimney satisfy the above?  No re materials. No, re local needs and No, re cultural practices (of having a fire)

 

But, you presumably have an infinite amount of time to complete the house. Maybe the plastic chimney can be stuck on a bit later, when you have found one that meets your standards.

 

 

[Moonshine]

As an update, i got my building regs signed off this morning, grant of planning permission is due today.

 

Who of thought i would have building regs signed off before planning granted.

 

Ground workers on site in a couple of weeks, though need to get my self build exception in and agreed before then.

[Moonshine]

Decision notice issued at 19:00 and granted, finally.

[Mr Punter]

Wow.  Eight months for some minor amendments.  A badly broken system.

[Moonshine]

On 07/05/2021 at 22:36, Mr Punter said:

Wow.  Eight months for some minor amendments.  A badly broken system.

 

Indeed,

 

CIL exception applied for and commencement notice issued to the council today (with a written confirmation back from them that everything is in order for the exception).

 

Looks like all is set for commencement for Thursday, woohoo.

[shuff27]

Just to follow up my posts above about chimneys, I've just had approval under a variation of condition application to remove them from the approved plans.

 

The original planning officer insisted on having them in line with the local design guide. Her replacement concluded that although chimneys are generally preferable, in an architecturally mixed street scene such as this they are not mandatory.

 

So much for consistency!  At least the savings from not having to include them more than offsets the extra planning fee.