Misleading information presented to committee

[Moonshine]

7 hours ago, Rob99 said:

Is the grey shaded area part of your site?

 

If so, why can't the house be located more centrally and away from the boundary.

 

Basically it's not his site, the location plan is below. Seeing this i can understand why the committee came to the over development conclusion, though I am surprised the planners actually supported it.

It's a super compact site and not well orinated to other properties. I really struggle to see how any house would get permitted there, then again I am not a planner.

 

 

[Rich Pen]

The size of the houses,garden and of road parking is the size of the plot.

Im hoping a daylight/ sunshine survey that shows the impact of shadowing to the neighbors is minimal thus addressing the reason mentioned in the refusal statement even though it says due to scale,dominance and overdevelopment.

If the loss of amenity is disproven aa mentioned above then maybe there's a chance at appeal.

 

[ToughButterCup]

20 minutes ago, Rich Pen said:

.... the reason mentioned in the refusal statement even though it says due to scale,dominance and overdevelopment.

...

That's the exact feedback we had.  So, before the Decision Notice was issued,  we resubmitted a Design Amendment addressing the issue.

Painful,  I growl still,  a bit, at the compromise required.  We lost the equivalent of two full rooms. 

But we have a house.

 

Can't take a joke? Don't self build.

 

[Moonshine]

1 hour ago, ToughButterCup said:

a bit, at the compromise required.  We lost the equivalent of two full rooms. 

 

We managed to keep the room that the planner was concerned about, but had to step it back from the front facade and paint the external wall grey to break up the massing of it.