Planning refused: entrance deemed too grand!

[albion2021]

We have just been refused outline permission to replace our stables with a single dwelling, all matters were reserved, other than the access track.

 

We have two fields (15 acres) divided by a stream, the stables are in the second field, 200m away from the main (NSL) road. Access is via our first field (unsurfaced so vehicle access is severely limited) and by crossing a concrete bridge over the stream. The land is extremely well screened with very substantial hedges / trees on all sides and through the centre, bordering the stream. There are no footpaths over the land or any of the adjacent land. 

 

There have already been 6 similar developments surrounding our site, two or our immediate neighbours have been granted two houses each. Five of the houses have been built on an area of archaeological significance, the 6th house has been built on a flood zone. Our site is not within either. Despite the LPA consulting many more departments than they did for the neighbours, we had no objections or negative comments from anyone consulted. Our application included various wildlife benefits such as a wildflower border either side of the track, the retention of all trees and hedges and the planting of additional trees. 

 

Reason(s) for Refusal:

1. The proposed development, by reason of the siting of the access / driveway across the middle of a field, visually accentuated by a double row of ranch style fencing, would appear as a prominent feature of the landscape and result in a significant adverse impact on the character and appearance of the countryside. Furthermore, the proposed combination of tall wooden gates, their siting 12 metres into the field and the wide bellmouth entrance, accentuated by the use of granite sett surfacing would be a prominent and grandiose feature, out of scale with the modest access / driveway requirements for a single home and appearing out of keeping with the character of the rural landscape. The proposals are therefore contrary to Policies CS1, CS7 and CS12 of the Dacorum Core Strategy September 2013, and Paragraph 170 of the NPPF which states that decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside.

Informatives:

1. Planning permission has been refused for this proposal for the clear reasons set out in this decision notice. The Council acted pro-actively through positive engagement with the applicant in an attempt to narrow down the reasons for refusal but fundamental objections could not be overcome. The Council has therefore acted pro-actively in line with the requirements of the Framework (paragraph 38) and in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) (Amendment No. 2) Order 2015.

 

I feel the reason for refusal is unfair and much of which, including the post and rail fencing (referred to as "ranch style fencing") is both in keeping and permitted development. Are fences & gates, which don't require permission, valid reasons for refusal? 

 

Should he not have mentioned he objected to the distance the entrance would be set back (both the highways agency and fire department approved of this) or the use of reclaimed cobblestones, prior to refusal so I could have made amendments?  He only mentioned that he didn't like the access through the middle, which I didn't want to compromise on because it improved the visibility splays and the utilisation of the land. I explained this and also provided images and the planning reference of a nearby approved class q application, which included the creation of a 250m post and rail bordered track through the middle of a field, intercepting a footpath and through another area of archaeological significance. I suggested there be consistency in determining harm.

 

Any advice or opinions on this would be much appreciated!

 

 

[ToughButterCup]

22 minutes ago, albion2021 said:

...

Are fences & gates, which don't require permission, valid reasons for refusal? 

...

 

Possibly.

And the only way to test it, is to appeal.

Anything - any thing at all that a Planner says to you during the application should be regarded as questionable at best , but most likely, simple hot air.

 

The refusal statement is clear. Address those issues and the likelihood of acceptance is much higher.  Compromise.

[Bitpipe]

20 minutes ago, albion2021 said:

We have just been refused outline permission to replace our stables with a single dwelling, all matters were reserved, other than the access track.

 

We have two fields (15 acres) divided by a stream, the stables are in the second field, 200m away from the main (NSL) road. Access is via our first field (unsurfaced so vehicle access is severely limited) and by crossing a concrete bridge over the stream. The land is extremely well screened with very substantial hedges / trees on all sides and through the centre, bordering the stream. There are no footpaths over the land or any of the adjacent land. 

 

There have already been 6 similar developments surrounding our site, two or our immediate neighbours have been granted two houses each. Five of the houses have been built on an area of archaeological significance, the 6th house has been built on a flood zone. Our site is not within either. Despite the LPA consulting many more departments than they did for the neighbours, we had no objections or negative comments from anyone consulted. Our application included various wildlife benefits such as a wildflower border either side of the track, the retention of all trees and hedges and the planting of additional trees. 

 

Reason(s) for Refusal:

1. The proposed development, by reason of the siting of the access / driveway across the middle of a field, visually accentuated by a double row of ranch style fencing, would appear as a prominent feature of the landscape and result in a significant adverse impact on the character and appearance of the countryside. Furthermore, the proposed combination of tall wooden gates, their siting 12 metres into the field and the wide bellmouth entrance, accentuated by the use of granite sett surfacing would be a prominent and grandiose feature, out of scale with the modest access / driveway requirements for a single home and appearing out of keeping with the character of the rural landscape. The proposals are therefore contrary to Policies CS1, CS7 and CS12 of the Dacorum Core Strategy September 2013, and Paragraph 170 of the NPPF which states that decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside.

Informatives:

1. Planning permission has been refused for this proposal for the clear reasons set out in this decision notice. The Council acted pro-actively through positive engagement with the applicant in an attempt to narrow down the reasons for refusal but fundamental objections could not be overcome. The Council has therefore acted pro-actively in line with the requirements of the Framework (paragraph 38) and in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) (Amendment No. 2) Order 2015.

 

I feel the reason for refusal is unfair and much of which, including the post and rail fencing (referred to as "ranch style fencing") is both in keeping and permitted development. Are fences & gates, which don't require permission, valid reasons for refusal? 

 

Should he not have mentioned he objected to the distance the entrance would be set back (both the highways agency and fire department approved of this) or the use of reclaimed cobblestones, prior to refusal so I could have made amendments?  He only mentioned that he didn't like the access through the middle, which I didn't want to compromise on because it improved the visibility splays and the utilisation of the land. I explained this and also provided images and the planning reference of a nearby approved class q application, which included the creation of a 250m post and rail bordered track through the middle of a field, intercepting a footpath and through another area of archaeological significance. I suggested there be consistency in determining harm.

 

Any advice or opinions on this would be much appreciated!

 

 

 

Welcome to BuildHub

 

The usual approach here is to get your architect, or better planning consultant, on the phone with the planner to do the following:

 

1) understand what elements are troubling the planner (beyond what is written in the rejection)

2) explore what adjustments to the scheme could satisfy their concerns

3) make it clear you reserve the right to appeal the decision

 

You then need to see if you can tweak the design to the satisfaction of both parties and use your 'free go' to make a new submission.

 

You can obviously go straight to appeal but by doing the above you're not removing that option for later.

 

Speaking from my extensive experience of building one house, this was the game I had to play. Our original design had a few issues (ridge height, composite cladding etc..) that the planners did not like and we were prepared to compromise on. There were other objections on elements we were not prepared to compromise on and we risked a second rejection before calling their bluff wrt an appeal.

 

 

 

[Big Jimbo]

Dacorum are difficult. It's where i live. Can i ask, was it a straight refusal from the planning officer ? did you have the support of the Parish Council ? I had a very hard time with Dacorum for a replacement dwelling in the Green Belt. In the end my final application made it to the Council planning committee. My thought was, here we go, a bunch of old crusties. I was surprised that the councillors were relatively youngish. It went through with only 2 councillors abstaining from voting (my local councillors) All the others voted Yes. Dacorum have been farming out applications to a private firm recently. I spoke to that firm of planning consultants before my application went in, (One of my friends is friends with that planning consultant.) He told me that after looking at my plans briefly, he would refuse it. A neighbours 100m from me, did similar to me. Lawful dev certs for extending on both sides, and a neighbourhood consultation 8m rear extension. He then went back in to knock and build, and got an outright refusal. His was farmed out to the private firm. (the One i mentioned) May i ask, is your land Greenbelt ?

[IanR]

59 minutes ago, albion2021 said:

I feel the reason for refusal is unfair and much of which, including the post and rail fencing (referred to as "ranch style fencing") is both in keeping and permitted development. Are fences & gates, which don't require permission, valid reasons for refusal? 

 

Sounds a fantastic location, welcome.

 

It also sounds like you are very rural, and while there are other permissions granted around you they must be pretty spread out so you are not within a built area and are firmly in open countryside.

 

If the post and rail is truly agricultural/equestrian type, then they can't really argue, if you weren't changing the use of the patch of land the access crosses from agricultural/equestrian to residential, they could do nothing about it, however they've included this as it adds to the picture they are painting of what they are calling a "grandiose" scheme.

 

If you are in open countryside, then it is fair for them to be minimising the impact of your development, and if the most visible part of that development is the entrance (due to house being 200m away from the public road and mature hedge rows etc.) it is quite reasonable for them to want that to be "in keeping" with its surroundings. Our LPA would only allow a 5 bar gate. Nothing solid, nothing over 1.2m, no fancy gate posts. 12m inset in the field also seems a little excessive, yes you need provision for a car/van to pull off the road before they are stopped by your gate, but they may be happier with 6m.

 

I can also see their issue with it being through the middle of the field, but maybe if you reduced the visual impact they'd compromise on this. Again, if it was a field entrance, on to an uncategorised road, you wouldn't need planning permission, so they couldn't actually stop a 5 bar gate being in the middle of the hedge row, however as you want it for residential use you need to reach a compromise with them.

 

 

 

 

Edited May 19, 2021 by IanR

[albion2021]

1 minute ago, Big Jimbo said:

Dacorum are difficult. It's where i live. Can i ask, was it a straight refusal from the planning officer ? did you have the support of the Parish Council ? I had a very hard time with Dacorum for a replacement dwelling in the Green Belt. In the end my final application made it to the Council planning committee. My thought was, here we go, a bunch of old crusties. I was surprised that the councillors were relatively youngish. It went through with only 2 councillors abstaining from voting (my local councillors) All the others voted Yes. Dacorum have been farming out applications to a private firm recently. I spoke to that firm of planning consultants before my application went in, (One of my friends is friends with that planning consultant.) He told me that after looking at my plans briefly, he would refuse it. A neighbours 100m from me, did similar to me. Lawful dev certs for extending on both sides, and a neighbourhood consultation 8m rear extension. He then went back in to knock and build, and got an outright refusal. His was farmed out to the private firm. (the One i mentioned) May i ask, is your land Greenbelt ?

 

Hi,

Yes, it was a straight refusal from the planning officer, our parish council had "no comment". We are in the "rural area" but beyond the Greenbelt, AONB, conservation areas etc.

[albion2021]

2 minutes ago, IanR said:

 

Sounds a fantastic location, welcome.

 

It also sounds like you are very rural, and while there are other permissions granted around you they must be pretty spread out so you are not within a built area and are firmly in open countryside.

 

If the post and rail is truly agricultural/equestrian type, then they can't really argue, if you weren't changing the use of the patch of land the access crosses from agricultural/equestrian to residential, they could do nothing about it, however they've included this as it adds to the picture they are painting of what they are calling a "grandiose" scheme.

 

If you are in open countryside, then it is fair for them to be minimising the impact of your development, and if the most visible part of that development is the entrance (due to house being 200m away from the public road and mature hedge rows etc.) it is quite reasonable for them to want that to be "in keeping" with its surroundings. Our LPA would only allow a 5 bar gate. Nothing solid, nothing over 1.2m, no fancy gate posts. 12m inset in the field also seems a little excessive, yes you need provision for a car/van to pull off the road before they are stopped by your gate, but they may be happier with 6m.

 

I can also see their issue with it being through the middle of the field, but maybe if you reduced the visual impact they'd compromise on this. Again, if it was a field entrance, on to an categorised road, you wouldn't need planning permission, so they couldn't actually stop a 5 bar gate being in the middle of the hedge row, however as you want it for residential use you need to reach a compromise with them.

 

 

 

 

Hi there! Thank you. We are fairly rural but there has been a lot of development in our area. All the other stable blocks surrounding the site have been granted permission. I don't fully understand the term "open countryside" I didn't think our site could be considered open because our hedges are so substantial! if I were to put up a solid gate, the track wouldn't be visible from outside the site at all. The 12m set back was because the road is 60mph, I thought it would be sensible if all construction traffic could access the site without obstructing the road, the farm opposite has a 6m set back and regularly results in articulated lorrys blocking both sides of the road, while the driver waits for someone to answer the intercom and open the gate. My horsebox is also over 6m. I hadn't really considered the entrance to be grandiose but I can see how they could have an image of it being suburban with brick piers etc. 

[joe90]

Good job planners didn’t exist when gentry built their country estate houses a few hundred years ago!,! Actually one of our (sensible) councillors pointed out we need diversity in building when the planners wanted me to build a small bungalow .

Edited May 19, 2021 by joe90

[albion2021]

47 minutes ago, ToughButterCup said:

 

Possibly.

And the only way to test it, is to appeal.

Anything - any thing at all that a Planner says to you during the application should be regarded as questionable at best , but most likely, simple hot air.

 

The refusal statement is clear. Address those issues and the likelihood of acceptance is much higher.  Compromise.

Hi, Thank you. I really feel very strongly about the location of the gate because to get from the existing gateway to the existing bridge while going round the hedge row which juts out, would create a really awkward path that would result in a long narrow strip of land of nearly an acre which is too narrow to do anything with. The gate is also barely 12' wide and to make it wider I would have to remove one of the trees either side if it, which have formed an archway over it and I would rather keep. But I would of been happy to compromise on the materials, it didn't occur to me that granite setts would be offensive! 

[Jilly]

Good luck, I think you'll get there as they haven't actually refused the conversion itself.

 

I am doing a small stable conversion and was just about to ask for a 'variation of condition as I didn't like the large set back they've asked for, so maybe there was a discussion I wasn't privy to.  I'll think twice now and just comply, its easier! Maybe talk to a planning consultant about putting in a separate application for the entrance first?

 

PS I've just been having an email discussion with the planning officer, and she was very picky about wanting granite setts, not cobbles, for the apron. Who would know they cared about such a detail?! Try to get a relationship and a feeling for the officer you'll have to deal with, take samples and several proposals, as in my experience, they love saying 'not that', but won't always say what they would be happy with.

 

Definitely don't give up, but maybe be prepared to compromise.

Edited May 19, 2021 by Jilly

[IanR]

14 minutes ago, albion2021 said:

I don't fully understand the term "open countryside" 

 

"Open" countryside, just refers to your site not being within a developed settlement (hamlet/village), where the rules are more relaxed. A lot is made of Greenbelt, but the development rules are pretty similar in open countryside as they are in Greenbelt.

 

14 minutes ago, albion2021 said:

if I were to put up a solid gate, the track wouldn't be visible from outside the site at all. The 12m set back was because the road is 60mph, I thought it would be sensible if all construction traffic could access the site..

My horsebox is also over 6m. I hadn't really considered the entrance to be grandiose but I can see how they could have an image of it being suburban with brick piers etc. 

 

You are requesting a change of use, so you need their buy-in. While you may feel you have a logical reason for the choices you have made you need to calibrate your view to their priorities.

 

Brick piers and solid gates are not typical for an agricultural access, they are being reasonable rejecting them (unless they have allowed similar in neighbouring properties on similar sites) 

Edited May 19, 2021 by IanR

[albion2021]

6 minutes ago, joe90 said:

Good job planners didn’t exist when gentry built their country estate houses a few hundred years ago!,! Actually one of our (sensible) councillors pointed out we need diversity in building when the planners wanted me to build a small bungalow .

Yes, we have lived in the area for a long time and were hoping to build something a little special but that would sit quietly within its surroundings, probably oak framed. Its so disappointing! 

[albion2021]

1 minute ago, IanR said:

 

Brick piers and solid gates are not typical for an agricultural access, they are being reasonable rejecting them (unless they have allowed similar in neighbouring properties on similar sites) 

I  wasn't planning on brick piers or a suburban looking entrance, just wondering if they jumped to that conclusion. There are quite a few post and rail fenced gravel tracks in the area. 

 

[albion2021]

10 minutes ago, Jilly said:

Good luck, I think you'll get there as they haven't actually refused the conversion itself.

 

I am doing a small stable conversion and was just about to ask for a 'variation of condition as I didn't like the large set back they've asked for. I'll think twice now and just comply, its easier! maybe talk to a planning consultant about putting in a separate application for the entrance first?

Thank you. I did try several planning consultants but unfortunately they either didn't get back to me, weren't able to answer questions I had (one suggested a planning lawyer) or quoted me 10k!

[joe90]

Do you require planning to change the gate etc later?, why not copy neighbours stuff, 5 bar gate etc with a view to changing it after the build is finished . ?

[Jilly]

The comment on the fencing seems bonkers, as far as I'm aware you done need planning permission to subdivide your grazing land with decent fencing. Can you just convert the building and share the current entrance for the time being?

 

[Bitpipe]

When we were having our final planning debate (all other issued being resolved) on whether the cantilevered box at the front of the house was appropriate, the architect neatly defused this by saying 'what if I draw it from another angle and see what you think then?'.

 

This gave the planner the opportunity to climb down gracefully and say that now they could see the concept in 3d vs 2d planning drawings, it was acceptable. 

 

If they have pictured a 'grandiose' entrance from your initial application then maybe you need a few more drawings of other treatments, materials etc to give them some space to agree.

 

You need to be unemotional here, it's nothing personal form the planner and they do seem to need to  'make their mark' rightly or wrongly to justify their existence.

[ToughButterCup]

5 hours ago, albion2021 said:

1. .... The Council acted pro-actively through positive engagement with the applicant in an attempt to narrow down the reasons for refusal but fundamental objections could not be overcome. The Council has therefore acted pro-actively in line with the requirements of the Framework (paragraph 38) and in accordance...

...

Councils are required to help applicants succeed.  Hence ... 'proactively'.. above.

 

The next challenge looks as if it will be  about both careful diplomacy and  compromise.

 

Isolate the fundamental objections, address them and you will succeed. 

 

Think long term.....

[epsilonGreedy]

6 hours ago, Bitpipe said:

You then need to see if you can tweak the design to the satisfaction of both parties and use your 'free go' to make a new submission.

 

 

I thought the "free go" only applied if the initial application is revised before the decision? This requires the applicant to maintain a dialogue with the planners to comprehend their initial reservations.

 

It seems that @albion2021's principal gripe is about a procedural failure.

 

I feel the planer is making a reasonable point, these grandiose entrances that look like something copied from a Dallas Texas ranch are out of place in rural England.

[Bitpipe]

4 minutes ago, epsilonGreedy said:

 

I thought the "free go" only applied if the initial application is revised before the decision? This requires the applicant to maintain a dialogue with the planners to comprehend their initial reservations.

 

It seems that @albion2021's principal gripe is about a procedural failure.

 

I feel the planer is making a reasonable point, these grandiose entrances that look like something copied from a Dallas Texas ranch are out of place in rural England.

 

Our LA allowed a free resubmission following formal refusal. That's how we did it anyway.

 

What you're describing is different as there is never a formal refusal but a steer that it will be the outcome and an opportunity to revise. 

 

Some recommended against getting a refusal as it can be a blight but we didn't see the problem and it was good to get it all in writing. Without a refusal there is also no scope for appeal.

 

Obviously the architects time to revise the plans is never free so there is always a cost!

[LSB]

We were refused twice for class Q and didn't get a 'free go' in either case as it was for PD.

 

[epsilonGreedy]

18 minutes ago, Bitpipe said:

Our LA allowed a free resubmission following formal refusal. That's how we did it anyway.

 

What you're describing is different as there is never a formal refusal but a steer that it will be the outcome and an opportunity to revise...

 

 

Ok. My plot came with planning permission and has a rich planning history. The original application was withdrawn on planner advice but all the docs are available under a separate application online. The resubmitted application has a link back to the original. This could be another variation of the path an application can take.

[joe90]

2 hours ago, ToughButterCup said:

Councils are required to help applicants succeed. 

ha, they might be “required” but yet to see that put in practice.?‍♂️

[Mr Punter]

I would go with barb wire or stock fence and round wooden posts, 6m setback maybe with some rural mix hedgerow.  The name of the game is to get consent and get the house built.

[the_r_sole]

what did they offer as a compromise?

just take out everything, fence, walls, road surfacing etc and submit for a gravel access track with the bare minimum tarmac bellmouth and get permission for the house - the rest can be done as a future application when you're in the house! (most folk end up taking out large bits of hard landscaping once they get costs back anyway!)