Planning refused: entrance deemed too grand!

[ToughButterCup]

1 hour ago, the_r_sole said:

... -

the rest can be done as a future application when you're in the house!

...

Think long term. 

[albion2021]

Thanks for all the responses. 

 

These were the photos used in my supporting statement -

 

This is a nearby 250m long post and rail fenced track through the middle of a field which the LPA approved of a couple of years ago.  

[albion2021]

Entrance to the farm opposite us

[epsilonGreedy]

5 hours 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 The original application was withdrawn on planner advice but all the docs are available under a separate application online.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.

[epsilonGreedy]

@albion2021I can understand the planners concerns.

 

The wide light gravel drive would suit the Queen at Balmoral or Windsor.

 

The agribusiness entrance is completely unsuitable for a small rural home.

 

The three rail fence is fine for a grand stud ranch in Ohio with 3000 head of beef cattle roaming over 5000 acres.

 

Try and tune into the local planning psyche before your next application.

[Temp]

@albion2021  I would appeal citing those photos of nearby properties and include artists impressions of your own proposal. Consider hiring a planning consultant first to see what he thinks.

 

 

[albion2021]

4 hours ago, epsilonGreedy said:

@albion2021I can understand the planners concerns.

 

The wide light gravel drive would suit the Queen at Balmoral or Windsor.

 

The agribusiness entrance is completely unsuitable for a small rural home.

 

The three rail fence is fine for a grand stud ranch in Ohio with 3000 head of beef cattle roaming over 5000 acres.

 

Try and tune into the local planning psyche before your next application.

 

I do understand that viewpoint but the track was to be 3.7m wide to meet the minimum requirement of the fire tender,  the fencing was going to be set back by a metre to allow some extra room to manoeuvre.

 

Post and rail fencing is in keeping with the existing fencing, the lands equestrian use and the surrounding area.

 

The LPA have granted several similar driveways, other than the use of black tarmac, the one above is almost identical, so the decision is not consistent.

 

The commercial looking entrance opposite is not what I was looking to achieve but there are other farm entrances like it along the road.

 

The choice of gravel was to match the existing parking area around the stables but I wouldn't object to a different surface.

 

The reclaimed cobblestones are in a heap onsite so I thought I could make use of them, again I would have accepted an alternative had i been aware they were disliked. 

 

The refusal quotes paragraph 170 of the NPPF which applies to "valued landscape"  which I don't think my would be classified as (its not greenbelt, AONB, SSI, within a conservation area, an area of archaeological significance, a rare habitat etc)

 

We have contacted a planning consultant so will await to hear back but, I am not sure about if it's possible to reduce the scale of the entrance while satisfying the access requirements of an 11m fire appliance.  

Edited May 19, 2021 by albion2021

[Adsibob]

I would only seek planning permission for things that actually require planning permission. So the barn conversion for example needs permission, but do you actually need permission to put up fences? I think as long as they are under a certain height you can do so under your PD rights. Same goes for the access road. If you need permission for the road itself, get it, and ask for something simple and modest that will get approval. You can then build it and modify it or add the grander touches to it afterwards. The more you ask for, the more likely they will refuse. So keep your application streamlined and you will find it much easier. Often, permission is needed for installing a thing from scratch, but not needed to modify that thing to look like something else. So that is a loop hole worth exploiting.

Edited May 19, 2021 by Adsibob

[the_r_sole]

23 hours ago, albion2021 said:

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.

 

It's easy to not have the things they're saying are out of keeping, whether there's other examples around you or commercial access etc.

What's more important, a house or a big entrance? Easy compromise for me here... 

[ToughButterCup]

1 hour ago, the_r_sole said:

...

What's more important, a house or a big entrance? Easy compromise for me here

... 

Cheaper too.

Think long term.

[Bitpipe]

13 hours ago, epsilonGreedy said:

 

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.

 

I suspect the planners prefer applicants  to withdraw and resubmit under the same application as then they don't need to formally record their reasons for refusal which may be challengeable under appeal. 

[epsilonGreedy]

10 hours ago, albion2021 said:

 

I do understand that viewpoint but the track was to be 3.7m wide to meet the minimum requirement of the fire tender,  the fencing was going to be set back by a metre to allow some extra room to manoeuvre.

 

...

 

We have contacted a planning consultant so will await to hear back but, I am not sure about if it's possible to reduce the scale of the entrance while satisfying the access requirements of an 11m fire appliance.  

 

 

Is it possible your are mis interpreting fire appliance regulations? Many of the public roads near me are only just 3m wide and even a Sainsbury home delivery food van struggles driving into with many properties. 11m is the length of a mid sized static caravan. My shared private drive was specified in the approved planning permission to be 3m wide.

 

Perhaps you are using access requirement for a commercial stables rather than a private home?

 

The cobbles look good, just need to make sure they offer enough grip for a quick pull away if there is fast moving traffic.

Edited May 20, 2021 by epsilonGreedy

[Ferdinand]

Thanks for a clear set of questions :=) .

 

I love the "grandiose" - there are certain words that only Planning Officers, Hyacinth Bucket & friends of Penelope Keith use. "Cramped" is another.

 

It is good that you have precise reasons for refusal, and there are lots of things you can do to address them.

 

On the entrance, the suggestion to just  get the PP for the house and a gravel track now is a good one. Another way is to get Highways to say that a 12m setback is needed or beneficial. They could be contacted via County probably and a few phone calls. Or just put a trad farm gate in at 6m, and another set of posts at 12m, and unilaterally move it a few months after completion.

 

I think supplying a sketch of the entrance would be useful. But i think in general you may have given them too much information - eg the cobbles I would just have used.

 

For the fence, you could try switching fence type to paddock fencing (round posts and half round rails) or Estate fencing as below. Or put a field hedge between the track and the fence. Or try and prove that the visual intrusion is minimal as no one can see it (might upset planner). I'm assuming that you need the fences there for your various Dobbinses - 2 alternating paddocks each side?.

 

Estate Fencing can be surprisingly reasonable in price - eg from around £22 per metre, which is less than suburban panels though more than post and rail.

(https://www.thetraditionalco.co.uk/estate-fencing/)

 

 

For a really grandiose entrance:

 

 

Ferdinand

 

[Ferdinand]

7 minutes ago, epsilonGreedy said:

 

Is it possible your are mis interpreting fire appliance regulations? Many of the public roads near me are only just 3m wide and even a Sainsbury home delivery food van struggles driving into with many properties. 11m is the length of a mid sized static caravan. My shared private drive was specified in the approved planning permission to be 3m wide.

 

Perhaps you are using access requirement for a commercial stables rather than a private home?

 

The cobbles look good, just need to make sure they offer enough grip for a quick pull away if there is fast moving traffic.

 

3.7m is I think a general guideline, from which there may be limited derogation depending what needs to be accessed down it.

 

For a single house a narrower width down to perhaps 2.75m may be acceptable.

[joe90]

8 minutes ago, Ferdinand said:

Estate Fencing can be surprisingly reasonable in price -

gosh I didn’t know that, would have been my fencing of choice fir here I just presumed a lot more expensive ? There was no mention on my application how wide the drive was!

Edited May 20, 2021 by joe90

[IanR]

If the furthest internal point of the house is more than 45m from the road you need to provide access for a 12t pumping appliance, and if they have to come on to the property by more than 20m, you have to provide a turning space.

 

You don't need to provide space for a pull off at the entrance, the fire tenders will just block the road when they are needed.

 

I don't think it's actually stated in Part B, but building control wanted to see 3.7m kerb-to-kerb for the access at mine. This is needed at something like a hammer-head turning point, but not really needed along a straight length of drive.

Edited May 20, 2021 by IanR

[albion2021]

On 19/05/2021 at 12:52, ToughButterCup said:

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.....

 

On 19/05/2021 at 16:40, the_r_sole said:

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!)

 

I don't feel they offered a compromise, the comment I received was "I consider the position of the access across the field does not minimise its impact on the countryside and would be contrary to Policy CS7 as it would have a significant impact on the character and appearance of the countryside. To be more favourably considered, the access should follow the southern field boundary and utilise the existing field access." 

 

The fundamental objection is that they don't want the entrance in the middle but it offers greater visibility and using the existing entrance would mean losing an acre of land because the gate is about 20m away from the southern hedge, the hedgerow then juts out 3/4 of the way along, then the bridge to reach the stables is another 20m or so along from the corner, plus the turns need to be sweeping for the fire tender. I explained this to him but he didn't comment until several weeks later when he issued the refusal on the deadline day.

 

If I were to resubmit offering them the choice of materials & reducing the setback to 6m (which would put the gate inline with roadside hedgerow) do his statements suggest they will refuse it anyway? I don't know if a five bar gate would be preferable but if I were to put a (simple) solid wooden gate up, there would be no view of the track from any public viewpoint 

Edited May 21, 2021 by albion2021

[Mr Punter]

Just do whatever you have to.  Apply later for a revised entrance location and fight about that once you have your house agreed.

[scottishjohn]

If there is already an access --this probably what they are getting at --they don,t like allowing you to make new or more access  to public roads 

 

was it the planners or the roads that complained about it -there will no doubt be a roads dept document somewhere in the planning outling how they want it to be 

 I know here any gate has to be min of 6m back from road to allow you to be off road when opening and closing gate  and they also insit on a drain channel so no water goes onto road from your land at the junction -

Edited May 21, 2021 by scottishjohn

[Bitpipe]

36 minutes ago, albion2021 said:

 

 

I don't feel they offered a compromise, the comment I received was "I consider the position of the access across the field does not minimise its impact on the countryside and would be contrary to Policy CS7 as it would have a significant impact on the character and appearance of the countryside. To be more favourably considered, the access should follow the southern field boundary and utilise the existing field access." 

 

The fundamental objection is that they don't want the entrance in the middle but it offers greater visibility and using the existing entrance would mean losing an acre of land because the gate is about 20m away from the southern hedge, the hedgerow then juts out 3/4 of the way along, then the bridge to reach the stables is another 20m or so along from the corner, plus the turns need to be sweeping for the fire tender. I explained this to him but he didn't comment until several weeks later when he issued the refusal on the deadline day.

 

If I were to resubmit offering them the choice of materials & reducing the setback to 6m (which would put the gate inline with roadside hedgerow) do his statements suggest they will refuse it anyway? I don't know if a five bar gate would be preferable but if I were to put a (simple) solid wooden gate up, there would be no view of the track from any public viewpoint 

 

Ok, so the objection is not how the entrance & drive looks but where it is located - a diagram or sketch would help us understand this better.

 

The LA will be unconcerned with how efficiently your land is used, you need to find a planning reason as to why their refusal has no merit - i.e. something you could take to appeal.

 

 

 

[albion2021]

22 minutes ago, Bitpipe said:

 

Ok, so the objection is not how the entrance & drive looks but where it is located - a diagram or sketch would help us understand this better.

 

The LA will be unconcerned with how efficiently your land is used, you need to find a planning reason as to why their refusal has no merit - i.e. something you could take to appeal.

 

 

 

Is the improved visibility and nearby approved track through the middle of a field count as valid reasons?

Edited May 21, 2021 by albion2021

[Bitpipe]

8 minutes ago, albion2021 said:

Is the improved visibility and nearby approved track through the middle of a field count as valid reasons?

 

So blue is existing and red proposed?

 

I have no idea what would be acceptable grounds, hence the suggestion to get yourself a planning consultant to advise.

 

 

[albion2021]

Yes, the blue is going from the existing gate, so roughly the route they are suggesting. 

[ToughButterCup]

I think broadly the message is clear. The house is the prize. Not the drive, or anything related to it. 

 

Your understanding of the term comprise isn't the same as the planners.

 

Appeal.

[IanR]

1 hour ago, albion2021 said:

"I consider the position of the access across the field does not minimise its impact on the countryside and would be contrary to Policy CS7 as it would have a significant impact on the character and appearance of the countryside. To be more favourably considered, the access should follow the southern field boundary and utilise the existing field access."

 

The LPA were pretty clear on their direction. This was your chance to have amended your drawings prior to the decision. They don't come back to you with proposals, they just give reasons why what you are asking for does not fit the policies they follow, you have to go back to them with new proposals that find the compromise.

The Council's comment, "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" in their reason for refusal now makes sense.

 

I'd resubmit the plans with the existing entrance, and tackle the new position for the entrance later. When you do, address all other issues they have with your proposed entrance, except its position, and work up from there. ie. you don't need planning for the fencing, so don't include it, show a timber 5 bar gate at 6m from the road. Even offer them a reinforced grass driveway.
The name of the game is to get the new position agreed in principle, and then you are only arguing over style and scale. It you were to then take them to appeal over whether it was a grass drive way or shingle they're unlikely to proceed as they'd probably loose.