Permission refused - not in keeping with the area

[ToughButterCup]

Not in keeping with the street scene as a valid reason for refusal, eh......... ? Hmmmm, well have a look at this

 

First our old house 

 

and below, the house we've built in what was the garden of the house photographed above ... on the same street 25 meters away. You can just see the back view of the house above

 

 

A valid reason for refusal? No.

 

Here's the very first google hit I found  for the search string  ' ... not in keeping with the street scene ...'

@RichyC : tinker with the design a bit, listen between the lines - you will get there.

Ian

 

downloaded  and converted to a photo from 

https://democracy.derby.gov.uk/CMIS5/Document.ashx?czJKcaeAi5tUFL1DTL2UE4zNRBcoShgo=6sfcDwW%2FB6oXuOm7JmS4CE7cM6rThhSZgYE5EyQIUAhfOYL5qXs2bQ%3D%3D&mCTIbCubSFfXsDGW9IXnlg%3D%3D=hFflUdN3100%3D&kCx1AnS9%2FpWZQ40DXFvdEw%3D%3D=hFflUdN3100%3D&uJovDxwdjMPoYv%2BAJvYtyA%3D%3D=ctNJFf55vVA%3D&FgPlIEJYlotS%2BYGoBi5olA%3D%3D=NHdURQburHA%3D&d9Qjj0ag1Pd993jsyOJqFvmyB7X0CSQK=ctNJFf55vVA%3D&WGewmoAfeNR9xqBux0r1Q8Za60lavYmz=ctNJFf55vVA%3D&WGewmoAfeNQ16B2MHuCpMRKZMwaG1PaO=ctNJFf55vVA%3D   16/08/2021

 

 

[saveasteading]

13 hours ago, Temp said:

your architect has picked up on design features from those other houses but has taken the idea just a bit too far.

 

Agreed. Also with many other of the comments above.

 

Ignore the existing footprint, and start new. Save the vat and much cost through simplification. 

Your design is similar to the examples but they have an elegance/simplicity that yours doesn't.

Overhanging eaves, or at least boxy features seem to be a theme, and will make yours less monolithic, and more practical as I don't know how you get the white wall all the way to the roof.

 

Then when presenting next time you can make it easy for the planner by pointing out the 'themes' that are consistent with local precedent.   Even add the pictures above.

 

There you are then: a pointer by the planner and all of us as to what will be accepted, no neighbour opposition, save the VAT on labour and materials (£60,000???). Save more by simplifying.(£20,000). 

 

Also be aware that the planner might not have looked at other issues yet.

Make sure you have sustainability covered...if well designed and integrated (not stuck on later) it saves money, in capital and running.

 

 

Good luck.

 

 

[Pocster]

1 hour ago, markc said:

Can’t wait to find a suitable plot or place to knock down to start a new build instead of refurbs.

You can buy my incomplete build . Knock it down and start again , yeah ?

[markc]

4 minutes ago, pocster said:

You can buy my incomplete build . Knock it down and start again , yeah ?

Would be a shame to destroy all that exquisite craftsmanship 

[Ferdinand]

  

1 hour ago, ToughButterCup said:

Not in keeping with the street scene as a valid reason for refusal, eh......... ? Hmmmm, well have a look at this

 

Here's the very first google hit I found  for the search string  ' ... not in keeping with the street scene ...'

@RichyC : tinker with the design a bit, listen between the lines - you will get there.

Ian

 

downloaded  and converted to a photo from 

https://democracy.derby.gov.uk/CMIS5/Document.ashx?czJKcaeAi5tUFL1DTL2UE4zNRBcoShgo=6sfcDwW%2FB6oXuOm7JmS4CE7cM6rThhSZgYE5EyQIUAhfOYL5qXs2bQ%3D%3D&mCTIbCubSFfXsDGW9IXnlg%3D%3D=hFflUdN3100%3D&kCx1AnS9%2FpWZQ40DXFvdEw%3D%3D=hFflUdN3100%3D&uJovDxwdjMPoYv%2BAJvYtyA%3D%3D=ctNJFf55vVA%3D&FgPlIEJYlotS%2BYGoBi5olA%3D%3D=NHdURQburHA%3D&d9Qjj0ag1Pd993jsyOJqFvmyB7X0CSQK=ctNJFf55vVA%3D&WGewmoAfeNR9xqBux0r1Q8Za60lavYmz=ctNJFf55vVA%3D&WGewmoAfeNQ16B2MHuCpMRKZMwaG1PaO=ctNJFf55vVA%3D   16/08/2021

 

 

 

This was built.

 

39 Bank View Road, Derby is the one in the middle below.

 

You can see the "blank wall" etc.

 

[AliG]

Much as I do not like planning decisions based on the personal opinion of the planner, I have to agree with the already made points.

 

Can I just clarify that this is a complete demolition and rebuild? If so is it necessary to keep exactly to the existing footprint. It doesn't really seem to as the left hand side of the existing house seems to stick out a lot more forward than the new house.

 

One of the great things about designing and building a new house is that it should look as if it was designed as one and that's how the house was intended. This is something often lost when houses were extended.

 

It seems that in trying to follow the footprint of the extended existing house the architect has designed a house that looks messy and indeed will look as if it was extended from day one.

 

In particular the number of different roof pitches is way over the top especially when considering the side view versus the front view.

 

I have one set of pointy windows like that in our bedroom. We like them but they are a nuisance if you want to cover them and keep out light.

 

The email from the architect does not sound that certain re refusal and therefore I suspect this can be avoided with a bit of compromise. This would also make it a lot easier and cheaper to build, something architects often ignore.

 

I would think you could redesign the single storey rear projection to just have one roof pitch that runs the whole length of it, at the moment it appears to have three different roofs. I think this is made to create a small enclosed area. Redesigning the front will be harder. Maybe losing the triangular dormer would be enough to make it less fussy. If not you would probably have to redesign the whole front.

 

Arguably you would have a good chance to win an appeal as they tend to go on policy, but I think the design could be a lot better.

[joe90]

7 minutes ago, AliG said:

Can I just clarify that this is a complete demolition and rebuild? If so is it necessary to keep exactly to the existing footprint.

No, with our rebuild we built bigger than the existing footprint and went up one floor.

[Pocster]

2 minutes ago, joe90 said:

No, with our rebuild we built bigger than the existing footprint and went up one floor.

Or go under with one floor ??

[AliG]

2 minutes ago, joe90 said:

No, with our rebuild we built bigger than the existing footprint and went up one floor.

I did too Joe, I was meaning maybe there is some restriction they have been asked to comply with otherwise I wouldn't have worried about the existing footprint.

[RichyC]

So this isn't a demolish and rebuild. We were trying to work on the existing footprint to save it being demolished. Thr architect suggested cascading the front facade into align with the current look. 

 

Thr Planners are flatly refusing anything like this stating 

1. Too much glass ; needs to look more domesticated 

2. Too many gables

3. Too large (however plot is nearly third of acre)

4. Requires pitched roof to the left hand side of the building (we're very confused as to why they want this). 

 

In this instance the architect said they weren't keen to give opinions as to advice for a successful application. Rather just tell us what they don't like. 

 

My original idea and one I still prefer is something like the picture below. However, it was suggested this was Too massive with a flat front facade and huge entrance gable.. plus it's a house, not a bunglow. It would also require demolition of existing which I was initially against. 

 

The issue is now we're about 7k in with nothing to show.(ecology survey was 2k due to size of plot) To put another say 3k into a redesign means in 10k in the hole and it may still be refused. 

[the_r_sole]

It looks less massive than your current proposal! 

If you look at the details in that design you can see how it looks better in the elevation, maybe it's just an exercise in drawing a proper elevation and making it look better without changing much 

[saveasteading]

Isn't your architect an expert on what will achieve planning permission? 

I suggest politely ask him to get it sorted, without further cost.

Unless what is designed is exactly what you asked for.

 

2 hours ago, RichyC said:

1. Too much glass ; needs to look more domesticated 

2. Too many gables

3. Too large (however plot is nearly third of acre)

4. Requires pitched roof to the left hand side of the building (we're very confused as to why they want this).

 

 Good you have  a list to resolve.

1. easy, and saves you money

2. easy enough and save you money

3. ask for their criteria...this may well be a percentage of the land.

4. so ask why.

 

Also I'm surprised you did an ecology survey at great expense before checking out if you could be allowed to build.

This could have been a condition for later.

Did they come up with anything you didn't know?

 

Why not demolish and rebuild? seems you are constraining the options.

Also there is the VAT.  Have you checked that you are entitled to the VAT back on labour and materials? 20% is a lot of discount.

[Ferdinand]

On 15/08/2021 at 21:02, RichyC said:

 

 

 

On-topic

 

I concur with most above. I would take a very careful look at 1 - Making it more 'unified', and 2 - Looking at the costs/benefits of a full rebuild, especially if you can avoid CiL (it looks like the sort of area that might have CiL)as well as VAT.

 

Off-topic.

 

I'm struggling with all these chimneys and gateposts.

 

Why?

 

Is the Council run by a secret cabal of chimney sweeps who want to ensure the future of their nefarious businesses by adding unnecessary chimneys to new houses?

 

[AliG]

I think that an issue the planners may have is that it looks like more than one house or it will from a distance.

 

The house looks quite a different shape to the existing to me so I am not convinced you could even use the existing foundation.

 

Irrespective the 20% VAT saving would pay for new foundations.

 

If the two elements to the left were combined then you would lose a gable and two of the pointy windows and it would look a lot more like the house you referenced. This would seem like a pretty modest redesign.

 

I guess they want a hipped roof at the left, seems a bit prescriptive to me.

 

Does the house cover more of the plot than before? If not often simply giving them the numbers for plot coverage gets around this. It’s not always obvious just by looking.

[Dave Jones]

9 hours ago, RichyC said:

So this isn't a demolish and rebuild. We were trying to work on the existing footprint to save it being demolished. Thr architect suggested cascading the front facade into align with the current look. 

 

Thr Planners are flatly refusing anything like this stating 

1. Too much glass ; needs to look more domesticated 

2. Too many gables

3. Too large (however plot is nearly third of acre)

4. Requires pitched roof to the left hand side of the building (we're very confused as to why they want this). 

 

In this instance the architect said they weren't keen to give opinions as to advice for a successful application. Rather just tell us what they don't like. 

 

My original idea and one I still prefer is something like the picture below. However, it was suggested this was Too massive with a flat front facade and huge entrance gable.. plus it's a house, not a bunglow. It would also require demolition of existing which I was initially against. 

 

The issue is now we're about 7k in with nothing to show.(ecology survey was 2k due to size of plot) To put another say 3k into a redesign means in 10k in the hole and it may still be refused. 

 

 

Have you looked what you can do with permitted development ? Probably 90% of that monstrosity you could build without planning.

[RichyC]

12 hours ago, saveasteading said:

Also I'm surprised you did an ecology survey at great expense before checking out if you could be allowed to build.

This could have been a condition for later.

Did they come up with anything you didn't know?

 

The Planners wouldn't even validate the plan without ecology survey. This was a reason for the extended time at the planning office. 

Edited August 18, 2021 by jack
Quote formatting

[saveasteading]

1 hour ago, RichyC said:

The Planners wouldn't even validate the plan without ecology survey.

Interesting. I have never come across this before on what seems a simple application for replacement.

 

If you done mind, I'm interested in whether the area is ecologically sensitive, and what was discovered.

 

I have been annoyed in the past at some planners' keenness to engage all sorts of consultants, who presumably have 'sold' their own importance to the planners.

Archaeologists for one. Fortunately I have usually had this postponed to be a condition, or simply done away with.

Then they write themselves in to do even more surveys at your expense.

It is fair that our history and ecology are not wiped away, but these could be conditional.

 

At this sort of cost level it was almost worth getting outline permission first. I  hope it was a very thorough and worthwhile report.

 

[LSB]

16 hours ago, RichyC said:

So this isn't a demolish and rebuild. We were trying to work on the existing footprint to save it being demolished. Thr architect suggested cascading the front facade into align with the current look. 

 

Thr Planners are flatly refusing anything like this stating 

1. Too much glass ; needs to look more domesticated 

2. Too many gables

3. Too large (however plot is nearly third of acre)

4. Requires pitched roof to the left hand side of the building (we're very confused as to why they want this). 

 

In this instance the architect said they weren't keen to give opinions as to advice for a successful application. Rather just tell us what they don't like. 

 

My original idea and one I still prefer is something like the picture below. However, it was suggested this was Too massive with a flat front facade and huge entrance gable.. plus it's a house, not a bunglow. It would also require demolition of existing which I was initially against. 

 

The issue is now we're about 7k in with nothing to show.(ecology survey was 2k due to size of plot) To put another say 3k into a redesign means in 10k in the hole and it may still be refused. 

we were in for 25k by the time we got PP and discharged conditions so 7k would have been wonderful

 

[RichyC]

8 hours ago, saveasteading said:

Interesting. I have never come across this before on what seems a simple application for replacement.

 

If you done mind, I'm interested in whether the area is ecologically sensitive, and what was discovered.

 

I have been annoyed in the past at some planners' keenness to engage all sorts of consultants, who presumably have 'sold' their own importance to the planners.

Archaeologists for one. Fortunately I have usually had this postponed to be a condition, or simply done away with.

Then they write themselves in to do even more surveys at your expense.

It is fair that our history and ecology are not wiped away, but these could be conditional.

 

At this sort of cost level it was almost worth getting outline permission first. I  hope it was a very thorough and worthwhile report.

 

I was told we needed the survey to identify the presence of bats in the loftspace. A standard request when altering the loft apparently. 5 people turned up for a new hours on 2 occasions with the report resulting in "no bats seen or any evidence of roosting"

[saveasteading]

Thanks. and that is £2,000?

I was expecting bats, newts and dormice for that.

 

A rebate would be appropriate.

Were they recommended by your architect or by the planners?