Plans in for approval keep having to be changed

[Deejay]

We hope to build a double garage with additional granny self contained accommodation. Initial submission too high for planners at 6.7 m (I agree with them).  We revised the plans and reduced height to 5.7 m but still utilising usable space in roof for gym area and storage so included rooflights and separate staircase.  Planning officer has come back saying 

"Our previous concerns remain and though the amended plans are a considerable improvement, we still think it is excessively large.

 

I would suggest amending it further to reducing it to single storey only."

 

I am not sure why they can't be clearer but perhaps are not allowed to commit themselves.  I thought we had reduced it to single storey.  

Anyway the architect is about to email the Planning Officer and suggest a roof height of 4.95 m, remove all rooflights and remove the staircase - so any space available will just be for storage.  I think this is quite a big change from the original plans.  

My questions are

1   Does anyone think there will be a problem sending an email asking these questions - it was my suggestion to save everyone's time but now I'm wondering whether this is inappropriate and the architect should send in revised plans.  I don't want to offend the Planning Officer.

2   If the Planning Officer still thinks the building is too high, will he give us another opportunity to try and get it lower or are the opportunities to revise the plans limited. The architect doesn't seem to know the answer to this.  

3   I find the Planning Officer's description of excessively large confusing.  Large is large in my view, but the architect says he is referring to the height (and the PO does use the words "excessively large").

Thank you for any help.

 

[DevilDamo]

They’re asking for a single storey building, which I assume is to respect the street scene and sub-servience against the main house? A s/s garage does not need a roof of which it’s ridge is 5m high.

 

I designed a detached 4 car garage with an overall height of approx. 4.2m and that was with a 25 degree gable roof. That would have also provided some reasonable roof storage.

[ProDave]

If you really really want the room above, let them reject it and try an appeal?

[Deejay]

19 minutes ago, DevilDamo said:

They’re asking for a single storey building, which I assume is to respect the street scene and sub-servience against the main house? A s/s garage does not need a roof of which it’s ridge is 5m high.

 

I designed a detached 4 car garage with an overall height of approx. 4.2m and that was with a 25 degree gable roof. That would have also provided some reasonable roof storage.

Thank you.  Yes you are correct.  We are in a conservation area and next to a public footpath.  Do you have a copy of your design that you could post to give me some idea of how it looks.  I don't think my architect who is almost retired is entirely conversant with his software.  I have to go with what he tells me as I can't visualise anything with regard to roofspace.  For example, he has drawn up a design for a replacement house on the site of our existing bungalow and the roof is 10 m high, even though the two new builds on the same site are only 8 m high or thereabouts - I really don't understand it (we shall probably never build this and have only stayed with him thinking the garage would be easier).  He did say he could reduce the garage ridge to 4.6 m but has never said he could go lower.  WE are now only looking at storage in the roof.  

Thank you for your help.

[Deejay]

16 minutes ago, ProDave said:

If you really really want the room above, let them reject it and try an appeal?

We had two objections, one from a neighbour (about the height) and one from the Parish Council who quoted local policy and also the local neighbourhood plan which comes into force this month.  Not sure whether we would have any chance with an Appeal.  I shall think about it though.

[bassanclan]

https://www.garageplans.co.uk/index.html

 

See what you can achieve with your footprint, plenty of ideas and visualisations here

[Rob99]

It seems like your architect hasn't kept up with current thinking and also doesn't seem to understand what the LPA will consider acceptable in the location.

 

Don't fall into the trap of sticking with him and ending up with a compromised design "that will do" but isn't really what you had hoped for and which you may regret later.

 

Your comments about his 10m high option for a new build to replace existing also suggest you would be better seeking out another designer (not necessarily an architect).

[Deejay_2]

4 minutes ago, Rob99 said:

It seems like your architect hasn't kept up with current thinking and also doesn't seem to understand what the LPA will consider acceptable in the location.

 

Don't fall into the trap of sticking with him and ending up with a compromised design "that will do" but isn't really what you had hoped for and which you may regret later.

 

Your comments about his 10m high option for a new build to replace existing also suggest you would be better seeking out another designer (not necessarily an architect).

I agree with what you have said and we did debate changing architects a few months ago but others we approached were all too busy and we had hoped to get approval before the Building regs change in June.  We decided to stick with him but this is just for Planning and we'll go elsewhere  for our Building Control plans.   No chance of hitting that June target date though.  

I am now concerned about whether the Planning Officer will give us another chance at a revision if we are still too high.  The 4.95 m revision will be sent in early next week and I'm wondering after reading Devil Damos post whether we should go in lower, rather than risk the PO saying they are going to refuse permission.  I don't know what the process is regarding number of opportunities to revise.

[JohnMo]

We had a similar issue about 10 years ago.  Basically the size of the garage lent it's self to converted into house. The roof angle added to that feeling.

 

Which is really what the planner were objecting to in our case.  Maybe yours is similar.

 

We made the footprint bigger and changed the roof steepness ( much shallower) the plans went through fine.  

 

In our case they didn't like the room in roof aspect/possibility.  

 

[ETC]

Post your drawings please so we can all see what you’re dealing with.

[nod]

For what it’s worth 

I would replace the word Gym with just storage 

[DevilDamo]

@Deejay_2

[Deejay_2]

17 hours ago, JohnMo said:

We had a similar issue about 10 years ago.  Basically the size of the garage lent it's self to converted into house. The roof angle added to that feeling.

 

Which is really what the planner were objecting to in our case.  Maybe yours is similar.

 

We made the footprint bigger and changed the roof steepness ( much shallower) the plans went through fine.  

 

In our case they didn't like the room in roof aspect/possibility.  

 

Yep, I think that sums it up perfectly.  We have made the footprint slightly larger and lowered the height of the ridge but the architect still submitted the last lot of plans showing a man standing in the gym bit of the roofspace!!  So yes, the height and use of the roofspace are what are bothering the planners.   

[Deejay_2]

14 hours ago, ETC said:

Post your drawings please so we can all see what you’re dealing with.

I'll try and do this today all things willing ie printer working, scanner working, my brain working !!!

[Deejay_2]

13 hours ago, DevilDamo said:

@Deejay_2

 

I think that's probably what they are looking for.  We have had to change the roofshape to increase the granny flat aspect so there is a projection at one end ie facing the building which is like yours there is a gable end .  I'll try and post it but I need to anonomise is and scan it to my pc so luck will have to be in.  Many thanks for your help.   

[Deejay]

Tried to send over the scanned plans but apparently larger than 5.86 mb.  They are just on A4 paper so not sure what else I can do.  I have just emailed  the architect my revised copy OK (which I had scanned to my PC) so not sure what the problem is.  

[CharlieKLP]

1 hour ago, Deejay said:

Tried to send over the scanned plans but apparently larger than 5.86 mb.  They are just on A4 paper so not sure what else I can do.  I have just emailed  the architect my revised copy OK (which I had scanned to my PC) so not sure what the problem is.  

do you have photoshop? You can change the dpi/resolution there.

 

you can also rescan it, but scan it to a lower resolution. 
 

@DevilDamo I love to give people two sports cars on my plans too lol

 

 

Quote

2   If the Planning Officer still thinks the building is too high, will he give us another opportunity to try and get it lower or are the opportunities to revise the plans limited. The architect doesn't seem to know the answer to this.  

there isn’t a limited number of attempts, but at some stage the planner will say, decide or get lost.

 

I think the often best thing to do in these circumstances is go as high as you can, showing single storey. Then go back in at a later date and change it to add a stair and veluxes. Section 73 or whatever.

I wouldn’t bother with appeals. 

 

 

Edited May 15, 2022 by CharlieKLP

[Deejay]

Thank you for your reply Charlie K LP.  I don't have Photoshop and do my best with limited tech knowledge. 

 

We will do as you suggest and try for what we think is next highest try at 4.95 m ridge height as Planning have recently passed a similar garage/sunroom nearby at this height.  However, this is not self contained accommodation, is not in a Conservation Area, does not have a Grade 11 Heritage Church nearby, and does not have a public footpath running right next to it.  

I think if the Planning Officer rejects this then the next submission (if offered) will be our last so we'll have to think carefully about what we submit.  

Thanks again.

 

[ETC]

Just take a photograph of the drawings and post it. The size should be quite low.

[DevilDamo]

10 hours ago, Deejay_2 said:

We have had to change the roofshape to increase the granny flat

I thought you said you’re having to go to a single storey design so would lose the granny annexe?

[Deejay]

19 hours ago, DevilDamo said:

I thought you said you’re having to go to a single storey design so would lose the granny annexe?

Hi I'll try and get my son to photograph the plans (I have been waiting since yesterday) so that you can see what we are working with now. 

 

The original submission was more of a "coach house" building with double garage and extra space for gym (or whatever) on ground floor with flat above.  It was 6.7 m high and the roof did not impinge on the room sizes.  Planningsaid too high as did objections and asked for revision to single storey but no suggestion of acceptable height. 

 

We submitted revised drawings with the ridge height down to 5.7 but changed the shape ie long rectangle 7m x 12m but at one end there is a projection of two metres making a 6 m x 7 m double garage and a 6 x 9 m granny flat all on the ground floor.  This had a central separate staircase to attic in which we managed to put a gym area (which could be anything) and a shower area.  Planning said no, needs to be single storey - still no hint of acceptable height. 

 

We now intend to submit revisions with 4.95 roof, remove all rooflights, remove staircase, put WC at back of garage.  So nothing in roof.  Approx same dimensions as last submission for garage and granny flat on the ground floor, minus the separate staircase to the attic. 

 

It's difficult to visualise without plans so I'm off to try again.

[Deejay]

Right, I have photos

[Deejay]

[bassanclan]

...its really a separate dwelling

[DevilDamo]

I can see why they do have concerns. It’s huge!