Plans in for approval keep having to be changed

[Deejay]

Yes, it does look huge doesn't it.   Do you think it would appear so huge if it was a triple garage because basically that's what it is with one garage extended forward by 2 m for the flat.   I agree the design with the extended part makes it look like another dwelling.  

 

The revised drawings are going in this week with the roof lowered to 4.95m or lower, rooflights removed, staircase removed.   

 

The double  garage is for use by the existing bungalow which sits in a more prominent position further up the garden.  It is hoped in the (probably distant now) future to replace the existing bungalow with a house which, because it will not have a double/triple garage attached (because we will have already built it) will not be so bulky and obtrusive and will therefore sit much better in the Conservation Area facing the Grade 11 Listed Church.  The garage site is much less visible. 

 

We have basically split the original plans because at this moment in time the need is for the granny flat and in the future it may become a flat for son A if my other son B decides to replace the existing bungalow with a house for him and his family.  

[DevilDamo]

You’re talking about needing a granny flat, but the LPA appear to be stating they would not accept anything but a single storey building. So I’m not sure why you keep referring to being able to provide one? That being said, how would you be able to provide any additional let alone usable first floor accommodation with only a ridge height of 4.9m?

[Deejay]

10 hours ago, DevilDamo said:

You’re talking about needing a granny flat, but the LPA appear to be stating they would not accept anything but a single storey building. So I’m not sure why you keep referring to being able to provide one? That being said, how would you be able to provide any additional let alone usable first floor accommodation with only a ridge height of 4.9m?

The photos I have posted are of plans already submitted which the LA want changing to single storey. 

The revised plans going in this week have no usable space other than for storage in the attic, no rooflights and no stairs access to the attic. So we hope this will satisfy the Planners on the single storey aspect. 

This will leave us with a single storey double garage and attached ground floor granny flat.

Personally, I think the Planners will still want this changing somehow but I will post back on the outcome.  

Thank you for your input which has been really helpful.

[SuperPav]

Without seeing a site plan it's difficult to comment on the overall proposal, but that's not a "garage", that's basically a house! And for it to look like an ancillary building it really needs tweaking..

 

I know how I'd advise to proceed with this, but it does very much depend on what the planning officer has said with regards to it being too large - has height specifically been highlighted, or have they commented on other aspects? 

Also depends on how quickly you need to start building, as the advice would be different depending on if you're in an urgent rush.

 

Edited to add: You can go back and forth with the planning officer till forever with unlimited revisions in theory. You can also ask them questions and get feedback proactively so emailing them is no problem. However, this isn't always the best approach! (Not least because some of them might take weeks to respond to an email).

Edited May 19, 2022 by SuperPav

[Deejay_2]

On 19/05/2022 at 15:34, SuperPav said:

Without seeing a site plan it's difficult to comment on the overall proposal, but that's not a "garage", that's basically a house! And for it to look like an ancillary building it really needs tweaking..

 

I know how I'd advise to proceed with this, but it does very much depend on what the planning officer has said with regards to it being too large - has height specifically been highlighted, or have they commented on other aspects? 

Also depends on how quickly you need to start building, as the advice would be different depending on if you're in an urgent rush.

 

Edited to add: You can go back and forth with the planning officer till forever with unlimited revisions in theory. You can also ask them questions and get feedback proactively so emailing them is no problem. However, this isn't always the best approach! (Not least because some of them might take weeks to respond to an email).

Hi - Thank you for your thoughts and I do agree with you.   The Planning Officer seems unable to comment for some reason and does not answer emails unless they are for a time extension.  He has only stipulated single story with no indication of what he believes to be single storey, and used the description "large" but no reference to what he means, (the architect says he means the height). We have asked the PO what height he thinks would be appropriate in an email but no response so we are sending in revised drawings.  

 

The current design is the same as one passed recently down the road from us, on a very similar site but they have included demolishing their existing bungalow and are replacing this with a massive house.  This is how we started off but then decided to separate the garage/flat from the replacement house to make the proposal less bulky and had plans drawn up for this. 

 

Due to changes in the economic environment and our financial situation we spoke to the CIL officer about what our position would be if we were unable to finish the whole development and his advice was to split it into two separate applications, so this is what we are doing and we have started with the double garage and granny flat but seem to have got lost along the way, with little to no advice from the Planning Officer and there have been so many mistakes made by the architect.

 

The projection makes it look like a bungalow I agree, but whereas we started off with rooms above the garage, (more coachouse style) we now have to have the granny part on the ground floor, hence the extra space provided by the projection.  The garages will serve the existing bungalow and as stated previously if the bungalow is ever replaced we will have already built the garage, which will sit at the bottom of the garden allowing a more appropriate "cottagey" style property to be built on the bungalow site, with no massive windows etc, which will fit in better than one with a large garage attached.

 

You say you could give your own advice on how to proceed.  This advice would be very much appreciated.  My ultimate wish is to have somewhere to "be" in later years, where I can have carers, but hopefully not have to end up in a care home - sorry if this sounds morbid.  I could easily give up now but deep down feel I'll regret it in years to come (which are approaching rapidly).

 

Thank you for your help.

 

[AliG]

Planners can give advice but they don't have to and you cannot necessarily rely on it anyway. It is basically up to you and your architect to figure out what is normally acceptable in the area.

 

At first I thought your architect was crazy with the ridge heights, but when I see the drawings, this is basically another house. Without knowing the size of your plot and so on people cannot comment on whether or not this is likely to be approved. When the planning officer says it is "too large", they may well mean it is too large, not just too tall.

 

A similar building passed recently that is not in the conservation area is not very relevant from a planning perspective. What have they allowed in the conservation area and what the conservation area character appraisal says is key.

 

The planning officer cannot know that you intend the garage to mean that a replacement house will not need its own garage, even if you told them that they couldn't take it into account as it may never happen. they can only look at what they have in front of them.

 

It may be that the lowering of the height is enough to get it approved. If not I would be considering making an application for the whole site. It will be much easier to see it all in context. Also if that is ultimately where you want to end up, what you don't want to do is find you get approval for this and cannot get approval to replace the bungalow. Replacing a single storey building with a two storey building will possibly be even more controversial.

 

 

[Deejay_2]

43 minutes ago, AliG said:

Planners can give advice but they don't have to and you cannot necessarily rely on it anyway. It is basically up to you and your architect to figure out what is normally acceptable in the area.

 

At first I thought your architect was crazy with the ridge heights, but when I see the drawings, this is basically another house. Without knowing the size of your plot and so on people cannot comment on whether or not this is likely to be approved. When the planning officer says it is "too large", they may well mean it is too large, not just too tall.

 

A similar building passed recently that is not in the conservation area is not very relevant from a planning perspective. What have they allowed in the conservation area and what the conservation area character appraisal says is key.

 

The planning officer cannot know that you intend the garage to mean that a replacement house will not need its own garage, even if you told them that they couldn't take it into account as it may never happen. they can only look at what they have in front of them.

 

It may be that the lowering of the height is enough to get it approved. If not I would be considering making an application for the whole site. It will be much easier to see it all in context. Also if that is ultimately where you want to end up, what you don't want to do is find you get approval for this and cannot get approval to replace the bungalow. Replacing a single storey building with a two storey building will possibly be even more controversial.

 

 

Yes, I understand that Planning can't commit themselves with specific advice. 

 

 We originally (18 months ago) submitted a pre planning application which I had put together myself from plans of the previous two new builds on our access road.  The Planning Officer agreed the concept of a two storey dwelling but said the proposal was too bulky which it was as it had the lower 2 storey coachhouse style garage attached to the house via a link.  He advised as well that the garage should be detached.  Hence our original re-think to split the house and garage.  My previous emails explain what happened next when we re-assessed our finances and CIL entered the equation. 

 

We'll see what Planning say this time, but I suspect it will still be a no-go.  Even if we get approval we shall give ourselves some time to decide whether this is the way forward in the current climate of uncertainty.  

 

Thank you for your sound advice. 

[ProDave]

You need to work out what it is you really WANT to build, then put in the plans and see the outcome.  If you are really wanting a completely separate dwelling that can be split from the main house, then go for that.  If it really is just an annex incidental to the main house, go for that.

 

Then be prepared for a refusal which will at least give you a planning reason for refusal, and you can then amend the plans to meet the reasons for refusal, or even consider appeal.

 

I don't think the constant paring it down to hope it gets passed is really going to work, because you will probably then end up with permission for something you don't want.

[Deejay_2]

2 months later.

 

The Planning Officer decided he had to readvertise the application.  No objections received and plans passed.  The whole experience with both the architect and Planning has been a farce and I'm glad it's behind us now.

 

I employed someone else to do the Building Regulation plans and took the risk of submitting them before we had planning approval (although the PO had said he was going to support the plans).  They were submitted to BC before the 15th June so we will have 12 months to start the build under the previous Building Regulations.  The experience with the guy who did the BR plans was a wholly different ball game and he was a pleasure to deal with.  

 

The approved proposal has a roof height of 5 metres with no staircase, rooflights etc but in all honesty I think we could have gone higher.  I've come to the conclusion that the PO just wanted single storey as in no staircase, no velux windows, no shower room etc.  We're happy with the result and there are no conditions attached as such.  

 

Thank you all for your comments.  I shall have a stream of questions which I'll post on the relevant threads.