First set of comments from the PO, is there a cheat sheet for what they're saying and what it really means

[LaCurandera]

Hi, 

We've put in planning, it's taking a 1.5 storey house, putting a second floor and roof and 2 storey extension out the back with a gable end. Width wise it keeps the same as the current house, just extends back 

 

Current house

Planning

We are asking to extend 4m (2 storey) from the current back of the house (6m from original)
We've reduced the garage to line up with the bay and put a porch across between them
We've added a pitch roof on the side to replace a flat roof

Overall, it will be more volume with the 2 storeys, but actually not that much extra footprint

The PO has come back via email with about 6 points, some I don't care enough about, but the on the volume they've asked:
 

The proposed two storey rear extension is very large and considered somewhat disproportionate. In addition, there is concern about over dominance to neighbours. Could this be reduced in depth by at least 1m please?

With 3m to each boundary, and only 4m deeper than current ground floor (and nowhere close to failing a 45' or 25' rule) - is this the sort of thing you can say "no" to? upstairs we could rejig to lose a little depth, but having the downstairs smaller compromises the space we want and having a step would be more expensive. If they put things in those terms, are they usually something you can discuss/haggle over?

 

In addition, the proposed gable seems overly wide and we would ask that this is reduced in width to a maximum of 6m.

 

This is odd to me, as it's literally the same width as the house. We would consider a hipped roof at the back (which would also take off volume from the roofline), but fundamentally it's just the same width as the current house? Also hipped would compromise PV due to angles,  is this something you can argue on sustainability grounds?

To be fair, they have signed off with a "I know there are a lot of points above but please note that with revisions, we feel that we can support this proposal providing further issues don’t arise."

Ultimately, are POs all a law unto themselves, or is there some coding in how they say things (like there is on Ofsted school reports) where "if they say it that way you should argue this way". 

For this, I'm keen to ask for a site visit (none yet) and talk things through with them. 

Any experiences I can draw on?

 

[DevilDamo]

Can you upload the proposed elevations in addition to a block/site plan?

 

As a side note, what will your ground floor to ceiling height be, around 2.8m?

[LaCurandera]

Hi @DevilDamo

Elevation


Not sure I have that measurement, but nothing particularly special. 

It's the only house that's not 2 storeys on the road and will be same proportions height wise. 

[DevilDamo]

It is quite bulky at the rear but PO’s do have a tendency to pick holes in something they may not particularly like or be happy with.

 

How about retaining the ground floor depth and pulling in the first floor depth by 1m as that is showing some compromise?

 

Pulling down the eaves or reducing the roof angle of the rear element could also be a compromise that shouldn’t massively affect your internal usable space.

 

I mentioned your ceiling height because unless you do have 2.8m, the 4th step will clash with the wall above. The wardrobe of that Bedroom would also be half height as it needs the bulkhead/headroom for the stair.

[LaCurandera]

Hi, 

Yes, we're aware of the Bedroom 4 "wardrobe" - likely to be the spare and become the laundry cupboard. 

On the back - don't really disagree it's more for the volume. If we do do the stepped back 1st floor, is that likely to be much more ££ - I guess it needed another steel in and support?