I'd like to educate the planning officer about the importance of rectangular form in preference to the local vernacular.

[Jilly]

Have you read this thread? It's a really useful description of how to obtain planning permission by making it easy for the planning officers by quoting and adhering to planning policies. 

[SteamyTea]

42 minutes ago, Jilly said:

useful description of how to obtain planning permission by making it easy for the planning officers by quoting and adhering to planning policies

Yes.

Pointless trying to be too clever.

Stick to the rules, collect your evidence, and never get emotional.

[ToughButterCup]

On 05/02/2023 at 16:04, SteamyTea said:

...

Stick to the rules, collect your evidence, and never get emotional.

 

You can be as emotional as you like.

But not letting that emotion be be communicated to others : thats the hardest trick. And especially hard to prune emotionally loaded phrases from passages of text. So much money time and effort is involved. It's very hard work.

[MDC]

On 05/02/2023 at 15:21, Jilly said:

Have you read this thread? It's a really useful description of how to obtain planning permission by making it easy for the planning officers by quoting and adhering to planning policies. 

I have not read that thread. Thank you for point it out, and I'll read it later on.

[MDC]

@SteamyTea 's comment [on Sunday] on this thread was a revelation to me. I made a new approach to the planning officer and now have a less muddled understanding of their vision for my site. @IanR was also on the money - local vernacular is the priority when replacing dwellings.  All advice gratefully received. Thank you.

[gc100]

On 05/02/2023 at 15:21, Jilly said:

Have you read this thread? It's a really useful description of how to obtain planning permission by making it easy for the planning officers by quoting and adhering to planning policies. 

i built in open countryside via class q. However it wasn’t straight forward by a long way as we wanted to make it bigger than original building . Because of this it had to go to  the planning committee and present to 15 people who made a group decision. However we had no issues as we stuck and quoted 100% to planning policy with zero mention of ‘common sense’ or any form of emotion.  It’s their job to approval plans that fall into policy - make it easy for them and make sure there is zero risk for them. 

Edited February 7, 2023 by gc100

[Hilldes]

8 hours ago, MDC said:

local vernacular is the priority when replacing dwellings.

Great if that is working for you, but for my application planners were not concerned- main reason being the village has an ecclectic mix of architectural styles, which we stated in the design and access statement.

 

Also on demonstrating how you meet policy and make it easy for the planners is kind of difficult in Green belt when the key policy statement is the replacement dwelling must not be “materially larger” - and nobody really knows what this means including the planners. Our planning consultant said it would be interpreted as around a 30% uplift in GEA, but that was not enough for a bungalow on a substantial plot with many larger houses on the same road. But apart from GEA uplift what does materially larger mean in terms of ridge height, eaves height, volume? - no one knows how to interpret the policy.

 

Then you get into more woolly policy wording eg that it shall not impact openness of the countryside, which means…

 

I think it does help if you can actually talk to the planners if your LPA will permit this. We put in two pre-application advice requests and one full planning application and never got to speak to a planner.

[MDC]

8 hours ago, Hilldes said:

Great if that is working for you, but for my application planners were not concerned- main reason being the village has an ecclectic mix of architectural styles, which we stated in the design and access statement.

 

Also on demonstrating how you meet policy and make it easy for the planners is kind of difficult in Green belt when the key policy statement is the replacement dwelling must not be “materially larger” - and nobody really knows what this means including the planners. Our planning consultant said it would be interpreted as around a 30% uplift in GEA, but that was not enough for a bungalow on a substantial plot with many larger houses on the same road. But apart from GEA uplift what does materially larger mean in terms of ridge height, eaves height, volume? - no one knows how to interpret the policy.

 

Then you get into more woolly policy wording eg that it shall not impact openness of the countryside, which means…

 

I think it does help if you can actually talk to the planners if your LPA will permit this. We put in two pre-application advice requests and one full planning application and never got to speak to a planner.

Our problem is the existing dwelling is sited at the highest point of the plot [nice views], and has a ridge height of 5.9 metres. Our design has a ridge height of 8.8 metres. A solution is to make the design flat roof [as the dormers do on the existing house]. We have negotiated moving the proposed new dwelling to a lower point [effectively at the planner's suggestion]. This reduces the height by a further 3 metres and is a silver lining for us. This would be as if we're picking up the existing box house and moving it off the top of the hill, so it is hidden from view. 

 

Our debate is now whether to follow the local venacular which is brick\clay tile, or stick our guns. We want a contemporary barn style, but I think we are going to have to reduce the mass by the use of three cladding materials [brick, timber, zinc]. Whoever heard of a flat roof barn?

 

This thread has been very useful.

[ToughButterCup]

2 hours ago, MDC said:

....but I think we are going to have to reduce the mass by the use of three cladding materials [brick, timber, zinc]. Whoever heard of a flat roof barn? ...

 

Exactly the compromise we worked out - plus in our case making the front flat-roofed, in the process losing at least one room.

 

Keeping our eye on the prize - permission or not - was quite difficult when it got to that stage in the discussions.

 

It was also critical to point out that our cladding would, over time,  go silvery grey, just like many local barns.

We used what has become contraband: Siberian Larch. 

[Kelvin]

Our barn style is room in roof 1.5 storey with a large (16m x 4m) single storey porch attached to it. 

[IanR]

2 hours ago, MDC said:

We want a contemporary barn style

......

Whoever heard of a flat roof barn?

 

When you say a "contemporary barn style", do you mean a contemporary re-imagining of a traditional barn, or of a modern barn/shed?

 

Traditional barns do tend to have a 45°ish pitch roof, but modern barns/sheds will have a 10° - 15° pitch.

 

I don't know what size of dwelling you are seeking, but from your comments it suggests a moderate to large dwelling. I may be wide of the mark, but the below proportions follow the form of a modern agricultural barn/shed and give a GIA of circa 300m² under a 6m ridge with a 10° pitch.

 

 

 

Perhaps you could post some images of what you are thinking of.

[Ralph]

Our planning officer and neighbours were much happier when we changed our design to a "modern barn" In fact it was described in the design statement as a minimal barn structure with a traditional form met with a contemporary finish. I very much doubt a farmer would think it looks anything like a barn but planning were happy.
 

[MDC]

@IanR - it's like this: 17m x 9, plus single storey 5m x 5m. Ridge height 8.8m.

 

[Ralph]

Nice!

[ToughButterCup]

I love it @MDC - hidden guttering?

How and to what extent does the proposed cladding 'mirror' / copy /echo local cladding ?

[gc100]

20 minutes ago, ToughButterCup said:

I love it @MDC - hidden guttering?

How and to what extent does the proposed cladding 'mirror' / copy /echo local cladding ?

I presuming not at all? It’s nice - mine is similar but single story . 

[MDC]

11 hours ago, ToughButterCup said:

I love it @MDC - hidden guttering?

How and to what extent does the proposed cladding 'mirror' / copy /echo local cladding ?

Thank you!

Yes, hidden guttering.

 

The proposed cladding does not mirror the local cladding style at all. 

[MDC]

10 hours ago, gc100 said:

I presuming not at all? It’s nice - mine is similar but single story . 

Thank you. You're right, not at all... which is one of the issues. The other is height. 

[gc100]

Well I think you know the answer here. The design needs to fit better into the local vernacular. It’s seems you’ll have to work with them to meet somewhere in the middle unfortunately.

[andyj007]

have you thought about mono pitch roofs , salthouse roof or a combo of the two .. with some projecting overhangs..  it would add interest, externally, and give you some pretty cool features internally ..  

a contemporay barn / feel?