Planning officer has requested changes, what would you do?

[LiamJones]

Hi,

 

The planning officer and I have been exchanging email's about by renovation proposal.

 

TLDR;

 

1. Not happy with the raised eaves height (by approx 700mm), even though it'd done elsewhere in the district, and an example only a few doors up the road (albeit at the start of the row)

2. Not happy with the gable at the front, wants it to be a hip with dormer. Not a deal breaker for me, just a bit more faff.

3. Not happy with side facing rooflights below 1700mm, I need this to provide fire escape to the side facing 3rd bedroom.

 

Where do you think i stand regarding points 1 and 3?

 

All 3 bungalows to the right of mine have raised roofs, albeit with existing eaves heights. Rooflights are all below 1700mm. The main difference (IMO) to my proposal is the raised eaves heights.

 

The alternative I have in my mind is to go wider to achieve the required usable space in the roof, whilst mainiting existing eaves height, at this point, i'd be swayed into going demolition and new build, and letting this planning app go the distance.

 

Longer version:

 

06/07/23

 

Quote

 

Dear Liam

 

Thank you for your application. After looking at it I consider it needs the following amendments:

 

Eaves: Looks like they are being raised but they should be maintained no higher than neighbouring bungalows;

Gables: The front gable is out of keeping with the neighbouring bungalows which are all hipped albeit some with a front dormer window

Rooflights: These look like they are going to overlook so it needs to be made sure the bottom end of the rooflight is no lower than 1.7 metres above the floor level.

 

 

 

(06/07/23 my response in black, with planning officers later (11/07/23) responses in red)

 

Quote

 

Dear [Planning Officer],

 

Thanks for reviewing our proposal and thank you for your comments, keen to work something out together!

 

Eaves:

• Proposal is for an eaves height of 3320mm, less than No.14 with an eaves height of 3833mm (approved under planning application X), there is already a precedent in the immediate area, for an increased eaves height. No. 14 is at the end of the row whereas No. 25 is inbetween.
• Proposal is for a ridge height of 6217mm, the same as No.27. If the ridge height matches No. 27 then this is acceptable.
• The goal of this proposal is to allow 3 bedrooms upstairs, to keep our 2 young children on the same floor as us. Increasing the eaves height gives us considerably more space in the roof, making it possible for an upstairs hallway and therefore a third bedroom, off the hallway, with first and second bedrooms front and back. Maintaining the existing eaves height makes this impossible, without increasing the overall width of the property. We were keen to keep the footprint of the dwelling as close to the existing. Would increasing the width approximately 2000mm to the south, whilst maintaining a 2400mm eaves height, be a more acceptable form of development, than the current proposal? Could be ok so long as there is enough parking (3 spaces measuring 4.8 by 2.4 metres and manoeuvring space to access the highway forwards) and no part overhangs the boundary with the neighbour but I would personally think it is better to keep access for vehicles to the side.
• Dormers to the south and east elevations would presumably be acceptable, possibly under permitted development, but would result in a much bulkier south and east elevation, and in my opinion, less aesthetically pleasing than the proposal. Yes I agree that box type dormers are not the best way to provide loft accommodation aesthetically. These are only permitted if no more than 50 cubic metres is added to the volume of the original roof. The raised roof and gables would be deducted from the 50 cubic metre allowance.

 

Gables: 

• I was hoping a gable to the front elevation would be acceptable and better on the eye than a hip with dormer, given the architectural style of build we’re hoping to achieve. Furthermore, it would increase usable floor space to the first floor and allow for a more sustainable build by allowing more PV panels to be placed on the south facing roof. But happy to concede on this point, it’s not a deal breaker. There are no gables to the front along the street-scene so a gable to the front would not really be in keeping. As you say, there are a couple (one being No. 27 neighbouring to the north-east) with dormers to the front. One has a large gable dormer but one that matches No. 27 would be a preference given its small scale and massing but not a deal breaker.

 

Rooflights: 

• Building regs requires max 1100mm above FFL for fire escape. In order to have the required third bedroom upstairs (as mentioned above), a fire escape window to the south elevation is necessary. These would have to be obscure glazed and fixed shut with the ability to break open in an emergency.
• No.27, have their south elevation rooflights at 1100mm above FFL (approved under planning application X) Your proposed rooflights would face directly into the rooflights on No. 27

 

We’ve shown the proposed drawings to both sets of neighbours (No.23 and No.27) in advance of submitting, neither of which had any objection. They did not believe they’d be overlooked by the proposed dwelling, nor did they have any issue with the eaves height or gables. They were pleased we’d finally being doing something with the property that has fallen into a state of disrepair and become an eye sore.

 

Given our requirement to have 3 bedrooms in the roof, do you have any suggestions on how to improve the proposal? I think 3 rooms in the roof is too much for this type pf property. I think the third bedroom would have to be on the ground floor perhaps at the front where it is shown there to be a lounge.

 

 

11/07/23 my response back

 

Quote

Thanks for getting back to me, I have a couple of follow up responses below:

 

• No. 14 is at the end of the row whereas No. 25 is inbetween.

Whilst I agree no 14 is at the end of a row, being in the middle of a row of bungalows wasn't an issue for a recent bungalow conversion with raised eaves at a similar height to my proposal, elsewhere in the Broadland district (Rackheath) see X.

 

•  Your proposed rooflights would face directly into the rooflights on No. 27

That’s not true, the proposed roof lights face south, towards no. 23. The proposed rooflights will be sited on the equivalent south facing roof as No. 27 at the same height.

 

Would you agree an extension to Friday-4-August for this?

I’ll wait for your reply to my responses above. 

 

 

[RichardL]

Eaves height - can you extend the roof - deeper eaves rather than flush with the walls to meet his requirement?

[LiamJones]

1 hour ago, RichardL said:

Eaves height - can you extend the roof - deeper eaves rather than flush with the walls to meet his requirement?

 

Something like this? I imagine they'd class eaves height still where the wall meets the roof? 

 

 

 

[ProDave]

Is this a knock down and rebuild, or an extension / renovation?

[LiamJones]

6 minutes ago, ProDave said:

Is this a knock down and rebuild, or an extension / renovation?

The current proposal is for a rear extension, raise the eaves 700mm and put a new roof with higher ridge, then add rooms upstairs. the left, front and right walls will all stay.

[RichardL]

46 minutes ago, LiamJones said:

 

Something like this? I imagine they'd class eaves height still where the wall meets the roof? 

 

 

 

You're right -  1m out looks extreme ...

Steeper roof slope to match the neighbour on the right of your picture perhaps to reduce the overhang?

Did the planning officer make any suggestion on what he might accept?

[ProDave]

5 minutes ago, LiamJones said:

The current proposal is for a rear extension, raise the eaves 700mm and put a new roof with higher ridge, then add rooms upstairs. the left, front and right walls will all stay.

Have you considered a knock down and rebuild?  If only 3 of the original walls remain and not much else it would be better in so many ways, 0% VAT, start with a clean sheet on the design, if you are not having the garage and accommodating all parking in front, you could make the house wider and probably get the upstairs accommodation without raising the eaves height.

 

Regardless of what you do, your drawings need to be clearer.  you have a numpty of a planning officer that can't tell his left from his right, but either way, both neighbours have at least one roof window looking at your site.  So your layout drawings should show both neighbours and the positions of their existing roof lights.  Then adjust your layout so at worse it is a bathroom roof light with opaque glass facing your southern neighbours roof light and all bedroom roof lights do not overlook that existing roof light.

 

Show it clearly on the drawings so there is no room for misunderstandings.  e.g. none of us can tell for sure what roof light is actually looking straight into No 23 from those drawings.

[joe90]

1 hour ago, LiamJones said:

Something like this? I imagine they'd class eaves height still where the wall meets the roof? 

Correct 

[LiamJones]

18 minutes ago, RichardL said:

Steeper roof slope to match the neighbour on the right of your picture perhaps to reduce the overhang?

That current slope is as steep as i can go, with the raised eaves, taking into account the maximum ridge height. If i increase pitch, i'd have to reduce the eaves height, which loses me the 3rd bedroom upstairs.

 

18 minutes ago, RichardL said:

Did the planning officer make any suggestion on what he might accept?

 

Going to side, with exisitng eaves height would be acceptable, and would give me the room upstairs. I'd still have the rooflight issue though.

 

17 minutes ago, ProDave said:

Have you considered a knock down and rebuild?  

 

I was trying to avoid it, and keep as much as possible. If the planner forces me to go out to the side, then i'd go knock down and rebuild under a new application.

 

19 minutes ago, ProDave said:

So your layout drawings should show both neighbours and the positions of their existing roof lights.  Then adjust your layout so at worse it is a bathroom roof light with opaque glass facing your southern neighbours roof light and all bedroom roof lights do not overlook that existing roof light.

Good thinking, thank you.

[Alan Ambrose]

Maybe argue your case politely, with humour and as best you can (examples of other buildings etc) and negotiate to-and-fro over stuff that doesn't matter that much to you.

 

That's up to the point they say they will refuse for these reasons. ... then decide whether the features you want are important enough to go to an appeal over.

[Big Jimbo]

Try and keep it friendly. They tend to get the hump if you get arsey. You need to lose the front gable for sure.

[Temp]

Have you considered adding a whole new floor or using it to bargain with the planners..

 

https://www.planningportal.co.uk/permission/common-projects/additional-storeys-extending-upwards/planning-permission

 

 

[LiamJones]

33 minutes ago, Temp said:

Have you considered adding a whole new floor or using it to bargain with the planners..

 

https://www.planningportal.co.uk/permission/common-projects/additional-storeys-extending-upwards/planning-permission

 

 

@Temp This would be amazing, how do planners determine when a house was built? The title register for the property has the following about fences in 1939. Could reasonably assume a house would have been there at that point.

 

A Conveyance of the land in this title dated 1 November
       1939 made between (1) X (Vendor) and (2) Y (Purchaser) contains the following provision:-
       "TOGETHER with all boundary fences with the exception of the fence on
       the South or South West side of the said piece of land

 

 

 

[Temp]

You might get lucky with old maps and aerial photos. 

[ETC]

My thoughts.