Planning Refusal

[Chandoo]

Hi All,

 

I have bought a old bungalow 2 years ago which has a planning permission to construct two semi-detached  houses, however the application expired in 2022. Further to the Semi-detached approval there was another application for 4 flats which was refused and appealed which is dismissed too. 

 

I was hopeful that I could get a single replacement dwelling approved with in the same approved scale & size. I have recently applied for planning and surprisingly the planning officer is not in favour of the approval.

 

 

Below is the approved Semi detached plan which is expired in 2022.

 

 

Current planning drawings which are being evaluated by planning officer:

 

 

 

Initially the planner asked for the eaves to be lower and we submitted a ammened version as below (atleast to get some sort of approval):

 

 

Later the planning officer came back saying proposal is still unacceptable considering the comments made by the PI in the dismissed appeal. I have attached the dismissal note to this topic, because we think the planners are suggesting they made a mistake in 2019 ! as the subsequent appeal for the flats suggested a two building was not appropriate.

 

I'm now in favour of thinking to stick to original plans and get a refusal to appeal it as I believe it is acceptable. I'm new to this planning topics, any guidance from your expert knowledge, experience will help me. 

 

Many thanks for your help and time on the topic.

 

 

Appeal Dismissal.pdf

[DevilDamo]

A latter Appeal decision will always in most cases override a previous LPA decision. The LPA will now (which they are doing) use the Appeal decision and the comments made by the PI in determining any future application.

 

Without knowing what the existing bungalow looks like, I can’t see it being much different to the neighbouring properties. Why not consider a chalet bungalow/1.5 storey dwelling? 

[Alan Ambrose]

Have you used a planning consultant to read the planning runes yet? Looks like the various decisions needs some subtle-ish interpretation. I also think that LPAs get a bit more real when they see a consultant, who is ‘one of them’ get involved.

[torre]

I'd echo getting a planning consultant to argue this for you and do it at the planning stage, rather than leave it to appeal.

 

I think point 10 from that appeal is helpful to you ...

 note that an extant planning permission is in place, which I consider is a
realistic ‘fall-back’ position.

 

You'll want to argue that the semis were acceptable to the council and also to the appeal officer, and what you're doing now as a single dwelling further reduces intensification (fewer cars etc).

 

A planning consultant will help you strengthen the argument to the planning officer that if they refuse now, they will lose at appeal. At least the officer is engaging with you so seems somewhat open minded - give them policy backed reasons to approve.

 

At first glance I missed you'd lowered the eaves, perhaps lower the ridge correspondingly and give the bungalow to your left a bit more room - that would emphasise how much you've reduced the mass versus the outline of the original permission.

[Chandoo]

Thank you for the thoughts.

 

I'm not able to go back to bungalow or Chalet bungalow because of the price we paid for [premium added due to approved planning application for Semi-Detached houses], and it would significantly increase the cost of the property for me. 

 

I will get a planning consultant involved on the application now.

 

Myself and the architect are exactly on same page as Torre. My architect also suggested to reduced the ridge height, but we are not liking it as we already lost head room for dropped eaves. I will keep posted how it goes further.

 

 

[Mr Punter]

Perhaps you could submit the previously approved 2 house scheme so you buy some time and have a valid consent.  Later you could even start the construction so the consent is locked in.

[bassanclan]

I think you missed a trick by not referencing the approved ridge and eaves heights.

7741 ridge

4986 eaves as previously approved would be a small tweak, but may be the difference between getting planning and not!

 

 

 

 

[AliG]

It is dangerous to let planning permission expire, because much as it is likely it can be reinstated, it is not guaranteed.

 

I would resubmit the previously approved plan as that is the easier argument. If there have been no changes to policy then they will find it hard to argue that they shouldn't reapprove it. This is the first and likely cheapest option, although I am guessing the drawings were made by another architect.

 

Although your new application is for one house, the architect has not done you any favours. The two semis are quite obviously two houses and further broken up by the variation in colour between the ground and first floors. The new house is much more monolithic and all one colour, so it would appear larger and more out of place in the street. This is further exacerbated by the massive window on the front. TBH I don't think most people would approve it, it looks very out of place.

 

The second option would be to apply for a less imposing single house, but I would look to have a more traditional front to it and a lower roofline for it to fit in better. But I would start by the easy route of reapplying first.

 

If you get permission back in place for two semis, it might then be easier to apply for a single large house of similar scale.

[ProDave]

20 minutes ago, AliG said:

It is dangerous to let planning permission expire, because much as it is likely it can be reinstated, it is not guaranteed.

Very true.

 

There was a house approved here, the end of a field fenced off.  The plot was sold and the house built.

 

Then they tried for a second plot.  It was obvious they intended to just keep going and slice up the field one plot at a time.  The second one was refused, went to appeal and was refused and the appeal inspector said the first one should never have been granted permission.  It was a good job that one was built because if the planning had lapsed, it might not be reinstated.

[AliG]

I pulled up the previous plans and the new plans and had a look at the street on line.

 

I couldn't figure out why the new house looked larger to me, even though it isn't.

 

Looking at the previously approved plans for the semis. The windows are cut into the roof line at the front. This gives an eaves height of 4986mm. The new plans show and eaves height of 5050mm, but this is to the sides. The front eaves height seems to be around 5350mm, so a substantial 400mm taller. front wall, hence it looks more imposing on the street.

 

The new proposal is in white render with a small area of darker render. I assumed that the bungalows next door were also white as that is how they look in the drawings. However, looking on Streetview, every single house on that side of the street is built from dark coloured bricks (grey or red), both the older bungalows and the newer two storey 80s houses. I am not clear why the architect has gone for this colour scheme which would stick out like a sore thumb. Similarly the older houses seem to have red clay roof tiles and the more modern house dark concrete tiles. A slate roof also seems out of place.

 

Is there room for some discussion with the case officer to make the house look more like the previously approved application and fit in better than the current plans? It looks to me as if you could have a similar roof and eaves design to the previously approved semis for a final loss of upstairs space. I always feel like planners like a bit of compromise.

[Temp]

I've only had a quick look at the docs but I would resubmit the application that expired in 2022.

 

Then or at same time submit plans for a room in roof style house. 

[Chandoo]

Thanks for your thoughts AliG, the render and color for the planned design is something I have proposed [Architect didn't seem to be concerned] assuming the current bungalow is in white. I never thought of the look for Semi-detached and always looking at the size perspective, as the street has a mix of bungalow to 2 & 3 storey houses with different colors. The current bungalow also visible on the other road where there are mixture of properties

 

My architect is proposing, we go back to case officer to check if it is acceptable if we reduce the ridge height to 7.2 M as below

 

 

I'm not able to picturize how the house looks like  as it seems I'm compromising [do agree all parties are at compromise] to fit the interested design in wrong scale or so...

 

 

Edited April 3 by Chandoo

[AliG]

That looks a lot more like the semis and I think would be more acceptable. It really reduces the bulk of the front wall. It also makes the house look better and less boxy. I actually don't think the original house is a good design.

 

There is a white bungalow across the road. But it looked to me like all the houses on that side are totally made out of brick (Sorry, actually I had another look and the bungalow you are knocking down is white with some brick highlights, it is hard to see behind the bushes). If the planning officer continues to not like it I’d be asking if adding brick would help. Maybe half brick half render as the semis were, or the front gable in brick instead of dark render.

 

You could also consider a red roof which is more similar to the bungalows.

 

I have added in pictures of the houses either side to give people an idea of what you are working with.

 

 

 

[Chandoo]

The current bungalow 

 

As of now the planning officer has not shared what elements of the design are of a concern, he simply referred to PI comments and in favor of rejection. We have asked for more detail so we can address the concerns and  compromise.

 

[DevilDamo]

11 hours ago, Chandoo said:

I'm not able to go back to bungalow or Chalet bungalow because of the price we paid for [premium added due to approved planning application for Semi-Detached houses], and it would significantly increase the cost of the property for me.

But if you can achieve the required rooms, spaces and layout with a more traditionally designed and in keeping design then what’s the issue? It’ll also be quite a lot cheaper to construct too. 

[DevilDamo]

And I was talking about going from the top image to the bottom image (for example).

[Alan Ambrose]

>>> Later you could even start the construction so the consent is locked in.

 

There’s a gotcha on that if you’re in a high CIL area and this is a self-build.

[bassanclan]

I don't know why your architect is wanting to reduce the ridge to 7200, when 7441 has already proved acceptable, its just unnecessarily cutting down your useable space.

 

[Chandoo]

That is exactly what I asked my Architect reg the ridge height, he suggested we get some sort of approval on this application and file another to appeal for the changes. At least then we have something as backup otherwise nothing in hand.

[DreamingTheBuild]

Perhaps the issue is 'dominance'??? I can see how a single house like your proposal would dominate the houses adjacent, where as a pair of semis do 'bookend' each other. Just a personal opinion.

 

There is also the 'floodgates' issue with a situation like this, is always a tricky one.

 

Perhaps there is a way of having a single house on there that is lower key somehow.

[Bozza]

You have four options.

 

1.  Lengthy & expensive battle with planners and consultants to try to get something through that just doesn’t fit in, in terms of scale and design.  Costly in terms of fees and building costs increasing daily with zero guarantee of success.  

 

2.  Alter your design to something more appropriate in terms of scale and design which is what you should have done from the outset.  High likelihood of success.  Surely a design with a frontage in keeping, but with more space behind, up or down would work.

 

3.  Offload the plot.

 

4.  Wait and see if there is going to be a (promised….) huge change in planning laws that would allow a Wild West scenario whereby we can all build what we want, where we want.

 

Unfortunately whoever advised you that you’d be able to get a huge white and grey contemporary designs like this through in a street like that have advised you badly and I’m really surprised your architect didn’t discourage you.