Interpreting pre application guidance

[Penny926]

Hi there! Wanted to get this groups thoughts on how to interpret subjective wording from a pre-app, we submitted the proposal below for a first floor rear extension, the side extension is already built and we want to widen it to 4.390M as show below, it would basically be half the width of the house (our proposal).

 

 

When we met the planning officer, they gave some good suggestions. They wanted the roof to be a flat roof for the extension, and then they told us that in it's current state it looks disproportionate, with one of the main reasons being the window is off centre, specific wording from their review was as follows:  'the proposed first floor rear infill extension appears excessively wide. This is not helped by the off centre position of the window. You clarified in the meeting that this window is existing. Having a centrally located window would make this extension appear less disproportionate. A reduction in the width of the extension would still likely be necessary even with the change to the window position.'

 

Based on this, we have revised the proposal to look like this, we reduced the width by 100cm, and centered the window.

 

 

 

 

One main worry now is - is the reduction in width sufficient? When they visited we asked them for a quantification, but they dodged that question and their written report uses subjective wording such as 'would still likely be necessary..'., so we don't know how to interpret this. I know the council allows follows up to pre-application but that would cost us another £200. So wanted to ask this group, does the above look reasonable? I was thinking of emailing the planning officer, but again given they were not willing to put a number on what kind of reduction would be acceptable, I'm not sure i'd get anything concrete, before we hit submit wanted to ask this forums perspective...

 

Does the revised plan look like an acceptable interpretation of their concern?

 

 

[DevilDamo]

I am quite surprised as to how much they’re concerned about a rear elevation. I am also surprised they’re leaning more towards a flat roof and note that will probably provide you with a reduced internal floor to ceiling height.

 

Btw, you have reduced the width by only 10cm, not 100cm. I personally don’t feel it’s enough.

 

Pre-application is informal and can be a bit wishy washy. It’s very rare for any LPA to state specific dimensions. That is for your architectural designer to look into.

[ETC]

Post the plans and the other existing and proposed elevations.

 

The only reason I can see for the request for a flat roof is to distinguish the existing from the proposed - a bit of a shit request really and as for the window why on earth are they getting their knickers in a twist about a single existing window - madness.

[bassanclan]

To understand the planning officer's concern we need to see site plans/block plans to get an idea of distances between neighbouring buildings etc