Reduce harm to the open corner - corner plot

[jeli]

Hi all,

 

I'm hoping some of you can offer some guidance and thanking you in anticipation.

 

I live on a 1976/77 housing estate. I purchased a corner plot 3 bed property 2 years ago which had open land included in the same single title deed. My house is linked detached and on the open side 7.6mb of land from the foot path and then highway to a cul de sac.

 

On the open side I've put in planning to have a 4m wide double storey extension length of house (2 bedrooms, toilet & sink between the rooms), 2.6m wide garage to the side just short of full length, 6ft fence to garage side and leaving 1m open land to the pavement.

 

The local planning officer has said with some minor changes they could support the application. These are far from minor!

 

Remove the garage from the plans. Reduce the double storey from 4m to 2.5m wide. Leave 4m+ of open land.

 

They say this will reduce harm to the corner plot.

 

On the estate the council (Solihull MBC) are hellbent with all recent applications to refuse anything on the corner plots and wish to keep openness mostly quoting local policies (leave a generous amount of land open etc). 2 recent applications have been refused (retrospective) where 6ft fencing went to within 1m of boundary line. 1 owner compromised and has come in 4m.

 

Note none of us have amenity land, I maintain mine and its included in my title deeds. 

 

There is one property on the estate that already has similar changes to what I want. A further three have moved their fence out whilst retaining 1 to 2m open land. Just before entering the estate on the corner (different road) there has been a massive extension build going on similar to what I want but mine is to a lesser degree. On this one it is retaining 1m of open land.

 

So I'm at a loss and don't know where to go with this. My architect isn't confident and did a redesign but it sacrifices too much and not worth doing.

 

I had two objections from neighbours and one vote of support.

 

Do I withdraw and engage with another architect / planninf consultant or let this be refused and try to appeal which doesn't sound ideal in these circumstances.

 

Thanks for hanging in there and reading this far 

 

 

Edited August 3 by jeli
Duplicate word

[jeli]

I should also say that the house is set far enough back that the highway safety does not seem of concern.

 

Prior to planning I did remove a huge conifer tree from the corner of the plot because it reduced visibility from the highway.

[Alan Ambrose]

I think you need to post an image and a drawing - it's too much of an ask for us to imagine a 3D design and its context from a text description.

 

[jeli]

46 minutes ago, Alan Ambrose said:

I think you need to post an image and a drawing - it's too much of an ask for us to imagine a 3D design and its context from a text description.

 

Thanks Alan, good point! I've attached everything I think will be useful.

Aerial Image -
 

Front Corner Image - Note conifer tree was removed prior to planning application
 

Side View Image



Plot -



Existing Planning -


Proposed Planning - 

Edited August 3 by jeli

[bassanclan]

I think there is some guidance about leaving half the area on a corner plot. Check you councils planning statements. So a 7.6m distance you could try for 3.8m.

 

See if the planning guidance includes the footpath or not. E.g. 7.6+0.9 footpath = 8.5m so a width of 4.25m should be accepted in the guidance.

 

Check if the garage would be permitted development?

[jeli]

11 minutes ago, bassanclan said:

I think there is some guidance about leaving half the area on a corner plot. Check you councils planning statements. So a 7.6m distance you could try for 3.8m.

 

See if the planning guidance includes the footpath or not. E.g. 7.6+0.9 footpath = 8.5m so a width of 4.25m should be accepted in the guidance.

 

Check if the garage would be permitted development?

Thank you, I will have another look. From what I could find, they suggested a generous amount of land.

 

Looking at the applications on the estate the council rejected they are using -

 

NPPF and PPG2 do not formerly define "openness" and it's down to interpretation. Rather than being law it's planning and judgment. There is a difference between impacts on visual amenity, which normally considered within the process of Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) and the visual aspects of openness which are considered part of the greenbelt assessment. The former, an assessment is made on the effects of the development on the views available to people and their visual amenity and how this may affect character and scenic quality.

NPPF -

Paragraph 131 of the NPPF recognises the importance of good design in positively contributing to making places better for people. 

Local plan policies - 

Solihull Local Plan - P10
Recognises the importance of a healthy natural environment in its own right. 

Solihull Local Plan - P15
Seeks to ensure that development proposals achieve good quality, inclusive and sustainable design that conserves and enhances the local character, distinctiveness, and streetscape quality.

Solihull Local Plan - P14
The Council will seek to protect and enhance the amenity of existing and potential occupiers of houses, businesses, and other uses in considering proposals for new development and will, inter alia, permit development only if it respects the amenity of existing and proposed occupiers and would be good neighbour.

Edited August 3 by jeli

[DevilDamo]

The proposals do look very imposing, especially the proposed two storey element in relation to the existing two storey element. It kind of gives off the look of a pair of semi’s. As a general rule of thumb, LPA’s support two storey side extensions which are half the width of the original. It’s all about keeping it sub-ordinate.

 

You want 4m and they’ve asked for 2.5m. Why not meet half way? The roof could be lowered so the front window would be more like a dormer. The room it serves wouldn’t lose out too much. Those alternations alone should be welcomed.

[DevilDamo]

Not completely the same but you get the idea.

[jeli]

37 minutes ago, DevilDamo said:

The proposals do look very imposing, especially the proposed two storey element in relation to the existing two storey element. It kind of gives off the look of a pair of semi’s. As a general rule of thumb, LPA’s support two storey side extensions which are half the width of the original. It’s all about keeping it sub-ordinate.

 

You want 4m and they’ve asked for 2.5m. Why not meet half way? The roof could be lowered so the front window would be more like a dormer. The room it serves wouldn’t lose out too much. Those alternations alone should be welcomed.

Thanks for your suggestion, definitely gives me something to consider that I hadn't done before.

 

This is another corner plot house on the estate that the architect based his design on. I thought I'd be able to do similar but it appears not so.

 

 

[DevilDamo]

The design of that one does look quite a lot different to the one you’ve proposed though. Approx. how long ago was that one approved?

 

Btw, do you “need” such a big porch? It probably isn’t far enough the size of a Bedroom. Seems a lot of wasted space. The existing walls could be re-configured to make that better.

[jeli]

53 minutes ago, DevilDamo said:

The design of that one does look quite a lot different to the one you’ve proposed though. Approx. how long ago was that one approved?

 

Btw, do you “need” such a big porch? It probably isn’t far enough the size of a Bedroom. Seems a lot of wasted space. The existing walls could be re-configured to make that better.

This one was approved back in 2001. 

 

Good spot with the porch. Absolutely, it not needed to be that big and we are now thinking to either not bother or change to 1m. The builder didn't like the porch design when showing him the plans and suggested it didn't flow. Also created some issues with drainage since the drainpipes currently come into the small garaged area (flat roof)

 

Scrapped the idea of making the existing family bathroom an ensuite for existing bedroom. 

 

The other issue that came via the builder is the access to the new bedrooms in the proposed design. The access between existing bedrooms to the new ones means a corridor width of 775mm.

[G and J]

Sorry to be a party pooper but if I understand correctly your extension will stick out way beyond the current front building line of the row of houses behind yours.  So if you walk towards your house up the road behind you you will see a neat set of aligned frontages and then your extension sticking way out.

 

I would have expected a flat ‘no’ on such an application, partly as it would establish a precedent to all the houses behind you to extend toward the road (feel free to guess why this comes to my mind as we contemplate moving from our hitherto rural idyll!). 

 

If that extension was single story it would reduce the impact on the road compared to a two storey extension, but if I lived behind you I’d be planning what I’ll then build on my frontage.

[jeli]

4 minutes ago, G and J said:

Sorry to be a party pooper but if I understand correctly your extension will stick out way beyond the current front building line of the row of houses behind yours.  So if you walk towards your house up the road behind you you will see a neat set of aligned frontages and then your extension sticking way out.

 

I would have expected a flat ‘no’ on such an application, partly as it would establish a precedent to all the houses behind you to extend toward the road (feel free to guess why this comes to my mind as we contemplate moving from our hitherto rural idyll!). 

 

If that extension was single story it would reduce the impact on the road compared to a two storey extension, but if I lived behind you I’d be planning what I’ll then build on my frontage.

Party poopers are welcome here and you haven't even been one!

 

My property is around 2m out than the properties behind it. I did expect the neighbour at the back of me to object but they said it didn't bother them.

 

There is restrictive covenants about building to the front elevation in the title deeds for each property on the estate. 

 

[G and J]

30 minutes ago, jeli said:

There is restrictive covenants about building to the front elevation in the title deeds for each property on the estate. 

So the developer simply didn’t think of peeps building sideways I guess.  Either way such covenants can be released so if I were a planner I’d not rely on them. 
 

I can see your desire, and in your shoes I’d probably think of that too.  But the trouble with this stuff is that peeps are inspired by others getting permission so from a planning perspective I guess they have to think that granting one thing will lead to others doing stuff that then can’t be refused but which may not be so good. 
 

We bought some field behind us for extra garden, then abetted neighbours doing the same.  For decades after we all lived happily with big gardens.  Then houses changed hands to peeps who think gardens should be wall to wall with extensions, sheds, gazebos, hot tubs, and everything else one associates with such an outlook, clearly “the only way is….”    Oh, what did we inadvertently start?

[jeli]

4 minutes ago, G and J said:

So the developer simply didn’t think of peeps building sideways I guess.  Either way such covenants can be released so if I were a planner I’d not rely on them. 
 

I can see your desire, and in your shoes I’d probably think of that too.  But the trouble with this stuff is that peeps are inspired by others getting permission so from a planning perspective I guess they have to think that granting one thing will lead to others doing stuff that then can’t be refused but which may not be so good. 
 

We bought some field behind us for extra garden, then abetted neighbours doing the same.  For decades after we all lived happily with big gardens.  Then houses changed hands to peeps who think gardens should be wall to wall with extensions, sheds, gazebos, hot tubs, and everything else one associates with such an outlook, clearly “the only way is….”    Oh, what did we inadvertently start?

 

I think the planners are playing hardball after the alterations to the house before you enter the estate. It's now pretty big and had significant changes. 

[Dave Jones]

engage a planning consultant not an architect, they will frame the application (outline ?) with a view to appeal from the start. 

 

appeals are free.

[jeli]

29 minutes ago, Dave Jones said:

engage a planning consultant not an architect, they will frame the application (outline ?) with a view to appeal from the start. 

 

appeals are free.

Thank you. 

 

The LPA has given me until the 7th August to put an amended plan in or they will assume I'm going with the original plan.

 

Should I withdraw the application or can I request a delay? 

[bassanclan]

Worth a phonecall.

I don't think you get a free resubmittion any more if you withdraw, but maybe better than a refusal if they won't grant you extra time.

[Dave Jones]

1 hour ago, jeli said:

Thank you. 

 

The LPA has given me until the 7th August to put an amended plan in or they will assume I'm going with the original plan.

 

Should I withdraw the application or can I request a delay? 

 

talk to an expert.

[DevilDamo]

@jeli Let them formally determine it. You can then challenge the decision via an Appeal. You cannot Appeal a withdrawal. At the same time of submitting the Appeal, submit another Planning application to the LPA for something that is likely to be more favoured.

[DevilDamo]

3 hours ago, Dave Jones said:

appeals are free.

Apart from the cost of a Planning Consultant. 

[DevilDamo]

2 hours ago, bassanclan said:

Worth a phonecall.

I don't think you get a free resubmittion any more if you withdraw, but maybe better than a refusal if they won't grant you extra time.

No more free go’s whatsoever now, irrespective of the type of application. 

[jeli]

Thanks all for the advice, extremely invaluable!

 

Who knew? I'm contacting local planning consultants and they're turning down work!! Too busy.

 

I'll keep trying.

[jeli]

Just to update on this.

 

I lost confidence in the one man band I used for the original drawings. I couldn't find a planning consultant that wasn't inundated with work although one did recommend another architectural drawing company and gave some impartial advice that was useful.

 

I went with the recommended company having held calls with other businesses too.

 

It was the best decision I could have made. This business explained the original drawings were over ambitious and no LPA would give their support. We started the process again, having withdrawn the 1st application.

 

So, the fencing wasn't moved out and retained the openness. Instead of 2.5m out that the LPA suggested 1st time around, we went for 3m. This was a compromise on the 4m. We also went for an additional single bedroom and ensuite, rather that the original design with two additional bedrooms. The bedroom would now have a dormer window like @DevilDamo had suggested.

 

No garage to the side but instead a 6.6m x 3.3m summer house relocated to the garden. This was always going to be used for a home gym, so no issue for me to go with this.

 

The LPA came back and insisted the trees were surveyed by a specialist. The arboriculturist did his report and one lime tree was in the RPA zone, so that was then put in to be removed.

 

With that obstacle out of the way, it received an approval.

 

Thanks for all the advice, it was greatly appreciated.

Edited Monday at 12:32 by jeli
Forgot to add something

[Kelvin]

Good result. Thanks for the update