Who ultimately decides and how can I know upfront?

[flanagaj]

So the architects have come back with some designs.  Design one has been designed to be the least controversial of them, and the one the architects feel would be the path of least resistance.  Option 2 is the contemporary one, and the one that we would ultimately like to go for.  The lane contains the properties shown in the diagram, and although next door is a single storey property, the ridge height is about 6.8 metres.

I find it frustrating that you cannot determine upfront as to whether it will be approved by the LPA, or rejected by the LPA and approved on appeal, or rejected by both.  

 

Seems it's akin to buying a tombola ticket and I was wondering what options we have before submitting to determine whether it could finally be approved.  Happy to spend 12 months waiting and spending money to get Option 2.

 

 

Option 1
 

 

Option 2

 

[joe90]

Well I say go for what you want from day one and make your arguments, this is based on my fight for planning which went to appeal and I got exactly what I wanted in the end. If you compromise now you will always wonder if you could have had option 1. Yes it’s a lottery/game. 

[nod]

9 minutes ago, joe90 said:

Well I say go for what you want from day one and make your arguments, this is based on my fight for planning which went to appeal and I got exactly what I wanted in the end. If you compromise now you will always wonder if you could have had option 1. Yes it’s a lottery/game. 

Plus 1 

 

Your Architecht is working for you 

Not the other way round 

All options may sail through planning You never know 

[ETC]

[ETC]

[Alan Ambrose]

In your shoes, I would send both applications in. Take one or both to appeal depending on the result. That’s assuming you have time and money on your side. Appeals are running at a year atm, so factor that in.

 

Of course, you won’t get an answer up front, that’s what the decision process is for. Nearest best thing is your architect’s and/or planning consultant’s judgement. My experience of pre-apps (only two) is that they’re a complete waste of time and can be actively misleading, which is worse than not doing them in the first place. That may be case officer or LPA dependant. How good is your LPA? - look up the stats.

 

Yes, like a tombola, there’s a lot of luck involved and most of the LPA’s judgements are simple opinion cloaked in planning jargon - it’s not a rational process at all. Engage your councillor too.

Edited October 5 by Alan Ambrose

[G and J]

It's got to be your call.......

 

In an ideal world we all find a plot in a location we want to live AND can build the house of " our dreams " whatever that means to us at the time

 

In reality, unless money/location has no limits, we may have to compromise on something.

 

We have a project in our "dream" location (i.e. the one that will suit us going forward, leaving  our "dream" location where we built 30 odd years ago), but in both cases some compromise was necessary.

 

If the external look of the property is one of your key drivers, you've got to go for that? If it's the location..... 

 

As an aside we're in the same LPA as Alan, we may well have lucked out, but our pre app was spot on.....application granted in full.

[saveasteading]

1 hour ago, flanagaj said:

it's akin to buying a tombola ticket

Not at all. The planning guidance should be clear and it should be obvious whether  traditional or boxy is preferred. That is what your consultant is for.

Applying twice suggests you don't have confidence in your proposal.

Planners are clerical people and go by the guidelines.

Vegetation is spelt wrongly...... Distracting....check for similar mistakes.

[Russell griffiths]

Do you actually want to build design two. 
you might like the concept on paper, but I would avoid that roof design 100%, water needs to get of the building, don’t trap it on top and hope it makes it out of some small outlets. 
 

I like option one apart from the glass gable, that is pointless, you have large windows on two elevations already, what’s the glass gable for. 
design one is a more straightforward build, easier to find good contractors. 
 

obviously my personal opinion. 

 

one would fit in better locally, easier to build, no sleepless nights worrying about a swimming pool on your roof. 

[ChrisInKent]

That’s a huge amount of south facing glass on both designs.  Before you submit to planning do your Part O building regulations calculations. What does the back look like? Is there cross ventilation? If not you’re going to need lots of mitigation built in. No point submitting either if they have to be changed at BRegs stage requiring a minor/major planning amendment submitted because of overheating resulting in time delay and more costs (speaking from experience here).
 

We found planners don’t like uncertainty, so the clearer you can be with intentions the better - so ‘timber or render’ might result in a condition to discharge to LPA with exact detail. Specifying materials used in supporting statement seems to help. I can’t see what the flat roof material specified. Green roofs sound fab but make sure you investigate costs - several hundred £s per m2 on top of the GRP/rubber.
 

But if you like the flat roof design I’d say go with it - the stress and effort of building a house that you didn’t actually want is just not worth it! 

Edited October 5 by ChrisInKent

[saveasteading]

1 hour ago, ChrisInKent said:

Green roofs sound fab but make sure you investigate costs - several hundred £s per m2 on top of the GRP/rubber.

I would much rather spend that money on a rainwater harvester, IF you need fancy measures at all. Who suggested it?

Planners do think it's good but they aren't the experts.

 

[flanagaj]

The architect didn't specify a green roof, and I too would rather spend the money on rain water harvesting.

[saveasteading]

1 hour ago, flanagaj said:

spend the money on rain water harvesting.

The planners may have been give a 'rainwater hierarchy' list that says green roofs are best.  Politely explain your stratagem  that it keeps water away from your harvester and from the aquifer and they should accept it. Also that the roof has to be reinforced, and that maintenance at height is required.

[Mr Punter]

A pitched roof is far less likely to cause issues than flat.  Natural slate will be cheaper and less defect prone than zinc.  Timber cladding often looks cruddy in a few years and flammable cladding is best avoided.  The glazing is excessive.  It will cause overheating in the sun, higher heat losses in winter, extra capital expense, unpleasant reverberation and glare.

[ETC]

2 hours ago, Mr Punter said:

A pitched roof is far less likely to cause issues than flat.  Natural slate will be cheaper and less defect prone than zinc.  Timber cladding often looks cruddy in a few years and flammable cladding is best avoided.  The glazing is excessive.  It will cause overheating in the sun, higher heat losses in winter, extra capital expense, unpleasant reverberation and glare.

But apart from that it’s fine……..

[Gus Potter]

13 hours ago, flanagaj said:

So the architects have come back with some designs.  Design one has been designed to be the least controversial of them, and the one the architects feel would be the path of least resistance.  Option 2 is the contemporary one, and the one that we would ultimately like to go for.  The lane contains the properties shown in the diagram, and although next door is a single storey property, the ridge height is about 6.8 metres.

I find it frustrating that you cannot determine upfront as to whether it will be approved by the LPA, or rejected by the LPA and approved on appeal, or rejected by both.  

 

Seems it's akin to buying a tombola ticket and I was wondering what options we have before submitting to determine whether it could finally be approved.  Happy to spend 12 months waiting and spending money to get Option 2

It not really possible to comment meaningfully without knowing and being able to see the surrounding streetscape and all round views. This is an essential key to the planning decision making process.

 

Both options are expensive to stabalise SE wise.. so expect some additional cost here. Option 1 will probably cost more SE wise as you have a huge glass area and that end of the building will need to be stiff so it doesn't crack all that glass.

 

Option 2 is akin to Brutalist Architecture. Wish you luck getting that past the planners. There may be an arguement for this so would love to hear if your Architect is thinking along these lines with a modern twist, use of up to date and durable and quality materials. I have chosen my words carefully as the terms used.. you'll find in much of the planning guidance when they talk about sustainablility.

 

 

[Iceverge]

Can you drag out the local planning applications and read the planners comments. 

 

Know exactly what everyone else got shot down for and you'll have a very good idea what is best to apply for. 

[Temp]

I recommend producing a street scene drawing/sketch showing your proposal and the two houses either side. Our architect did this using pen and a single water colour (green). This allowed a certain artistic licence and harmonised the different designs to certain extent. 

[joe90]

5 hours ago, Mr Punter said:

A pitched roof is far less likely to cause issues than flat.  Natural slate will be cheaper and less defect prone than zinc.  Timber cladding often looks cruddy in a few years and flammable cladding is best avoided.

+1

28 minutes ago, Temp said:

I recommend producing a street scene drawing/sketch showing your proposal and the two houses either side. Our architect did this using pen and a single water colour (green). This allowed a certain artistic licence and harmonised the different designs to certain extent. 

I concur, I had this done for my appeal and put the application in perspective relative to the surroundings/neighbours.

[Tony L]

Some good comments, above.

 

For me, planning was a lengthy process of negotiation & compromise, so I'd say start with something bigger & bolder than you expect to be given permission for then the council get to say "no" many times (which my local planning dept loved to do) &, hopefully, you'll end up with permission for something that's still worth building.  If there's a lot of back & forth with the planning dept after your initial deign is refused, you can save a ton of money by doing the drawings yourself.  You don't need to provide beautiful architect's drawings each time you submit an amended proposal.

 

Re cladding: yes, a lot of the natural wood coloured cladding looks terrible after it's been up a few years, but some of it still looks good.  I think it's a case of using a good UV resistant varnish.  There's been so much of this natural wood cladding going up over the past 10+ years, I think it might be looking old fashioned soon.  I favour black.  They've had black cladding on the new build next door to us for 3 years now, & it still looks like new.

 

I think zinc standing seam roofs look great - much better than slate. & if the zinc is too expensive, you might look at products such as Greencoat PLX, which are the same tech - ie made from a roll on site, but they're painted steel (big choice of colours), rather than zinc. A good slate roof can look beautiful, but most new slate roofs I see look terrible.  I think the problem is that Welsh slates, which are perfectly flat, have become prohibitively expensive, so people use cheap stuff such as Spanish, & these slates contain impurities which causes them to warp.  If you're considering standing seam & you don't know what oil canning is, look it up, because it's something you need to be aware of.

[flanagaj]

So after some deliberation we have decided to opt for option 1, and I do agree that there is too much glass.  The glazed gable end is pointless and will be removed, and the other glazing can be reduced in size.   Not sure if it is a good or a bad thing, but the neighbouring properties are a mixed bag, and if we really want to stay in keeping, it will have to be something that is far less contemporary and in all honesty something that I would never want to build.   Option one is a modern take on some of the properties in the lane.  I really hope that we don't have to build something that looks s**t just to fit in with the other s**t that adorns the lane.

 

 

[flanagaj]

10 hours ago, Iceverge said:

Can you drag out the local planning applications and read the planners comments. 

 

Know exactly what everyone else got shot down for and you'll have a very good idea what is best to apply for. 

Unfortunately, there have only been applications for extensions to the existing property next door, and the last built house was over 20 years ago when a bungalow was demolished and a chalet bungalow built.  I think the biggest hurdle we are actually going to face is whether they will accept a two storey dwelling.  Even though the ridge height is the same as next doors, and the same as the original proposed bungalow, I wonder if they can have a valid justification for refusing a two storey.  We are reducing the footprint of the dwelling by 60m2 compared with the currently granted application, but I have no idea what planning policy states or whether this will be the LPAs decision.

[joe90]

20 minutes ago, flanagaj said:

I think the biggest hurdle we are actually going to face is whether they will accept a two storey dwelling.  Even though the ridge height is the same as next doors, and the same as the original proposed bungalow, I wonder if they can have a valid justification for refusing a two storey.  We are reducing the footprint of the dwelling by 60m2 compared with the currently granted application, but I have no idea what planning policy states or whether this will be the LPAs decision.

This is exactly what I faced, bungalow one side and room In roof the other, it wasn't till I pointed out, with the street scene drawing, our two story cottage had a lower ridge than the room in roof with loads of velux,s. 

[G and J]

55 minutes ago, flanagaj said:

the other s**t that adorns the lane

So you’re really pleased to have bought a plot in such a picturesque place then…….  😕 

[saveasteading]

2 hours ago, Tony L said:

If you're considering standing seam....

....come back later.

 

Re timber cladding. Personally, I don't like it turning grey. I have it coated in sadolin. Very dark brown or light oak. The latter is invisible but that colour then stays put. 10 years in the sun and a recoat is needed. Longer than that in the shade.