NMA rejected on basis it would breach condition x

[flanagaj]

So our NMA to change the window style, remove green roof and reduce the width of the driveway has been refused.  The reason given is as below.

"I refer to your proposal received on 28 July 2025 concerning your proposed non-material amendments to the approved drawings.

The Local Planning Authority has now considered the amendments but has resolved that they be NOT ACCEPTED as an amendment to the existing planning permission for the following reasons:

The amendments by the insertion of the brick piers with narrower access would result in a breach of condition 15.
The amendments to the green roof would have implications on the Biodiversity Enhancement and Mitigation Plan which would result in a breach of condition 8. 

The proposed windows could be considered acceptable as a post decision amendment; however, they would need to be submitted independently from the above elements that are not acceptable.

If you wish to pursue the matter you are invited to submit a revised planning application for the proposal or alternatively you could apply to vary the relevant conditions under a variation of condition application, details of the application can be found at:"

 

It's frustrating as it will mean I have to spend another £296 for just the NMA for the window change.

But I am hoping that I might have a potential 'get out of jail card' in relation to the green roof.   Condition 8 was discharged two weeks ago and the Biodiversity Enhancement and Mitigation Plan I submitted to discharge the condition had no reference to a green roof.   The plans did show a green roof, so not sure whether I would be in breach of condition 1 .

Do I raise it with the planning officer that condition 8 has been discharged and there was no mention of a green roof in the report?

[DevilDamo]

Two things…

 

- What made you think those changes would be considered as minor amendments?

- Your LPA must be going through a very quiet phase if they’re turning around NMA applications within 2 days.

 

Just submit a Variation of Condition application and deal with all the changes in one go.

[flanagaj]

6 hours ago, DevilDamo said:

Two things…

 

- What made you think those changes would be considered as minor amendments?

- Your LPA must be going through a very quiet phase if they’re turning around NMA applications within 2 days.

 

Just submit a Variation of Condition application and deal with all the changes in one go.

That's a very good question and I have no idea why the technical architect we are using submitted them under a NMA.

Given condition 1 of our planning grant states

"The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:
Location and Block Plan - Drawing No. 24-WLC-PA-01
Proposed Site Plan - Drawing No. 24-WLC-PA-10
Proposed Floor Plans - Drawing No. 24-WLC-P-20
Proposed South and East Elevations - Drawing No. 24-WLC-P-30
Proposed North and West Elevations - Drawing No. 24-WLC-P-31
REASON: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning"

 

Would you suggest that we forget a NMA application and simply submit a variation of condition for the minor window style / size changes?

If I can submit multiple variation of conditions under one application then that would save me having to pay one NMA fee and one variation of condition fee for the driveway change.
 

[DevilDamo]

6 minutes ago, flanagaj said:

I have no idea why the technical architect we are using submitted them under a NMA.

Why didn’t you submit the NMA application as I thought that is what you are/were doing to save costs?

 

Just submit the one VoC that covers all items.

[flanagaj]

3 minutes ago, DevilDamo said:

Why didn’t you submit the NMA application as I thought that is what you are/were doing to save costs?

 

Just submit the one VoC that covers all items.

Any guidance regarding the green roof that we want to get rid of.  As I stated above, they have already signed off condition 8 (Biodiversity) and the case officer says that removal of the green roof will breach condition 8.   But I made no mention of a green roof in that report and apart from it being shown on the plans, there was nothing in the conditions relating to having to have a green roof.

[G and J]

Before you put in another request (nma or voc) are you sure your glazing will satisfy Part O (overheating) requirements.....if not and you find that you have to make changes (e.g shading or even smaller windows) you'll be back to square 1  or faced with paying for more expensive glass.

 

You probably know this but just because an architect has drawn it or a window supplier quoted for it doesn't mean it meets Part O, of course if you know its all ok then.......

[nod]

Probably stated above 

You will have to put in a fresh application 

A pain But will sale through 

[flanagaj]

3 minutes ago, nod said:

Probably stated above 

You will have to put in a fresh application 

A pain But will sale through 

Do you mean a full planning application?

[flanagaj]

1 hour ago, G and J said:

Before you put in another request (nma or voc) are you sure your glazing will satisfy Part O (overheating) requirements.....if not and you find that you have to make changes (e.g shading or even smaller windows) you'll be back to square 1  or faced with paying for more expensive glass.

 

You probably know this but just because an architect has drawn it or a window supplier quoted for it doesn't mean it meets Part O, of course if you know its all ok then.......

Who can work out whether glazing satisfies Part O?

[torre]

28 minutes ago, flanagaj said:

Who can work out whether glazing satisfies Part O?

The 'Future Homes' site has a spreadsheet for calculating overheating by simplified method along with other useful guidance here 

 

Building control should accept that if you completed it correctly and get a pass.

[G and J]

28 minutes ago, torre said:

The 'Future Homes' site has a spreadsheet for calculating overheating by simplified method along with other useful guidance here 

This is a good starting point. 

 

Not sure of your floorplan, but as we have a large open plan area (east facing), plus lots of glazing in hallway (west facing) we couldn't use the "simple" methid and had to have it modelled.

 

We found someone who would do this and our "as designed" /as built SAPs (also needed for building control).

 

@Susie managed to use model, and amend her windows to suit.

[SteamyTea]

Fake grass on the roof until it blows away.

 

[saveasteading]

I dont like green roofs. Had to do one once and that convinced me.

 

I suggest you propose deleting the green roof but substituting an alternative. I've done that successfully.**

Logic.

A green roof is very heavy when wet, and requires much more structure...which has a  carbon cost.

It needs special membranes...lots of carbon issues.

It needs maintenance. Safety issues. How are you going to access it, not fall off etc Preventable risks should be designed out.

It prevents rain going elsewhere more useful, incl your water butts which overflow to Eg a pond or into the ground.

 

So you must propose something better for nature. Pond, meadow, log piles etc.

And no rain must reach the drains.

 

* in recent drought, any rain would soak into the roofing cover and not reach your butts,  garden , pond. So it's a bad thing.

** planner stated that this all surprised him but made sense. I've got the letters to say I'm an expert, which helps, but go for it.

 

If you haven't enough land that might be more tricky.

[SteamyTea]

2 hours ago, saveasteading said:

A green roof is very heavy when wet, and requires much more structure...which has a  carbon cost

I think, in most peoples minds, that green roofs are to do with biodiversity.

The tiny (in global terms, 37,782,264,063 tonnes since 1750) of extra CO₂ produced over a the roof lifetime, include maintenance, will hardly show up as an increase in global temperatures (around 1.5K since 1750).  So undetectable.

A biodiversity argument i.e. to stop a monoculture of invasive plants taking over (nettles, brambles and bind weed), constant maintenance would be needed and this cannot be guaranteed.

 

 

[saveasteading]

2 hours ago, SteamyTea said:

To stop a monoculture of invasive plants taking over (nettles,

Great point. Birds deposit bramble seeds in fertiliser, and brambles make persistent roots. 

On the occasion that I designed away the green roof "suggestion" by the councils Green advisor I learnt a lot.

1. The green person didn't know a lot about reality and spouted Greenwash.

2. The planning officers aren't technical people so accept the consultants suggestion.

3. The head planner showed me their drainage "hierarchy". Probably this is a standard thing. It says green roofs are best. It doesn't mention that rain won't reach the butt/garden/pond, so clearly prepared by a 1.

4. They  needed a reasoned and scientific proposal to alter this requirement.  Plain English summary followed by the logic.

 

This was for our own building so it mattered. 500m2 of high roof. I calculated that the extra steel for strength l would use more carbon than the growth could ever balance, let alone the other arguments.

So we saved the steel, and the green roof costs. Spent some of it on a rainwater harvester which was great for an office but I wouldn't have it for a house. This also saved on drainage rates. Butts yes.

 

If you go for this plan don't show a financial saving, just a better world.