Planning permission refused - options

[Temp]

10 minutes ago, JSHarris said:

I'm pretty sure that there is software around now that will allow several photos to be stitched together, to make a panoramic view

I've used this in the past. Works well but there can be some distortion so you do need to check the results.

 

http://www.panoramafactory.com/

[oldkettle]

As I said before, here is a building next to the T-junction, 100m down the road. Just for comparison vs our monstrosity :-)

 

And here is how it currently looks from the road - street view level

Edited January 10, 2018 by oldkettle

[Ferdinand]

12 hours ago, Temp said:

I've used this in the past. Works well but there can be some distortion so you do need to check the results.

 

http://www.panoramafactory.com/

+1

 

HI @oldkettle

 

We have chatted quite extensively before, so I have little more to add, except:

 

- Can you get comparative data for nearby houses on roof height relative to your proposal (thinking of some sort of skyline cross-section sketch showing that in fact yours is not much higher than theirs). If you need to you can rule of thumb their height by counting rows of bricks and roof angles, or visually. IT is interesting that the statement is 'as not been demonstrated' .. it is a lack of information not a rejection.

 

- Probably important to emphasise variety in the street and locality. It is about showing that you fit in, and have a coherent scheme, not that your design is less horrible than some of the others. 6 eyesores already there will not justify a 7th, unless it is demonstrated that it fits in with the locality. ARgue the positive in relation to specific policy.

 

- Ditto floor areas. There are measured floor areas in the EPCs (though some on BH are skeptical). THat may give you additional data that minimises the size differences.

 

- What does the Planner actually want. Do they mean 1.5m, or would 0.8m be acceptable .. it could turn partly on where you think you could win an appeal. CAn you move some way towards that by changing your roofline a little and losing 200mm of ceiling height, or floor buildup depth, for example.

 

I think I would have a conversation, and confirm after by email to document, about what their objections are .. just allow them to talk. THen have another one about possible ideas a few days later.

 

- Or can you play with levels by sinking the whole thing 300mm into the ground on your sloping site? Can't remember how far down you are digging.

 

- 'Incongruous' is a marvellously subjective planning word. Perhaps email the planner to explore how it can be made "congruous" or "harmonious" with the street scene'. IT may also be about finishes as well as scale. COuld you tile-hang the top half, or even use bricks or a blending-in paint or cladding? Cues would need to be local or vernacular. or could you articulate / break up the frontage visually a bit more, and split it vertically or band it by material. ONe idea would be brick on the RHS and render on the left, to reflect the materials of the two neighbour's, or have a column if windows or cladding up the middle. I suspect he thinks it feels big and white and stark.

 

- When it comes to communication, you may be better communicating by ghost writing letters for your architect to send.

 

- It may be worth asking a Local Councillor to take an interest with the planning officer. Again you need to give them enough source material to cut and paste and edit to make it easy for them.

 

- Finally I am sure there are policies about encouraging family life. TIe that into a Planning Statement if you do one, Adequate bedrooms for my children to grow up in in the area where they have friends and schools etc.

 

F 

 

 

Edited January 11, 2018 by Ferdinand

[oldkettle]

Thank you, @Ferdinand. Plenty to think about when I am not on a train. 

 

We are communicating via our architect only. To be honest, I am thinking of trying to talk directly instead, in case it can help to change the tone. Unfortunately, there were no other ideas  discussed so far. 

 

Our planning proposal directly states that our absolute roofs height will be the same as that of our neighbours to the left. Their house is set higher though. 

 

I am almost certain there is a section in the proposal explaining why we need all that space. I remember being quite unhappy reading it as from my point of view "it's nobody's business". Feels quite diminishing having to provide this information to strangers. 

 

I will mention it all to the architect. He is very experienced, I am sure he will come up with something, the question is how long it is going to take. 

 

Do you think it makes sense to mention the permitted development ground floor extension as a backup strategy? 

[oldkettle]

A follow up question - may be somebody can help with a guesstimate.

 

The obvious alternative to our front gable roof is a crossed gable one. This option would lose us some attic space which is a shame but we have almost accepted it. What worries me more is the cost difference in building it. So - does anybody have an idea how much more would this cost (MBC frame, roofing contractor). I can see that the roof area is not massively different, within may be 10% (approx 136 vs 145m2). But it would require lead flashing for valleys, much more rainwater goods, fascia and soffits. £5K is probably OK, I so much hope it is not 10.

 

The floor area is about 10.2m wide by 11.5m long.

 

[AliG]

I would be totally guessing on the cost difference, but that design is much more attractive, so you might gain some of it back via a higher valuation.

 

You can offset some of the cost by losing the stepped in area above the front door. This loses a steel required to hold up the outside wall and allows you probably an extra cupboard in the home office or at least more floor space.

 

You will lose a lot of brickwork and render from the much lower gables, but you gain an extra gable. 

 

There will also be extra trusses although they will be smaller. £5-10k seems like a good guess, why not ask a roofing contractor for quotes.

 

 

[PeterW]

The cost in building valleys is in the joinery rather than the leadwork. A 6m roll of 450mm will set you back about £100 all in, the valley rafters and associated timber boards etc will be your cost.

 

Are you planning a cut roof or a truss roof..? And are you planning on built in solar panels..?

[oldkettle]

14 minutes ago, PeterW said:

Are you planning a cut roof or a truss roof..? And are you planning on built in solar panels..?

 

Thank you, Peter

 

I hope for something like the last option here https://www.diydata.com/general_building/roof_construction/roof_construction.php I think it is called attic truss? Anything that lets us use the attic space for storage.

 

I want to install built in panels, 10KW array, but it is all down to affordability.

 

Not sure how much more MBC would charge for the trusses, but the main concern is the work: it probably takes much longer to install valleys/gutters/slates (more cutting) etc.

[PeterW]

You can't truss build a valley very easily. The "square" sections can be easily done, the rest needs valley / jack rafters and cut rafters to fill the triangular gaps between the sections. Its not impossible to do trusses but could be easier and quicker to do a cut roof using rafters and purlins etc.

 

Slating valleys doesn't take long  - you are adding a couple of days not weeks, and its not rocket science for a good roofer.

[oldkettle]

Thank you, Peter. This is where I will have to rely on the architect / MBC to produce something sensible, it will only happen after getting PP. But is sounds like the price difference may not be that high. Catch-22 at the moment - going for this solution and not knowing the price and available space.

[Mr Punter]

3 hours ago, oldkettle said:

This option would lose us some attic space which is a shame but we have almost accepted it.

 

What are you using the attic for?  In my experience, unless it has proper staircase access it will only be used for storing crap / suitcases / skis / snowboard / old kids toys.

[oldkettle]

Thank you, @AliG

 

2 hours ago, AliG said:

I would be totally guessing on the cost difference, but that design is much more attractive, so you might gain some of it back via a higher valuation.

I agree it looks a bit better - but so much more complicated and so much less space. Don't care much about future valuations - more concerned whether we have enough funds. It may all change in 20 years :-)

On the other hand the original area of the gable is just over 15m2. The front gable area on the new design is 9.9m2 + at least another 15m2 of the roof slope, to me it does not look any less heavy than the original. No idea why the planner is that fixated on the front gable.

 

2 hours ago, AliG said:

You can offset some of the cost by losing the stepped in area above the front door. This loses a steel required to hold up the outside wall and allows you probably an extra cupboard in the home office or at least more floor space.

 

You will lose a lot of brickwork and render from the much lower gables, but you gain an extra gable. 

The area above the entrance is not a part of the office, the window is there to provide some natural light to the stairwell. So extending outside would not add much - but I will ask the architect whether we should do it to avoid using the steel.

 

We will not need to lower the eaves as it would mean the steeper slope and it is already higher than what is ideal for PV: another minus to this design. It is planned as TF so certainly not winning on bricks :-).

[oldkettle]

8 minutes ago, Mr Punter said:

 

What are you using the attic for?  In my experience, unless it has proper staircase access it will only be used for storing crap / suitcases / skis / snowboard / old kids toys.

 

A few ideas there

 

1. I expect MVHR to go in there.

2. For me it is storage and I have never heard people complaining they have too much. TV and other boxes and yes, quite possibly suitcases. Nothing wrong with it as long as it is organised.

3. If somebody wants to add staircase in the future there should be a way to do if from the office or - in the original design - from the guest bedroom. There would be close to 30m2 there, not bad for somebody's kid to hide.

 

Basically, creating room in the roof later is expensive, but making it possible now should not be. So if it does not cost too much - why not? I mean If my floor area was 600m2 :-) it would probably be excessive, but we are close to 200.

[AliG]

2 hours ago, oldkettle said:

 

I want to install built in panels, 10KW array, but it is all down to affordability.

 

In this area, I don't believe they will allow you to connect more than a 5kW array back to the grid, it may be different where you are. So you might lose the modest return from FIT payments. PV panels have fallen enough in price that they pay for themselves anyway, but I think you might struggle to use the energy from such a large array.. You may deplaning battery storage of course, but I don't believe they quite stack up yet in terms of cost per kWH

 

49 minutes ago, oldkettle said:

 

The area above the entrance is not a part of the office, the window is there to provide some natural light to the stairwell. So extending outside would not add much - but I will ask the architect whether we should do it to avoid using the steel.

 

 

I thought it was for natural light, an upstairs hall is always nicer with a window. If you don't extend it out, building the corner of the roof would be more awkward on the new design. Extending it will give you a double height area all the way to the front door which might be nice. It looks like it does encroach into the corner of the office at the moment though so you could gain a little space there.

[oldkettle]

10 minutes ago, AliG said:

 

In this area, I don't believe they will allow you to connect more than a 5kW array back to the grid, it may be different where you are. So you might lose the modest return from FIT payments. PV panels have fallen enough in price that they pay for themselves anyway, but I think you might struggle to use the energy from such a large array.. You may deplaning battery storage of course, but I don't believe they quite stack up yet in terms of cost per kWH

 

Yep, that's another one of those: I have not requested connection info yet as don't know whether we can afford 10KW. No idea whether it is worth installing and not connecting for a while. On the other hand larger array is more likely to produce something reasonable in winter.

 

10 minutes ago, AliG said:

I thought it was for natural light, an upstairs hall is always nicer with a window. If you don't extend it out, building the corner of the roof would be more awkward on the new design. Extending it will give you a double height area all the way to the front door which might be nice. It looks like it does encroach into the corner of the office at the moment though so you could gain a little space there.

 

Yes. it's possible and I will certainly query it.

We have now established that the planner ignored ALL relevant information on the application (dormer bungalow, completed CIL form etc) and claimed in his decision we would be liable to pay CIL because our current first floor is in fact a storage space! When questioned he said there was "no layout" (beds not shown, does not say "bedroom" on the floor plan). No comments. Anyway, this is easy to fix and is relevant for your suggestion because we probably have a few m2 to spare before we hit the 100m2 threshold. It would also give this window a bit more light.

[oldkettle]

Resurrecting this as we are about to re-apply - and we are keeping the front gable as I want the option of space in the attic. This time we expect the committee to consider our application.

 

Below are the revised plans. We sacrificed the space of the current bay in the downstairs bedroom to make the detail simpler and thus hopefully gained a bit of length (something I am currently verifying with the architect). The bay window is not getting much light anyway with all the tall shrubs on the right (South).

 

My question is: is there any way to prevent the guttering for the left gable of the small roof (right side of the front elevation) from being an eyesore? I have attached a current picture, where the white arrow to the right of the entrance door points to the corner where the down pipe  will probably have to be. Any alternatives?

 

Thanks in advance.

 

[Ferdinand]

 

YOu could try asking MBC for feedback on a paid consultancy basis. Or an engineer or consultant who works for them on the relevant design tasks.

 

No idea whether they would do it.

 

F

 

 

[oldkettle]

Well, our very experienced and paid by the hour architect works with them a lot but they still won't quote for an extension :-) So will have to be somebody else.

Regardless, would a TF package provider care about where the guttering goes? 

 

I asked the architect the same question first anyway. Asking here as well because two pairs of eyes are better than one.

 

I have this feeling (may be wrong) at this stage he just wants us to get a PP :-)

[lizzie]

Why dont you get a firm of planning consultants do the revised application. You may not have to make so many compromises. Surprised if your architect not suggested that route.

 

i certainly would not be asking any timber frame company to get involved before you have your planning.

[oldkettle]

Thank you, lizzie

 

We've had a couple of suggestions from the "appeal" companies who clearly track planning applications. If we do get rejected with this application we will consider one, but for now I have a reason to be hopeful :-) So my main task today is getting the remaining design details in order, particularly this small roof and its guttering, as this would be difficult to change at a later stage.

Edited March 11, 2018 by oldkettle
typo

[Pocster]

Right !

 

its all bollocks “ deterimental to the local amenity “ blah blah blah 

took me 5 years to get planning . Analyse every reason for refusal and then look for fact - appeal . You can’t smash the ice cube but you can chip away at the edges . Takes time and money . You’ve only lost once you quit .....

Edited March 11, 2018 by pocster

[oldkettle]

@pocster, @lizzie Looks like I have made a mistake and misled you and possibly others by not creating a new topic for my question - here: https://forum.buildhub.org.uk/topic/4543-planning-permission-refused-options/?do=findComment&comment=84784 We are trying indeed :-)

 

[bassanclan]

I still think you are going to struggle with that design, based in the previous refusal.

 

I'm not 100% sold on the value of and aesthetic's of the front gable design. 

 

If you redesigned the roof similar to the attached, (you could even remove the hips on the main roof if you wanted) then you could avoid the downpipe by the front door.

[oldkettle]

Thanks, @bassanclan

 

As I mentioned previously and as per the plans, the South is on the right and this is where we are planning to have a lot of PV, hopefully, close to 10KW. Also, again, as per plans, the width of the house is smaller than the length, so switching to the roof structure as attached is not really viable. If you check my post above with the pencil drawing we did consider an option that is nicer aesthetically but rejected it. 

 

I also have to say I personally don't see the aesthetics as the main driver of a design. Having a nicer looking house that is more expensive to build and provides substantially less space does not appeal to me. I can see houses being extended all the time. Surely it happens because the original structure is not large enough. This is a massive waste of resources. I'd rather build something proper in the first place. If we didn't have a massive CIL to pay (should we add more space) I could consider making the extension larger instead but the marginal cost of these 20m2 would have been prohibitive. 

[bassanclan]

I would have thought as a self build/extension you should get exemption from CIL by filling out the relevant forms

https://www.planningportal.co.uk/info/200126/applications/70/community_infrastructure_levy/4

 

Your design has a large gable end as the principal elevation, which the planners evidently think is not in keeping with the surrounding houses, the new design isn't that much different. I think the fact that the side elevation of a nearby house has a gable end is not going to form part of the planners considerations. I'm not sure if there are houses on the street with a similar front elevation to that attached, but if not then your design is not in keeping.

 

I think the aesthetics have to play a bigger part in your thinking, you will see the house as you drive up to it and away from it every day and should be something pleasing rather than just functional. At some point as well you will have to sell the house and any buyer's first glance will the photo of the front elevation.

 

Are you planning to convert the attic space to bedrooms etc at a later date, or is it simply storage?

 

In your situation you have to take a pragmatic view. You are unlikely to get 100% of what you want, but you could apply for 80% of what you want, then make a minor ammendment or permitted development to get 90%

 

Are you steadfast that it has to eb an extension rather than a knock down and rebuild, as you will not get the VAT benefit nor the benefit of better lower storey contruction. This would also free you up from the exisiting floorplan and allow you to design something more exciting.