Planning permission refused - options

[Jml]

How does the self build exemption work (for extensions and residential annexes)?

People who extend their own homes or erect residential annexes within the grounds of their own homes are exempt from the levy, provided that they meet the criteria laid down in regulations 42A and 42B (inserted by the 2014 Regulations). Regulation 67(1A) sets out that requirements for Commencement Notices do not apply to exemptions for residential extensions.

• the main dwelling must be the self builder’s principal residence, and they must have a material interest in it (as defined in regulation 4(2));
• residential annexes are exempt from the levy if they are built within the curtilage of the principal residence and comprise one new dwelling; and
• residential extensions are exempt from the levy if they enlarge the principal residence and do not comprise an additional dwelling

There is no requirement for the occupier of the annex to be related to the owner of the main dwelling, or to commit to staying there for a specified period.

 

From @bassanclan link above. We have planning to add approx 250m 2  + to our bungalow, had to fill in forms for householder exemption for for CIL, which is therfore not chargeable. There may be a requirement to get a commencement notice etc. To confirm exemption which you would have to investigate.

Edited March 12, 2018 by Jml
Commencement notice

[oldkettle]

@bassanclan, @Jml - thank you.

 

I will check the CIL issue again. The decision notice stated that we would be liable to pay it, may be the relevant form was not submitted. As I said above the planner was very keen to prove that we added over 100m2.

 

With regards to the front gable. We do have a detached house with a double front gable down the road - see the attached picture (sorry about the quality). Not the same thing of course. I also believe that a white gable looks less "heavy" than a black roof. My neighbour said the same thing when we discussed it. 

In any case,  I understand the perils of being "not in keeping", but hope to get a better treatment from the councillors. 

 

We can't demolish because our lender said they would not allow it. Moving our mortgage to a self-build rate would cost too much, I did the maths and it is not worth it. I appreciate the benefits of demolish and rebuild but it won't happen. If only I had the money I'd not think twice. We would have a basement and changed quite a few other things. 

 

I have no plans for a conversion, but I expect any future buyer to appreciate the space available - at a questionable cost of aesthetic. In comparison to appalling tiny townhouses being built everywhere with no gardens this would be in a different league. But for now I just want a comfortable large home for my family. 

 

@bassanclan, can you please explain how the 80/90% approach you mentioned might work here? 

[bassanclan]

Regarding the 80% 90% thing I said, have you got a plan and/or elevations of the existing?

 

The white double gable is less bulky than the single gable you have proposed, you're essentially filling in a diamond between the two gable ends.

[oldkettle]

The existing walls are shown in green, better seen in the first post. Otherwise I can add it in the evening when I get home. 

[bassanclan]

Apologies for doctoring your images

 

The objections from the council are basically design and size.

 

You could initally apply for the 2nd storey (ontop of the existing footprint) as attached. It may be that you don't need to make the full application, you may be able to seek pre-application advice and get this principle agreed to (but I would only do the pre-app if it was free).

 

A rear two storey extension of 3m is within permitted development (assuming the house was built originally with a room in the roof) (although the shape of your existing roof would make that impractical). So you would then have to make a second application to get that.

 

Not withstanding that, you still have the issue of design to overcome. The inital impression of the front elevation is something which looks like some of the 60s/70s gable ended houses. I personally am not a fan of very modern looking houses, but would a roof design such as this be of interest? https://www.scosarg.com/mobi-one-timber-frame-house-machine (see picture below the machinery) I'm sure the planners would rather you designed something either very clearly modern, or something in keeping with the 50s type of property you already have, or even something very "period".

[oldkettle]

Funny you chose this image. I've been looking for a way to get more natural light in and I saw one of the members here using a similar design. The problem is it mainly benefits the first floor and I don't really see this as a major gain. Where as the living room and the kitchen diner will see little light in the afternoon and barring solar tunnels there is nothing I can do about it. 

 

I will explain after the event why I hope for a different outcome with this application. 

 

I did consider using permitted development rights to build (or threaten to build) 8m into the garden :-) as it is allowed for another year. 

 

One thing I don't want is period property. But as I said, I am the utility person, don't care about the looks that much as I am inside most of the time. And whatever we build it is surely going to look better than the front dormer we have now. 

 

Any suggestions wrt the guttering in our latest  plans? :-) 

[oldkettle]

OK, back home and had more time to read about the CIL. Forgive be but it looks very confusing.

 

From https://www.gov.uk/guidance/community-infrastructure-levy#extend-their-homes

"The Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations make a number of provisions for charging authorities to give relief from the levy. Some types of relief are compulsory; others are offered at the charging authority’s discretion. "

I can't find any information WRT whether self-build extension relief is compulsory.

 

And https://www.woking.gov.uk/planning/service/contributions

"some developments are exempted, including minor development and residential extensions of less than 100 sq m of net internal floorspace (unless it will comprise of one or more dwellings), new affordable housing, development for charitable purposes, self build housing and residential annexes. "

 

Larger extensions are specifically excluded. I think this was the reason we thought 100m2 was the limit in the first place!

 

Apart from contacting the planners, is there any other way to get the definitive answer?

 

 

 

[Jml]

23 minutes ago, oldkettle said:

OK, back home and had more time to read about the CIL. Forgive be but it looks very confusing.

 

From https://www.gov.uk/guidance/community-infrastructure-levy#extend-their-homes

"The Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations make a number of provisions for charging authorities to give relief from the levy. Some types of relief are compulsory; others are offered at the charging authority’s discretion. "

I can't find any information WRT whether self-build extension relief is compulsory.

 

And https://www.woking.gov.uk/planning/service/contributions

"some developments are exempted, including minor development and residential extensions of less than 100 sq m of net internal floorspace (unless it will comprise of one or more dwellings), new affordable housing, development for charitable purposes, self build housing and residential annexes. "

 

Larger extensions are specifically excluded. I think this was the reason we thought 100m2 was the limit in the first place!

 

Apart from contacting the planners, is there any other way to get the definitive answer?

 

 

The primary legislation:

 

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2014/385/regulation/7/made

 

woking per your reference

 

https://www.woking.gov.uk/planning/service/contributions

 

which includes Claims for a self build exemption relating to a residential extension should be submitted on Form 9: Self Build Residential Extension Exemption Claim Form.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 12, 2018 by Jml

[oldkettle]

Thank you, @Jml. I must admit I hardly ever dealt with legal documents. Do they not have a full version, rather than the original separately and then the amendments? If not, I'd love to know why :-) Surely it is easier to read a single document.

 

I opened this as pdf and searched for "compulsory". Found nothing :-) What I was looking for came under "discretionary" and only social housing and exceptional circumstances fall under this category. Again, I think it is not helpful that different terms are used in the legislation and the guidance but it is a good result anyway, something to consider - and quickly.

[Jml]

This is referenced off the woking site:

 

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/communit-infrastructure-levy

 

See bullit point 2!

 

document was last updated 22/2/18

 

would have also thought your architect would be able to confirm this!

Edited March 12, 2018 by Jml
Architect confirm

[oldkettle]

Actually, the architect was telling it to the planner from the beginning (self-build is exempt), but the guy forced him to fill out a form than seems to only be required for 100m2+ extensions! Again, now we know why he did it but it caused a lot of confusion.

 

By the way, another confusion is with the notice. They have different wording in different places, from the last link it seems the notice is NOT required for the extensions. But I definitely saw another one today where this point was missing. Anyway, we are a long way away from the notice stage :-)

 

Edited to add

Guidance:

"and, in regard to a self build home or a residential annex, a Commencement (of development) Notice served prior to the commencement of the development "

 

Regulation:

42B

(6) A person who is granted an exemption for residential annexes or residential extensions ceases to be eligible for that exemption if a commencement notice is not submitted to the collecting authority before the day the chargeable development is commenced.

Edited March 12, 2018 by oldkettle
Added text

[Jml]

As far as i understand, although we have not started our extension, a commencement notice is required.

[oldkettle]

Yes, I will rather rely on the regulation. 

[oldkettle]

Well, another update and another question.

 

I've been told by the councillor to do the hipped roof. Too tired to argue about it any more. Planners also want the extension to be "at least a foot shorter" - that's on an 12m deep building with no objections from the neighbours. "The word I think I'd use is pathetic" :-) (c) Hello, Dolly 

So it will have to go to the committee as planners are dead set on this second request.

 

Anyway, hipped would have been easy it was not for the protruding part on the right side, so just wanted to check that the option that I sketched below is feasible. 

TIA!

 

For reference, the existing plan and at the end - the hipped rood sketch.

 

 

I also noticed the sketch looks similar to a picture provided by @bassanclan

 

Edited June 24, 2018 by oldkettle
typo

[bassanclan]

The diagram you have attached there doesn't look like a hipped roof???

[oldkettle]

How about this view? That's the same from the side.

 

Had a wonderful chat with the planner.

 

He is absolutely adamant we have to cut back these 30cm. Why? Because we refused your first application and this one is even larger. OK, but we addressed the roof line - why can't you compromise? Because your house will be massive, larger than anyone else's around. OK, but nobody minds and I have 50m of garden space, surely it doesn't matter whether I still have 47 or 47.30 remaining? No, this is over-development.

Yep, over-development. I naively thought that term was used for concreting over 80% of the green or similar, but no. Shocking. It seems it'd be better from their POV if we extended by 2m, then the neighbours extended by another 2 and step by step we'd get to where we want to be. Who said it'd be wasteful?

 

 

[AliG]

Planners can be a law unto themselves.

 

When they are claiming overdevelopment a useful thing is to have a plot plan showing the house as a percentage of the total area. I would be hard to argue that this is overdevelopment if it is less than 20%.

 

Some rough calculations for other houses nearby would also be useful.

 

As far as I am are there is no rule that says houses in an area have to be a similar size, although I know others have had this issue. Other smaller houses may be on smaller plots. If the house is not covering a large percentage of the plot then I seriously doubt that this arbitrary size limit would hold up on appeal.

[oldkettle]

@AliG Thank you, I pretty much told him we would appeal and win. They can claim anything but overdevelopment, this one I am quite certain about, we have plenty of space. But I hope the planning committee will be reasonable. The last thing remaining - figuring out whether to keep the rear gable, and we are good to go.

[oldkettle]

Well, an update (and - again - questions)

 

The good news is it's going to be decided on the 4 September by the planning committee.

 

The expected news is the recommendation of planners is obviously refusal.

 

The less expected news is the document they produced is full of lies. Some are obvious, some - less so. 

What I want to understand is whether I have any way of addressing these lies if nobody registers to speak against our application. It seems to me that I only get 3 minutes when somebody speaks against first.

 

I will list what I consider lies here - please tell me what you think.

 

1) The description of our proposal claims "Erection of a first floor extension, two-storey front extension...".

In reality we decrease the foot-print at the front by removing the bay window.

 

2) The entire two-storey element is proposed to a have rear gable and a front hip, with a ridge height of 9.1m

This is as measured from the bottom of the steps leading to the front door, way below the GFL. The ridge-GFL height is 8.6m. If measured from the ground level there are recently built houses of the same height.

 

3)  A single-storey, flat roof front extension is proposed following demolition of the existing front bay window. 

This is a complete lie, most likely he confused the first version of our drawings with the last one. There is no flat roof whatsoever.

 

4) The proposed extended house would have ridge height of 9.1m, a depth of 13.25m

Half truth here. One side of the house is 13.25, the other is 12.7 and the height is again a lie.

 

5) This would be further accentuated by the fact that the dwelling is set forward numbers... which means there would be clear views of its deep flank (north) elevation within the street scene.

Well, I posted pictures here. There is no way to see even two houses at the same time, let alone see the whole left wall of our house as it is completely blocked by both the hedging and our neighbours' house.

 

He than repeats most of this in the conclusion part, adding - 

"... which would create a large bulk and massing which would appear cramped and overdeveloped within its plot and not in keeping with neighbouring houses on Hermitage Road."

 

It did make my blood boil but on the other hand I thought it might be in my favour (in appeal if it comes to it). A claim of overdevelopment with a house occupying just over 20% of the plot feels completely wrong - but is it just because I have no clue?

 

TIA for any comments and recommendations.

[newhome]

I've never been to any sort of appeal so I might be talking nonsense but surely someone will verbally speak against your proposal even if it's someone from the council? Then if you only get 3 minutes you need to work it through as a prepared presentation, and practice it and time it to get it word perfect. I would provide a Powerpoint presentation (or similar) to hand out and use that as the basis of your presentation. I would include diagrams to easily illustrate the points made, and also explain the 'inaccuracies' in the planners' document. Whether that's allowed or not I'm not sure but often a picture speaks a thousand words to illustrate the point you are trying to make. 

 

[ProDave]

And make the closing sentence of your 3 minute presentation "I therefore fail to see how this is over development or against any planning policy, so if it is refused I will take it to appeal."

[oldkettle]

2 minutes ago, ProDave said:

And make the closing sentence of your 3 minute presentation "I therefore fail to see how this is over development or against any planning policy, so if it is refused I will take it to appeal."

 

Sorry, a genuine question just so that I don't miss the tone here: you are serious, this is not a sarcasm?

[ProDave]

5 minutes ago, oldkettle said:

 

Sorry, a genuine question just so that I don't miss the tone here: you are serious, this is not a sarcasm?

No. Deadly serious. Councils don't like appeals so I would want them to know for sure that I would take it to appeal if it was refused.  They would be hoping if it was refused you  would be resubmitting plans for something smaller.  I would want to remove that doubt.

[oldkettle]

10 minutes ago, ProDave said:

No. Deadly serious. Councils don't like appeals so I would want them to know for sure that I would take it to appeal if it was refused.  They would be hoping if it was refused you  would be resubmitting plans for something smaller.  I would want to remove that doubt.

 

Thank you.

What is quite annoying is that I have a "clear" way of getting what I want and more

1) apply for a first floor extension only - I guess, impossible for them to decline.

2) build it

3) use permitted development rights to extend 4m back which is MORE that we are trying to add now. We would have to compromise a bit on the right side as it's within 2m of the boundary but that's no more than 1m of the width.

 

This way we'd get an even larger house but at an enormous cost to us and to the environment. I don't see how it would be beneficial to anybody.

[newhome]

3 minutes ago, oldkettle said:

3) use permitted development rights to extend 4m back which is MORE that we are trying to add now. We would have to compromise a bit on the right side as it's within 2m of the boundary but that's no more than 1m of the width.

 

This way we'd get an even larger house but at an enormous cost to us and to the environment. I don't see how it would be beneficial to anybody.

 

I'd be slightly careful about using this as justification as I believe that councils can restrict permitted development rights in certain circumstances so something to look into to see if that's likely for your property.