floor plan advice

[Bluebaron]

My planning has been knocked back for the second time due basically to size. I'm now falling back on a 3 floor design that my designer originally suggested but i rejected. I don't like the dormer at the back so i've ditched the single storey rear kitchen and gone 2 storey. I've also ditched the garage and brought the left side down to one storey to give an extra downstairs room. (this was the main planning issue, to imposing)

 

I've attached my designers early plan and my 'very' rough ideas but wondered if anyone could suggest something better before I ask him to do the same.

 

Also to note a separate issue i can't go any further to the left or right although slight movement back may be allowed. (but not the left single storey).

 

first photo shows rejected plan

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks everyone.

 

 

 

 

[ProDave]

That's a big compromise from what you want.  Have you considered appealing the refusal?

[ETC]

56 minutes ago, ProDave said:

That's a big compromise from what you want.  Have you considered appealing the refusal?

Or change your designer?

[ETC]

Just now, ETC said:

Or change your designer?

Or lower your expectations?

[Bluebaron]

1 hour ago, ProDave said:

That's a big compromise from what you want.  Have you considered appealing the refusal?

It’s on appeal now but doesn’t look hopeful so trying to get ahead with a redesign.

 

[Bluebaron]

7 minutes ago, ETC said:

Or change your designer?

Well I’ve spent £4k on him already so don’t want to start from scratch. I’m hoping he will just amend this plan for a reasonable amount.

[Mr Punter]

If you post up the reasons for refusal it may help.

[ETC]

Did I not do a sketch for you and post it last December?

[LDNRennovation]

post the refusal reasons please?
 

Flat roof rear extension reduced size, roof lights not dormers in the loft conversion.
 

House is still too big for the plot though, you don’t have enough garden or parking. Ditch the garage for now.

Edited 2 hours ago by LDNRennovation

[Spinny]

Surely you need to understand the specifics of the refusal. Have you or the architect spoken to the planning people to discuss ? Did neighbours object ?

Perhaps modest modifications to your original plans would be approved ? I'd have expected the architect to be proactive with the planners - unless they told you it was unlikely to be approved.

 

As ever, and in my view always a hugely bad thing, planning drawings do not show the wider street scene. What does the surrounding street and other houses look like ?

 

I would have thought going 3 storey is more imposing, and never great for layout.

 

Redesign the roof above the garage ? Flat Roof ? Lowered ridge line with gable end ?

 

 

[Bluebaron]

14 hours ago, Mr Punter said:

If you post up the reasons for refusal it may help.

 

The proposed development, by reason of its scale, footprint and siting on a constrained corner plot, would result in a cramped and visually intrusive form of development that fails to reflect the established pattern, spacing and character of XXX Avenue. The creation of a reduced and constrained garden for the host dwelling, materially smaller than neighbouring properties, would further emphasise the sense of overdevelopment. The proposal would therefore appear as an incongruous and overly intensive addition to the street scene, harming the character and visual amenities of the area.

The development would conflict with Policies 25, 32 and 33 of the XXX Planning Framework (2015), which require high-quality design that respects local character, ensures appropriate townscape integration and safeguards amenity. It would also be contrary to the design and character-based provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework (2024), including paragraphs 135, 136 and 139, which require development to respond positively to local distinctiveness and avoid poor design.

 

So i'm reducing the footprint by around 15%, reducing a third off the front to single storey. 

 

It's really the internal layout i'm looking for advice on.

 

thanks 

 

 

 

 

[Bluebaron]

This was my appeal if it helps:

 

1. Site context and “corner plot” status

The appeal site is located at the end of XXX, adjoining XXX and a public

recreation ground. While the site is visible from more than one public route, it does not occupy a

formal road junction, nor does it perform any defined townscape, visual or spatial function.

The Council places significant weight on describing the site as a “prominent corner plot” and treats

this characteristic as a determining constraint to development. However, neither the  XXX

District Planning Framework nor the National Planning Policy Framework identifies corner plots as

inherently unsuitable for infill or redevelopment. The term “corner plot” is descriptive only and

does not, in itself, attract any policy-based protection.

Private residential garden land does not benefit from a presumption of retained openness unless

such protection is explicitly identified in policy or designation, which is not the case for the appeal

site. Inspectors have repeatedly found that the perception of openness arising from an unusually

large residential curtilage does not amount to protected openness in planning terms.

The correct test is therefore whether the proposal responds appropriately to its context in terms of

scale, massing, layout and appearance, rather than whether it preserves an incidental gap within the

built form.

2. Openness and character of the street scene

The officer report repeatedly refers to the site as providing a “visual break” and contributing to a

“sense of openness”. However, no evidence is presented to demonstrate that this openness is

deliberate, planned or subject to policy protection. The site is not designated as open space, does not

form part of a planned vista, and is not subject to any policy seeking to retain undeveloped frontage

or gaps.

The surrounding area exhibits a varied suburban character, including semi-detached, terraced and

detached dwellings, with irregular plot sizes typical of cul-de-sac layouts. Corner and end-of-run

plots within such estates are frequently larger and are commonly capable of accommodating

additional built form without harm to character.

The proposal would not introduce development of excessive scale or prominence. The dwelling

would maintain a typical two-storey height, domestic proportions and conventional separation

distances. Importantly, the Council acknowledges within the officer report that:

• separation distances are typical for the suburban context;

• there would be no unacceptable harm to residential amenity; and

• there are no objections on highway, arboricultural or environmental grounds.In this context, the conclusion that the proposal would nevertheless appear “cramped and visually

intrusive” is not robustly substantiated and appears to be driven by a preference for the site to

remain underdeveloped rather than by identifiable planning harm.

3. Scale and massing

The proposed dwelling would be materially smaller in overall massing than the existing semi-

detached pairs that characterise XXX. When assessed as a single built form, the appeal

dwelling would be approximately three-quarters of the combined scale and bulk of the adjoining

semi-detached properties.

As a result, the proposal would read as a modest and subordinate addition within the street scene

rather than as a dominant or overbearing form. This reduced massing directly addresses concerns

regarding visual impact and reinforces the conclusion that the proposal would not erode the

established suburban character of the area.

This proportional relationship is a material consideration and weighs significantly against the

suggestion that the proposal represents overdevelopment or an unduly intensive use of the site.

4. Design and windows – correction of factual error

The officer report refers to the presence and impact of a side-facing window, implying potential

overlooking and character impacts. This is factually incorrect.

The submitted drawings clearly show that:

• the proposed dwelling includes no side-facing habitable room windows;

• side windows have been intentionally omitted to minimise overlooking, enclosure and visual

intrusion; and

• fenestration is primarily confined to the front and rear elevations, consistent with the

prevailing pattern of development.

This factual error materially undermines the reliability of the Council’s assessment. Conclusions

relating to perceived cramping or character harm cannot reasonably be sustained where they are

based on an incorrect understanding of the scheme.

5. Policy assessment (HDPF Policies 32 & 33 and the NPPF)

Policy 32 (Quality of New Development) and Policy 33 (Development Principles) require

development to respect local character, avoid overdevelopment, and achieve appropriate scale,

massing and spacing.

The proposal complies with these requirements by:

• maintaining typical suburban heights and separation distances;

• providing adequate private amenity space for both dwellings;• presenting reduced massing relative to surrounding built form; and

• avoiding overlooking through careful fenestration design.

Paragraphs 135, 136 and 139 of the NPPF (2024) confirm that development should respond

positively to local character without imposing unnecessary uniformity or preventing the appropriate

optimisation of sites. The appeal proposal represents a proportionate and well-considered form of

residential infill consistent with these objectives.

6. Appeal precedent and Inspector reasoning

Appeal decisions consistently confirm that:

• corner plots are not inherently constrained from development;

• perceived openness of private garden land carries limited weight in the absence of policy

protection; and

• efficient use of land within built-up areas is supported where character and amenity impacts

are acceptable.

Inspectors have repeatedly found that resistance based solely on the retention of an incidental gap or

sense of spaciousness does not justify refusal where scale, massing and amenity impacts are

otherwise acceptable. The Council’s approach in this case conflicts with this established reasoning.

7. Planning balance

The Council has not demonstrated a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites, engaging the

presumption in favour of sustainable development under paragraph 11(d) of the NPPF.

The proposal would:

• deliver an additional dwelling within the built-up area boundary;

• make efficient use of land in a sustainable location; and

• do so without giving rise to unacceptable technical or amenity impacts.

The alleged character harm relies on an overstated interpretation of openness and is further

weakened by a material factual error regarding the scheme’s design. When weighed against the

identified benefits, any perceived harm does not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the

benefits when assessed against the Framework as a whole.

Conclusion

The appeal proposal represents a proportionate, well-designed and policy-compliant form of

residential infill. The refusal places excessive weight on the incidental openness of private garden

land and relies, in part, on an incorrect understanding of the proposal.

The development accords with Policies 32 and 33 of the XXX District Planning Framework and

the objectives of the National Plan

 

 

[Bluebaron]

[Nestor]

Back again.

Revisit this thread, from December 2025, you had plenty of good advice and even drawings.