Replacement dwelling guidance

[Russdl]

11 hours ago, dogman said:

Remember as a replacement dwelling there is a limit of 150% increase...

 

 

 

10 hours ago, jack said:

I don't believe there's any numerical rule unless you're in the green belt (I think the number is 40% in that case).

 

(Phew, took me ages to sort out the 'quote' feature! Luddite!)

 

That was the kind of information I was after as but was unable to find - seems as though there is plenty of ambiguity unless someone knows of the 'source' document because I'm b*ggered if I can find it.

 

Dogma:  Thanks for all your hints and tips.

 

10 hours ago, jack said:

I'll try to find some conversations we had about how to approach neighbours. It's a very fine balance to be drawn between making them feel involved and appreciated, and making it clear that you aren't seeking their permission or input on your plans!

 

Jack, I'd appreciate that.

 

Le-cerveau, that sounds not dissimilar to my plan - I'll check out the blog. Thanks.

 

Thanks all for the wealth of advice and information already flowing, what a great site this is.

 

Russ.

[Russdl]

Wise words Stones, I'm on it...

[jack]

I've just spent ages searching ebuild for one of the couple of threads where this was discussed but I can't seem to find them. 

 

Short version: we first introduced ourselves to all our neighbours when we moved in.  Had them around en masse for Christmas drinks etc (I should add: this wasn't just a ploy to help us getting planning permission - we'd have done this anyway).

 

Over time, we introduced the idea of extending, then significantly extending.  We then moved on to the general idea of replacement in view of the costs of such a large extension.  By the time we actually went for planning, everyone in the immediate vicinity expected us to be replacing the bungalow with a new house, so that wasn't a surprise (avoiding surprises is, in my opinion, the biggest key to reducing the chance of objections).

 

It's a common mistake at this point to be open with your neighbours about your plans, and to invite their feedback.  This would have been my approach had I not been counselled strongly against it by our local architect.  He pointed out that once you ask for feedback, you plant in people's mind an expectation that you'll take their feedback into account, not matter how unreasonable it is or how much extra it will cost you.  Most people will want you to make your plans smaller and more conservative, if they agree to them at all.  Then when you say you can't or won't, they become emotional and object.  Worse, you might have different people asking for different incompatible changes, in which case you're bound to disappoint someone even if you're willing to compromise.

 

In the end, we told people we'd show them what we were building before we submitted the planning application, "so you know what we're doing".  A couple of days before submitting the planning application, we provided them with an impression of the roadside view from Sketchup (the house is set back quite a long way and partially concealed by a tree, so this showed the house looking very small in the street scene), along with a letter setting out what we were trying to achieve.  We talked about improving the street scene (the bungalow was pretty ugly, and we'd intentionally allowed the front garden to deteriorate!) and reducing energy consumption, but half of the letter was about the build itself.  We explained how we were using a factory-built timber frame so it would go up quickly and with minimal impact on the neighbours.  We explained that we would be onsite every day and welcomed any feedback about reducing the impact of the build on the neighbours.  

 

In the end, we had no neighbour objections, and a couple of letters of support.  The town council objected, but they always do when anything that doesn't look like it was built in the 1930s is proposed.

 

I have no evidence to support my opinion, but I believe that presenting the proposal as a fait accompli reduced the chances of objection, because people were less thinking about the planning application and more thinking about the (inevitable!) build. 

 

We may also have been lucky with "objection fatigue".  Two other nearby properties (including our immediate neighbour) did very similar things to what we were planning, and both faced significant local objections.  I do wonder whether the fact that both of those ended up getting through left people a bit tired of objecting and losing.  But I also think that how you present your intentions will nearly always help your cause.

[Bitpipe]

Not much to add to Jack's excellent post. The approach you take may depend to the history of the site and what's gone before. 

 

Our plot had had a few previous rejected schemes in the past (for the rear garden, not the main dwelling) but there had not been much street front development recently so we got a lot of attention.

 

We'd lived there for over a year before submitting plans. Some neighbours (who had made no effort to be sociable, despite our efforts) we ignored completely, those we got on with better we discussed the final plans in more detail. There was one polite request to consider a more sympathetic exterior (brick vs render) but we equally politely said no - they put the request in their objection anyway. We also had a neighbour with professional planning expertise who completely went to town with their objection.

 

First time round LA rejected due to ridge height and overall design complexity but they approved scale, position and finish which were the neighbours main complaints. Second time they were leaning to reject again but were talked round by our planning consultant. We did a third app to address some basement design items (light wells) that did not generate a single comment.

 

I'd say that 90% of neighbour objections were rejected by the LA as immaterial - if they generate enough noise they can get it to committee but that's really it.

 

By contrast, we've over communicated with everyone during the build, irrespective of previous relationships,  and been very responsive to noise complaints outside of official hours etc.

[Bitpipe]

13 hours ago, jack said:

 

I don't believe there's any numerical rule unless you're in the green belt (I think the number is 40% in that case).

 

We replaced an 87m2 bungalow with a 289m2 two storey house in approximately the same position on the block without so much as a comment from the planners.

 

A significant question is what impact the replacement house will have on the street scene. If you're in a row of bungalows, you'll face a much bigger battle than I'd you're the only bungalow in a row of large two storey houses.

 

I'll try to find some conversations we had about how to approach neighbours. It's a very fine balance to be drawn between making them feel involved and appreciated, and making it clear that you aren't seeking their permission or input on your plans!

 

We replaced a 160m2 two storey 3 bed detached with a 380m2 property over 4 floors. 100m2 of that is a full footprint basement that the planners did not even blink at, the rest is 100m2 over two floors and a 80m2 room in roof 

 

So the basement approach can be a cost effective way to add space and avoid planning issues.

 

[jack]

4 minutes ago, Bitpipe said:

I'd say that 90% of neighbour objections were rejected by the LA as immaterial - if they generate enough noise they can get it to committee but that's really it.

 

Avoiding going to committee was one of our primary aims, based on some of the nonsense we'd seen others go through.  That said, we fully expected it to be pulled in by one of the councillors who lives around the corner, and then expected to have to appeal the inevitable rejection.

 

We were stunned when it went through first time without any significant comment from the planning officer!

[Ferdinand]

Also, BH member @Calvinmiddle:

 

1 - Lost a Planning App at Appeal.

2 - Applied for a Lawful Dev Certificate for a workshop etc. Approved.

3 - Applied for a bungalow on the same plan and form as the workshop. Won this on Appeal for non-Determination (ie Council missed deadline).

4 - Then he reapplied for something of a bigger area and got that too. This is what he is building.

 

There's more than that to it, but it was one way of spiking some categories of objection at each stage. You may need help and an intimate knowledge of your Council policy.

 

See:

http://www.ebuild.co.uk/blog/20/entry-185-part-2-the-planning-saga-episode-1/

http://www.ebuild.co.uk/blog/20/entry-186-part-3-the-planning-saga-episode-2/

 

Ferdinand

 

(Reminds me Calvin, I don't think I followed up our previous chat - will try to remember as it will only take a minute).

Edited August 10, 2016 by Ferdinand

[Calvinmiddle]

26 minutes ago, Ferdinand said:

 

(Reminds me Calvin, I don't think I followed up our previous chat - will try to remember as it will only take a minute).

 

Ferdinand

 

Don't bother with that, looks like they were going to be awkward and too be honest I have other things going on and don't have the energy to fight it

[Ferdinand]

2 minutes ago, Calvinmiddle said:

 

Ferdinand

 

Don't bother with that, looks like they were going to be awkward and too be honest I have other things going on and don't have the energy to fight it

Cheers

[Calvinmiddle]

33 minutes ago, Ferdinand said:

Also, BH member @Calvinmiddle:

 

1 - Lost a Planning App at Appeal.

2 - Applied for a Lawful Dev Certificate for a workshop etc. Approved.

3 - Applied for a bungalow on the same plan and form as the workshop. Won this on Appeal for non-Determination (ie Council missed deadline).

4 - Then he reapplied for something of a bigger area and got that too. This is what he is building.

 

 

Point 4 was repeated several times so a 80m2 shallow pitch bungalow became a 100m2 shallow pitch bungalow and then the 120m2 modern flat roof and mono pitched roof dwelling on those ebuild links.

[Russdl]

I'm really glad I asked this question. Some really useful thoughts and ideas have sprung forth from this fantastic community - thanks to you all, especially Jack.

[Ferdinand]

I think the important points are probably:

 

1 - Consider your strategy carefully in advance; there are a lot of options.

2 - Local knowledge of your Planning Department is important.

3 - If skinning a cat, you will only get so many chances - and to try so many different ways before the cat notices.

4 - Take advice if you need it.

5 - Once out there, information cannot be brought back in ... so take care what and when you tell anyone.

6 - Consider keeping exploratory things verbal - much Planning Information, such as your correspondence, can be Freedom of Information requested. Not sure where the limits are.

 

Ferdinand

 

Edited August 11, 2016 by Ferdinand

[jack]

Another thing to do is look at planning submissions in your area going back at least a handful of years.  It'll give you an idea about who's managed to get what approved.  You might also get some clues about how nearby neighbours have responded to other planning submissions.  We learned that our immediate neighbours had had a rotten time with several of the other neighbours, but carefully prodding around for information we discovered that they more or less brought it on themselves.

[Trw144]

On 9 August 2016 at 19:38, Construction Channel said:

 

 

To to be a conversion afaik you have to leave the "majority" of the building in tact. Now this is the sticky part. I am including the party wall as part of my walls. Therefore I still have 2 out of 4 walls standing. And I am fully aware if the planners want to cause me trouble I could easily end up with a very expensive shed I can't live in. 

If you want to move the entire footprint I seriously doubt you will have any chance of PD

 

hth 

Ed

 

Thats useful Ed - father in law is just looking at a bunch of barns with planning for conversion. To me, they look like they are falling down and I can't see how you could keep much of the existing structure. What your saying is that, if you replaced too much, they could say you have nt followed planning and you can't live in it?

[Temp]

16 hours ago, Trw144 said:

Thats useful Ed - father in law is just looking at a bunch of barns with planning for conversion. To me, they look like they are falling down and I can't see how you could keep much of the existing structure. What your saying is that, if you replaced too much, they could say you have nt followed planning and you can't live in it?

 

He needs to be careful. I've heard of cases where a BCO decided a barn was in such poor condition that it was no longer capable of being converted and large parts would have to be demolished. He tipped off the planners who effectively revoked the planning permission for a conversion on the grounds that it could no longer be implemented. The owners would have to reapply for a demolition and new build. It's important he get the barns surveyed to check that a conversion is (still) viable. 

 

There was a long series of articles over two or three years Planning Law blog that covered the planning pitfalls of a barn conversion. Here is just a flavour...

http://planninglawblog.blogspot.co.uk/2011/07/more-development-in-wonderland.html

 

Quote

 It is clear that if the description of the development in a planning permission shows that what it is intended to authorise is the conversion or alteration of the pre-existing building, then it is not permissible construe the planning permission as authorising (or as not ruling out) complete demolition and reconstruction of the pre-existing building.

 

http://planninglawblog.blogspot.co.uk/2014/12/barn-conversions-again-part-6.html

 

Quote

.. the Inspector found

as a matter of fact and degree that the previous building had been substantially demolished and a new one erected in its place, whereas the planning permission had authorised only the adaptation and alteration of the existing building, and not the erection of a new structure. As a matter of fact and degree, the inspector therefore found that the development could not reasonably be called a conversion of the original building. It followed that all of the building operations were unauthorised.

 

The wording of the planning consent might be critical to defining the scope of what must be retained/can be replaced.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 12, 2016 by Temp

[dogman]

Hi All

 

i was getting concerned that i was wrong/miss advised about the 150% increase so looked back at our application and advice

 

What i didn't explain is that our house is in the countryside and "replacement dwellings in the countryside  (ENV. 23)"is the policy that we worked with.

 

Our council sets a 50% increase limit whereas some others limit it to 40% or less.

 

Most allow larger if of exceptional design or innovation.

 

Our planning officer advised us that he was allowed to decide the application if we kept to the 50% increase and within the footprint  

 

Sorry for any confusion