Loft conversion permission refused

[mizzie]

I was disappointed today to have my planning application refuse and wonder if anyone here could clarify a point for me.

Reason for Refusal1
The proposed rear dormer window, by reason of its design, scale and bulk fails to respectthe character and appearance of the host building and those in the surrounding area. As such,the proposed alterations to the roof would represent an unsympathetic addition to theproperty giving it a top heavy appearance, contrary to Policy 7.4 of the London Plan.

Apart from the frustration of seeing similar loft conversions approved on my road I appreciate from reading the posts on here that there may be techical details that I am unaware of that would make the refusal fair, so to speak.

However as the back aspect of my roof is not visible from any of the adjoining streets, not from my own garden nor from the garden of any of my neighbours, I wonder how the assessment of 'unsympathetic' etc is made?. My flat is situated facing upwards on a hill and at the back of the house there is a second roof which occludes any view of the affected roof from the street ( or from the one double decker bus that passes close by). I am not in a conservation area.

Is any of this relevant?

Many thanks for any pointers.

Newbie Mizzie

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

First question, why did you need planning permission? Did your agent not discuss the application during the approval period? Sounds like there was room for manoeuvre before it was decided. Can you post the existing and proposed drawings?

 

[mizzie]

Many thanks for your very quick response!

I needed planning permission because my property is the top - first floor- and but supported by freeholder and neighbours.

When you ask if the agent discussed it during the application proposal, are you asking if he discussed it with me or the council office ? I didn't have any futher conversations with him once the plans were submitted. I don't know if he discussed anything with the council.

I will try to upload plans now.

 

[tony1851]

OP states it is a flat - so perhaps that's why he needed p.p. (no p.d. rights).

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

Oh FFS I'm definitely off to Specsavers tomorrow!

Ahem, anyway @mizzie yes did your agent speak to the planners before it was decided? It's a leading question really because I expect he didn't. Ask him and then ask him why not.

Anyway I would speak with the planning officer and see what they would approve at least that would be my next step. It may be only a small amendment would be necessary, one that you were prepared to accept. Or maybe not but at least that will let you move forward. You know you get another application for free right? Or the LA fee is not free anyway.

 

[tony1851]

 

[Nakajo]

And this post beautifully encapsulates the arbitrariness of the present planning system. A different officer on a different day would no doubt have arrived at a different interpretation of policy. Do not take it personally.

I suggest you submit a pre-app, identifying examples of local precedent (preferably precedent that you know has obtained planning consent), and the view from the proposed extension. There is a cost for this. However, assuming that the pre-app officer agrees with you then you can go ahead and resubmit the application (with any agreed amendments). There will be no cost for this. That said, pre-app advice is no guarantee of planning approval!

Different local authorities operate different pre-app schemes. However they usually provide a scheme that let's you sit down and discuss the scheme with the officer in a short, and informal, face-to-face meeting. That's the kind of pre-app I'd be looking to have.

 

[tony1851]

Different local authorities operate different pre-app schemes. However they usually provide a scheme that let's you sit down and discuss the scheme with the officer in a short, and informal, face-to-face meeting. That's the kind of pre-app I'd be looking to have.

Don't disagree with most of what you say but pre-app meetings are often a complete waste of time.

Too often it's not deat with by the officer who will eventually determine the application. Instead they stick some junior planner at the front desk, who smugly recites - parrot-fashion - policy guidelines, who gives non-commital answers, and who leaves the applicant going away none the wiser (and a few ££ down).

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

Yes agree, Pre-Apps for anything other than major or odd (like front for example) extensions or new builds + are a complete waste of time and money.

 

[Nakajo]

In general, I share the negative opinion of the pre-app process. However, in this instance I think it's justified. Actually, it can even benefit your case to get a little snotty with the local authority as this means they're more likely to assign the case to a more experienced officer - In know this from personal experience; I've seen the 'internal' emails

 

[jeds]

Had a similar situation a year or so back. Dormer refused for being out of keeping with the area, blah, blah. You have to understand that planners rarely have anything original to say when they refuse things. What sounds like a damning description of your proposal is really just cut and paste from every other application they've ever refused. When you do lots of them you see the same description time after time after time. I walked for a hundred yards in each direction and took photos of all the other dormers in the area - some original, some added - there were at least 80 or 90 in a 100m radius. Submitted an appeal with the photos and the dormer was allowed. Complete waste of everybody's time and effort.