Heroes needed...

[JoannaC]

Hi,

I would appreciate help and guidance regarding a planning decline following appeal. It's a long story but the short version is - the local council didn't like the front of the design or size, however, on appeal the inspectorate was fine with this but highlighted an issue with the design at the back / side with the way the garage fits into the house.

The easiest option I think would be to remove the garage but this seems to be rather drastic - this was the architects suggestion. I was wondering if there are any clever people who could suggest alternatives to the way the garage fits with the house to address. The garage is on a funny angle. I've attached the link to the plans.


Best wishes & many thanks in anticipation.

Joanna

The inspectorates issue was:

However, the proposal would involve the demolition of one half of the existing garage, with the remaining part to be attached to the extension, which would be chamfered towards its rear face. As a consequence, the rear corner of the main roof to the extension would over-sail part of the garage, which would remain to be set at an angle to the dwelling. Overall, I find that this arrangement, which would be highly visible from the adjoining public right of way and from Galloway Road to the rear, would be visually awkward and unnatural, with the garage and dwelling both appearing poorly related to each other. Therefore, and contrary to the appellant’s view, I consider that the proposal would be seen as an obvious addition to No 19 and one that, by reason of its incongruous form, would cause serious harm to its original character and appearance.

House Plans - Layout

• JoannaC
• 7 Jun 2012
• 1

House Plans - Plot Location

• JoannaC
• 7 Jun 2012
• 1

 

[hotrod]

What's your question?

 

[^woody^]

Your designer should have designed the main roof to follow the wall, and not project over it as a normal square roof. That would alleviate the inspectors concerns

Or he could have squared up the first floor over the garage

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

Historically its not quite that simple Woody as we don't know why the original application was thrown out, anyway I would agree that following the appeal the solution is as you suggest.

@ the OP surely following the appeal your architect has thought of squaring up the first floor and the planners must have intimated that they would be receptive to this, as to not would fall foul of the inspectors views. It seems you now have a clear path ahead to re-submit with a squared up first floor ....

 

[^woody^]

Whenever there is a 'non-standard' design such as this, which is difficult to convey via 2d elevations, then it is always a good idea to include a 3d perspective view to demonstrate that the design is not as bad as the planners and inspector think it is when they have to make it up in their mind. Also include site features such as trees, fences, walls etc

I know it is easy to criticise other's drawings, but IMO, you probably have a satisfactory technical drawing, but it could have done with a bit more work for getting it through planning

In addition though, I am not sure if the inspector can bring in something new to his decision. You are appealing on the the councils decision and their decision process and reasons for refusal, so I would have thought that is what the inspector should be investigating - not something completely different around the side of the house. It would depend on the context and relationship of the original refusal though

 

[^woody^]

I've just had a look on Streetview, and it does seem that the rear elevation is the main elevation, and yet the corner is mainly hidden by the new garage roof.

However the councils decision does mention size, dominance, and lack of subservience - which are always valid planning issues. And the inspector does note this too (the design is contrary to the local planning policy), so it may not just be to do with that rear corner.

 

[noseall]

In other words, instead of saying "look at me i live in Southfork", the planners want the buildings to say "look at all of US".

 

[JoannaC]

Hi all,

Really appreciate your feedback and time you have taken to help. No one has mentioned the ideas you have suggested before so massive thanks

1) designed the main roof to follow the wall, and not project over it as a normal square roof

2) squared up the first floor over the garage

So I now have at least three options including the remove the garage option to go back with.

I had a go at trying to mock up the 2nd one and it was a bit of a struggle with the rear view so the current favorite option seems to be 1.

Woody - I'm hoping (or is that praying) that it is just this issue to sort out if I have interpreted the appeal decision correctly. I've included it below. The local planning authority had a long list but it was more around the design of the front, dominance and size of the extension that they were concerned with. I also agree 100% with your view around the 3d design view, hindsight is a wonderful thing as well as picking an architect who uses cad rather than the traditional methods so adjustments are easier.

Best wishes,

Joanna

Decision
1. The appeal is dismissed.
Main Issue
2. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of 19 Galloway Road and the wider area.
Reasons
3. The appeal property is a detached, 2-storey dwelling, set within a residential estate development comprising properties of similar age but with a variety of house types. The property is on the fringe of development and faces away from the cul-de-sac of Galloway Road, onto a footpath/cycle route and towards an area of open space beyond. The front boundary of the site is on the inside of a slight curve such that a double detached garage to one side of the plot is set on a noticeable splay to the side elevation of the dwelling.
4. The proposed front elevation of the 2-storey side extension would be designed to match the existing forward facing gable on the opposite side of the dwelling. When seen directly head-on, the resulting, almost symmetrical, design would reflect the appearance of some other house types within the wider area. In this regard the development would not necessarily look out of place.
5. However, the proposal would involve the demolition of one half of the existing garage, with the remaining part to be attached to the extension, which would be chamfered towards its rear face. As a consequence, the rear corner of the main roof to the extension would over-sail part of the garage, which would remain to be set at an angle to the dwelling. Overall, I find that this arrangement, which would be highly visible from the adjoining public right of way and from Galloway Road to the rear, would be visually awkward and unnatural, with the garage and dwelling both appearing poorly related to each other. Therefore, and contrary to the appellant’s view, I consider that the Appeal Decision proposal would be seen as an obvious addition to No 19 and one that, by reason
of its incongruous form, would cause serious harm to its original character and appearance. This would be contrary to the guidance set out within the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document entitled Residential Extensions and Alterations adopted in 2011 and the high standard of design that is required by Policies DS6 and H15 of the Swindon Borough Local Plan 2011 (2006) insofar as they seek to ensure that development, including residential extensions, is sympathetic to local context and the character and appearance of the original house.

6. I have noted the appellant’s need for additional living space and I recognise the efforts they have made to attempt to deal with the constraints imposed by the size, shape and layout of the site. However, these factors do not outweigh the harm that I have found. Neither do I consider that the replacement of existing railings around the perimeter of the site with a brick wall would overcome this harm, which would remain to be visible from the surroundings.

7. Due to the orientation of No 19, and its position in relation to nearby properties, I can detect no potential for any serious harm to the living conditions of any adjoining occupiers either through overlooking, loss of daylight or overbearing impact. However, for the reasons given, I conclude that the proposal would be harmful to the character and appearance of 19 Galloway Road and the wider
area.
8. Accordingly, and having regard to all other matters raised, the appeal is
dismissed.

 

[SimonH2]

As well as squaring up the first floor, have you considered lowering the garage roof ? I find it hard to visualise things from the drawings, but I suspect the garage would appear a lot less "bulky" with a flat (or low pitched) roof.

Perhaps a ridge line across the garage in line with the corner of the first floor walls - low pitch (almost flat) to the rear, and a bit steeper at the front - might make it less obvious that the house and garage intersect.

Or a low pitch roof sloping down towards the open space (away from the house) so the visual height is considerably reduced.


But at least the inspector agreed with you on the other points - so the planners will know they'll struggle to refuse you again on those.

 

[^woody^]

There may be a problem with resubmitting an application that is not significantly different

It does seem that the inspector has upheld the refusal, and so unless the planners agree on certain revisions to the original scheme (ie just the rear corner, or garage removal), then it may require a greater change to conform to their policy in terms of dominance and subservience

 

[SimonH2]

He has, however, only upheld it on one point - having rejected most of the reasons the council gave for rejection.
If the new proposal addresses the reasons for that remaining issue, then why should it not go in ?

In other words, the inspector said the front was OK, but he didn't like the garage/house corner. So why isn't addressing the garage/house corner sufficient of a change ?

 

[^woody^]

My reading of the inspectors decision is that it may not be just the rear corner.

Whilst in item (4) he notes that "the development would not necessarily look out of place", in item (5), he notes the "incongruous form", and the proposal being contrary to councils published guidance.

It is a badly worded document, and needs clarification. But the inspectors view of it "not looking out of place", would not overrule the councils policy of things like subservience and dominant extensions