pp rejected -- two-pronged permitted development approach?

[bedstuy]

We wanted to extend our kitchen by filling in the side return on a Victorian terrace and extending the back of the building 3.5 meters, matching the depth of our neighbor's extension. Our architect and builder didn't expect we'd have any problem getting PP, but the council planning officer, after doing an onsite inspection, told us he was going to turn it down. The architect asked him if he could give us guidance about changes we could make to resubmit and get it accepted, and planning officer said no, he'd turn down any application that extended the back of the house because it would overshadow the neighbor on the other side (who doesn't have an extension.) None of our neighbors objected to the plans. Also, this is down to the deadline - the council has to give its decision tomorrow. (The planning officer never got in touch about doing an inspection -- it was only after I phoned him to ask how the application was proceeding that he said he had to do the inspection immediately, so it was done on the last working day of the 8-week period.)
My architect first said we should appeal the decision and that we were pretty sure to win, because of the precedent of other neighbors having similar extensions on our street. Then he said we'd be better off trying a two-pronged approach -- doing a 3-meter extension from the back of the house under permitted development on the side where there's concern about shadowing the neighbor and getting planning permission to fill in the side return and go three meters back on the other side -- and doing the jobs simultaneously, so we get the same extension we sought PP for. Can that work? The architect told the planning officer on the phone we would use permitted development to get our plans through no matter what he decided, which Im not sure was a great move. I'm scared that since the planning officer knows we're planning to use permitted development he'll reject any application for a side return extension, and may also withdraw our PD rights. Could anyone advise how best to go ahead with this?

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

Your post is not overly clear (to me), I assume you are proposing to fill in the space next to the side of your house at the rear and extend it out beyond the rear of the existing step back?

Your architect sounds a little naive (I'm being very kind there btw) infact he should have been checking with the planers to monitor how it had been received by them and kept you up to date with progress with any necessary adjustments being made along the way assuming you agreed to them, that's not to say this could have been avoided but you would have at least got a heads up before the due date when you rang them. Lazy architect. If your application does not meet the requirements laid out in the Local Plan then the council can reject it, if it met the requirements then it would be hard for them to reject, your application should have met these requirements to ensure it had a good chance of success. Some councils place more emphasis on Right to Light than others.

Should you decide to go the PD route this document shows clearly what is PD and what is not, your extension would need to meet the requirements of both a side and rear extension. Your architect is wrong in saying this could be done under PD as previously mentioned this would be treated as a side and rear extension not just a side extension. http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/uploads/100806_PDforhouseholders_TechnicalGuidance.pdf page 17

The planner can't just take away your PD rights.

BTW, if you wish, you can have another go at the planning application without paying the £150 council fee.

 

[^woody^]

Two things

There is no such thing as precedent in planning. The local policy is the over-riding factor, and just because other work has been done, it does not make it acceptable to do do more similar work - ie make a bad situation worse, or continue poor planning decisions

Second, it may not be possible to do work under PD and a formal application together.

If the proposal conforms to local policy (that is not the same as "there are others in the road") then it should be approved - and there will be good grounds for appeal if not

Otherwise, it might be better to withdraw the application

You need to speak with your agent

 

[bedstuy]

Thank you both for yr replies. I will talk further to my agent but I'm wondering if the two pronged approach he suggests IS possible. As you say it MAY not be but how can we clear that up? My agent proposed maybe starting work on the pd part and then getting the pp while that's underway but that sounds like a dangerous way to do it to me. I wonder if I talk to the planning officer directly we cd agree on alterations to the plans before he rejects it such as coming in from the boundary or using a sloping roof. This is a London council that doesn't have a good rep for being easy to work with.

 

[bedstuy]

Btw freddymercury, you've got it right -- we're aiming for an l-shaped extension so the rear of the house would be a straight line. The existing projecting kitchen area is original to the 1870s terrace, and that's the part we'd use pd to build back from as that's the side the planning officer has issues with. I'm happy to go back only three meters or a bit less but not much as we have our own shadowing problem from the other neighbor and are doing this mainly to get some sun in the house ( the rear faces south).

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

I don't understand the advantage of starting an extension when you don't know how big it will be or the full extent of the works required? Or am I missing something, I could be losing the plot!

In order to avoid a rejection today (you did say decision date was today?) you would need to submit revised drawings and unless you have inside information and time travel is actually possible that ain't gonna happen. The decision has been made and is likely already sitting in the intray of the head of planning to sign off.

As mentioned by me and ^woodfeatures^ you need to ask (or frankly look for yourself as I'm not sure I'd trust your architect) your architect to confirm whether the proposed development meets with the planning local policy or not, this is fundamental to your situation.

 

[bedstuy]

I took a day off yesterday to try to deal with this, but I couldn't get hold of the planning officer -- I phoned for hours, tried to phone other members of his team, left messages, but he never got back to me, and today I see on the council website (which has also been malfunctioning) that our plans have been rejected, solely on grounds of overshadowing. I spoke to a planning consultant (recommended by the builder) about the two-pronged approach. He said it wouldn't work and says I have a good chance of winning an appeal, but his fee is 1500 pounds. I feel pretty burnt by this, after already paying an architect 1200 pounds. I feel like I'm throwing away thousands before work even begins. I'm beginngin to think I should drop the whole project, although the builder has my deposit. I really thought this would be a very straightforward project, but it's already looking like a disaster. Am I overreacting? Should I go ahead with appeal, and is 1500 quid reasonable? I just accepted the 1200 fee without questioning it because it didn't seem like a lot in the scale of the bigger project, but now it seems like a lot. Should I shop around for a cheaper consultant?

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

Talk to some other consultants, £1500 is expensive IMO.

 

[^woody^]

Compare the reasons for rejection with the local planning policy, and work out how your proposal conforms, and then do the appeal yourself.

Ask your original designer why the proposal did not pass, and get some notes to use in your appeal

Or shop around

 

[markbrick1]

a deposit to a builder even before planning was obtained????
please te,, me not,also if i was you i would appeal and put a costs application in if theres a clear precedent set dont let them refuse you,

 

[Adrian80]

I was in a similar situation,

I put in for PP for a side extension, but also wanted a conny type extension. However i thought putting it all in at one time would be to much for the planners to stomach.

So i got the pp for side extension, and have now applied for PD for the conny.

I was warned by the planning officer that i couldnt build the two simultaenously as this would breach the PP for the extension.

so i will do the ground work first for both, i.e. no building of the conny, build the extension and then do the conny.

Personally i would just complain to the secretary of state or whatever it is, and represent yourself. You have nothing to loose, and it will only cost you your time.

You might find you can do it all under PD. Flat roofs don't have eaves therefore they can be pretty high.


Good luck.