What do you think of these plans?

[indus]

Hi Woody

The existing house is brick on the bottom half and rendered top half.

The extension would use the same brick/render configuration with everything matching. All windows and external timber work ie soffits, fascia boards etc will be made bespoke from timber to match the original.

Roof tiles will also match.

In terms of the actual 'shape' of the extension it's sort of where we've arrived as a result of planning constraints. I wanted a full depth side extension with double storey.

The ground floor element is staggered back 2m and then the first floor element staggered back a further circa 7m due to planning issues.

As a result the extension has taken the shape it has, but I do have concerns about what has resulted.

When you say the extension doesn't look Edwardian what do you mean? And more importantly what would you do to make it look Edwardian

Thanks again

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

I tell thee, you would never guess that that's Edwardian, it looks much much later but maybe just the ways its drawn as mentioned.

The little hip roof at the front, on the single storey is odd, I did one before like that and it looked awful. In fact here it is:

Untitled

• freddiemercurystwin
• 17 Aug 2012
• 1

Looks like there's an existing window you're trying to retain, that's for the stairs presumably?

A lot of glazing on the front too.

On the front, why is the extension brick when the existing front elevation is plain (rendered presumably?)?

The approved drawings do not match the existing in materials at the back either, on the rear wall at ground level is plain (rendered?) yet on the approved its brick?

On the side elevations on the approved one there seems to be a pitched roof hiding the dormer which incidentally seems to have grown by about a foot. Also the chimney's are in deferent positions as also the high level window in the gable, which seems to be hatched in the approved but not the existing.

Has it really got that odd little flat roof up on the existing?

And it goes on and on. We could be here all day I think!

All a bit poor frankly. If it were me I'd be seriously considering starting again with a different agent.

Am pretty surprised you even got that one approved tbh.

 

[indus]

Hi Freddy, yes it really is very Edwardian I promise you. I now understand why you may have all got somewhat the wrong idea about both the existing house and the approved extensions.

Yes the drawing is quite poor in its detail. Materials ie bricks, render etc have not been accurately shown.

I have also mislead you, the front of the house is all brick and the sides and rear are half brick half render. Any extensions will follow this pattern on the appropriate sides no matter what is shown on the drawings.

This is quite poor and I apologise as this makes it more difficult for you guys to give advice. Here is a pic of the front of the house to give you a better idea



And yes I was trying to preserve a lovely original stained glass window that is on the stairs.( pic below)

 

[indus]

And now to confuse the issue with even more drawings!!

1) In the approved drawings the first floor is staggered back circa 5m as compared to ground floor.

2) In the rejected plans it was flush with the ground floor

3) In these amended plans I have pushed the first floor back circa 3m to see whether they accept this compromise.

]


Thanks


Sorry about the size of the pics. They are all from my phone as my digi camera is broken and so I can't get them from the phone to my album

 

[^woody^]

It seems to me that the drawings are not accurate and are out of proportion. The front elevation looks squashed and higher than it is wide, where as from the photo, the elevation looks more square. So its making things look cramped and tall.

Again from the front you have a modern hipped design going on to a gabled property. I would have kept the front with a single slope design and no hips

Also there are too many windows at the front, causing the elevation to be too cramped and appear overly tall and narrow

On the side, there are modern windows in modern proportions which don't go. There needs to be something to give them more presence - some feature above and below them to make them appear larger and more in keeping with the existing frames. This can be done in a brickwork feature

And the eaves are different to the existing in terms of depth. On the drawing the existing is showing a narrow eaves - replicated on the extension, when in fact there is that thick black piece of timber. This could be mimicked on the extension with a brick detail or contrast

There seems to be too much going on ..... and too much of the wrong thing.

I often criticise use of proper Architects for basic extension work as being over the top. I think this is a good example of the other extreme where a poor, clueless designer has just drawn an extension with no skill or thought about the design. This guy should perhaps stick to square, rear flat roof kitchen extensions

 

[indus]

Hi Woody

Thanks for your comments. To be fair to the agent I was never interested in him drawing or designing the detailed features ie size of windows, eaves etc. These are all things I myself was going to specify to the builder to make sure every brick, tile, timber detail etc matched.

All I was interested in was getting the footprint approved, and the first set of plans were approved.

So please assume all these details will be taken care of when it comes to the build. I am interested though in what you said with regards to

1) Too much going on. Could you please elaborate?

2) Could you also please give some more info about how you would design the roof lines.

Your comments have brought home to me how inaccurate the drawings are in terms of detail. It hasn't mattered to me because I've always known those details would be well looked after by me on site. I will now get the agent to tidy all those things up before I put my final amended proposal to the planners.

But what I'm really hoping for from you guys is whether you feel the bigger picture works ie the staggered design and the roof line that comes with it.

Many thanks again for your expertise

 

[noseall]

You seem to have plenty of detail going on with the existing property, what with that corbelled-out parapet roof, tile hung full height bay with a 'Goth' tiled roof, timber column canopy, and severe glazing, so 'fluffing' up the extension will be a mistake.

As Woodleg has said, the extension either needs to mimic existing or be slightly understated or else any severe embellishments with make it stick out like a sore thumb due to its 'newness'.

I couldn't help noticing the unusual tall (black) fascia with dog tooth detailing. I guess the depth is mainly due to the inability to build brickwork over the bay so they just carried on with the deep fascia for continuity.

 

[indus]

You seem to have plenty of detail going on with the existing property, what with that corbelled-out parapet roof, tile hung full height bay with a 'Goth' tiled roof, timber column canopy, and severe glazing, so 'fluffing' up the extension will be a mistake.

As Woodleg has said, the extension either needs to mimic existing or be slightly understated or else any severe embellishments with make it stick out like a sore thumb due to its 'newness'.

I couldn't help noticing the unusual tall (black) fascia with dog tooth detailing. I guess the depth is mainly due to the inability to build brickwork over the bay so they just carried on with the deep fascia for continuity.

Hi Noseall and thank you.

But I am getting confused by these 'too much going on', 'fluffing up' and 'severe embellishments' comments

Are you guys saying that my extensions (approved or proposed!) show these characteristics? If so please tell me how so I can reconsider and see about rectifying it.

To my mind, I see the extension looking like this

1) On the front elevation there will actually be only one window on ground and one on first floor. These will be scaled down exact timber copies of existing front windows. The ground floor window could even have identical stained glass if needed

2) Front elevation bricks will match existing bricks

3) All fascia/soffit details will flow and match

3) The side elevation will have matching bricks on the bottom half and then matching rendered top half and then painted. So again should be identical in construction materials/colour to existing.

4) There are existing single glazed timber traditional windows (some stained) on the side. When they are covered by the extension they will also be replicated on the new side by exact copies made in new timber double glazed units. Even any stained glass will be replicated (at considerable cost)


To my mind I'm doing my best in this way to make the extension look as much as possible like the existing. I'm not sure what more I can do.

So that's why I'm getting confused and wondering why you guys feel 'there is too much going on' or things are getting 'fluffed/embellished'

What I really don't have much control over is the actual shape and especially the roof line. As I've said due to the ground floor having to be staggered back 2m and then the first floor staggered back even further it has defined its own shape/roof line if you get what I mean.

It's that design which to a greater extent has been forced on me due to planning constraints that causes me the most concern. I have difficulty imagining in my minds eye what this staggered design with it's accompanying roofline will actually look like once constructed.

Will it look ok because I'll have meticulously matched in all materials or will it look like a dogs dinner due to the staggered design?

If it will look like a dog's dinner is there anything I can do to improve that given the planning constraints I have mentioned?

Sorry about the long posts, but I'm just trying to get my issues across.

And as always thanks for your time

 

[^woody^]

These are all things I myself was going to specify to the builder to make sure every brick, tile, timber detail etc matched.

So please assume all these details will be taken care of when it comes to the build. I am interested though in what you said with regards to

It hasn't mattered to me because I've always known those details would be well looked after by me on site. I will now get the agent to tidy all those things up before I put my final amended proposal to the planners.

You can not swap change and add stuff to the build if not detailed on the approved plans.

These things should be sorted out at the design stage, and drawn on to accurately show what the finished design will look like. The whole idea is that the planners get to decide if the proposal is acceptable, and if you leave stuff off, then there is the risk that the design looks crap and so they don't approve it. Conversely, if they approve a design and you alter it, then action could be taken against you.

Design is not so much about matching, but more about harmonising and complimenting the new to old. So its not that important to mimic and try and use the same materials, but proportions and themes often need to be replicated, so that the new work whilst obviously new, can have some contrast and be distinct while still complimenting and harmonising with the existing

You can look at extensions where the designer has tried to match everything up and it can still look added on, and then you can see a completely different design extension which looks great as a contrast to the existing house.

That is what design is all about and that is the designers job

As for too much going on, well ideally things need to be proportioned. Too much of anything is bad, and its not just a case of filling an elevation with frames, or whatever, but having the right proportions of everything so that no one thing stands out

Design is subjective, but there are fundamental element of design which need to be included

 

[indus]

These are all things I myself was going to specify to the builder to make sure every brick, tile, timber detail etc matched.

So please assume all these details will be taken care of when it comes to the build. I am interested though in what you said with regards to

It hasn't mattered to me because I've always known those details would be well looked after by me on site. I will now get the agent to tidy all those things up before I put my final amended proposal to the planners.

You can not swap change and add stuff to the build if not detailed on the approved plans.

These things should be sorted out at the design stage, and drawn on to accurately show what the finished design will look like. The whole idea is that the planners get to decide if the proposal is acceptable, and if you leave stuff off, then there is the risk that the design looks crap and so they don't approve it. Conversely, if they approve a design and you alter it, then action could be taken against you.

Design is not so much about matching, but more about harmonising and complimenting the new to old. So its not that important to mimic and try and use the same materials, but proportions and themes often need to be replicated, so that the new work whilst obviously new, can have some contrast and be distinct while still complimenting and harmonising with the existing

You can look at extensions where the designer has tried to match everything up and it can still look added on, and then you can see a completely different design extension which looks great as a contrast to the existing house.

That is what design is all about and that is the designers job

As for too much going on, well ideally things need to be proportioned. Too much of anything is bad, and its not just a case of filling an elevation with frames, or whatever, but having the right proportions of everything so that no one thing stands out

Design is subjective, but there are fundamental element of design which need to be included

Hi Woody

I take your point on not being able to swap, change or add stuff that has been approved. However depending on what it is it can present little problem.

If what you change it to is not fundamentally 'more' than what has been approved I've been led to believe it won't be a problem. In my case it's the reverse, ie two windows are shown on the front elevations, if I only put one instead then the planners are not going to complain. If I had put twenty windows instead then of course they would have gone mental.



I do take your point that it is not helping my case if I don't make clear the steps I will be taking to ensure at least material matching. I will have the drawing rectified next week to be more accurate.

Anyway, I take all your points regarding the 'design' aspect, thank you. This is the area where I would be most grateful for input if you might be kind enough to help.

You've seen a pic of the front of the house and I've explained the planning issues I have with the staggered design.

What would you suggest, in design terms, to make the extension as harmonious as possible?

Many thanks for your help

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

In a nutshell woodplops, Indus would like you to redesign his extension as its a bag of spanners as currently drawn/approved!

Indus, this ain't gonna happen, it needs a whole approach to the whole extension, tweaking this r that is not the right approach.

You've not even posted the floor plans.

This isn't how design works.

 

[indus]

In a nutshell woodplops, Indus would like you to redesign his extension as its a bag of spanners as currently drawn/approved!

Indus, this ain't gonna happen, it needs a whole approach to the whole extension, tweaking this r that is not the right approach.

You've not even posted the floor plans.

This isn't how design works.

To be fair Freddy I'm not expecting Woody or anybody else to completely redesign the extension and provide me with drawings

What I'm looking for are some pointers, ie some fundamental design principles but with respect to my particular existing property.

I've been told that given the planning issues with staggering if I want an extension the full depth of the property then this is really the only form/design it can take.

This is what I'm trying to get to the bottom of, is that true or can something else be done? There is no point paying somebody else to design it if they come up with the exact same design compromises due to planning issues

And though you keep saying it's a bag of spanners, or a pig with lipstick you haven't even given a hint as to what you might do differently.

I'm very mindful of not abusing the advice/time of people on this forum by trying to get them to do for free what I should be paying for.

All I'm after is a little guidance, some pointers, some principles etc

I hope you understand where I'm coming from

 

[^woody^]

Design is subjective, and everyone will probably have a different idea as to what fits or what works and what does not. But despite that, there are 'rules' to follow which ensure that the design can fit in as much as possible with the existing.

We can all chip in with our own thoughts on this and that, but whoever does the design can't just look at individual items and should really use a holistic approach and include things which all work together

I can't really add much more as there are several things to look at and try, and what on its own may seem a good idea, may not work when viewed in context of the rest of the design. That's where the designers skill comes in to combine things that work together

A designer should be able to explain his thinking and concept, and this is more than "I've put two windows in to give you more light"

The things that definitely need doing are removal of those hips. And from the front, there should only be one prominent feature - which is your existing bay and turret, so the extension front and particularly the ground floor extension needs to less "in your face" - more subservient is the term

On that, I've noticed that those GF and FF windows are not even central, and its all out of alignment

You're probably more confused than ever now, but I would get your designer to tidy up the drawings so that they are accurate, that features are drawn on, and that things line up as they should. Then have him remove the hatching so that you can see the outline better and appreciate how things all work together

 

[indus]

Thanks Woody.

Your roof comments are interesting. Can I just make sure are you talking about the approved plans or amended proposed plans?

Thanks again

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

Your approved drawings are approved so if you go with this scheme you shouldn't vary them too much otherwise you'll be in breach f planning.

I would concentrate (if you have time) on getting your current application approved but with some rationale. If it gets rejected you can resubmit with another scheme and the planning fee won't apply.

As I and woody have mentioned this needs an overall approach not just try this and try that, that is not how design works. Whether you do this or you get your 'designer' to do this is up to you. This can't be done by some members on here chipping in their suggestions it needs an overall approach.

But as mentioned just getting the drawings accurate and looking more architectural will help anyway.