Advice needed on rejected application

[rak85]

I know you're pressed for time, but honestly, just whack in the appeal.

I will submit on Monday. Preparing statement now and gathering clarifications.

 

[rak85]

I suspect Ms Kirsty Shirley's preferred pronouns are she, her, and hers - but mine are I, me, and mine, so what would I know.

A bit too late but I was referring to person who wrote officer's report... Mr Derek Lawrence

 

[rak85]

It's not a particularly large or bulky extension. It's pretty standard in context of the existing.

Just from the side and rear elevation it's clear that the extension is subservient - the large existing gable, parapet and high existing roof help minimise the appearance of the extension. It's not even borderline big.

The reference to the ridge length is nonsense, as is the reference to breaking up the "uniformity" of the eaves.

It seems like the planner has taken an exception to the proposal, for whatever reason, and then tried to justify refusal with some tenuous statements.

Design detailing could be better. It's not helped the proposal, but perhaps there was no inkling that the proposal would be rejected, and so the designer has not paid better attention to design detailing and presentation. Normally, if a proposal needs a little push and planners persuaded, the designer (a good designer) would concentrate more on detailing and presentation and include extra views to "assist" the planner in reaching the right decision. Emphasising and deemphasising things as necessary.

As it stands, I would suggest it is appealed.

At the same time, you should explore what alterations are needed for a resubmission.

Obviously there are costs for both these, unless you do it yourself. Apart from your designer being a bit crap, I don't don't think you can blame them. OK, perhaps if they replicated the parapet and corbel features in some way, and had given more thought to the windows it may have looked better and been more persuasive - but as we don't know their brief, it's difficult to judge.

BTW, I did submit an appeal and awaiting a decision. I also talked to my designer and she said the windows were not aligned because of building regulations. The new windows have to be at a certain height from floor. The old windows weren't.

After several emails, LPA refused to give me any advice without opting for their pre-planning service and they said that even in pre-planning, they won't tell me what was wrong (in their view) but will only assess any plans I will submit to that service without official confirmation but could still be rejected even if designed 100% to their advice. So, more or less like throwing stones in dark and hoping something will hit the mark, twice.

I'm thinking of fallback now if the appeal is dismissed. I created another thread to get advice on permitted development rights. Any input is greatly appreciated.

 

[rak85]

Finally, an update...

The appeal has been dismissed today not because of the bulk but because of the corbel features and discrepancies between the roof plan and elevation plan. Although I submitted the plans that set the north-east wall of the proposed extension back by 20cm to the right, the appeal officer says he did not receive them.

Anyway, attaching the full decision report for anyone interested. I have decided to stick to single storey rear extension under permitted development as described in other thread.

Thanks for all your help

 

[jeds]

With respect, I did advise replicating the corbel detail and re-applying. Had you done that the extesnion would have looked much more in keeping - and moreover, looks like it would have been allowed.

 

[rak85]

With respect, I did advise replicating the corbel detail and re-applying. Had you done that the extension would have looked much more in keeping - and moreover, looks like it would have been allowed.

I did replicate it and sent it to the LPA and they rejected it saying that that it won't reduce bulk. Also sent it to appeal where they did not consider it

 

[^woody^]

A bizarre decision to base a refusal on the corbel detail.
So if you get up there and knock the corbels off, as you would be entitled to do, then any new application would be acceptable because there are no corbels to worry about!

Agree that the original design was crap, and that was your fundamental problem. Lots of extensions are done on lots of buildings with "features" and as long as the extension is designed well, they are accepted.

 

[jeds]

The appeal has been dismissed today not because of the bulk but because of the corbel features

Ahh, I see, when you said "not because of bulk but because of corbels" I read that the other way around. The revised drawings with the appeal documents didn't seem to show corbels. Perhaps they got mixed up.

 

[Nakajo]

I haven't read the decision, but from what you're saying it sounds as though the bulk was acceptable to the Planning Inspector. On that basis, I would re-apply, citing the verdict of the Inspector.