Advice needed on rejected application

[rak85]

Hello, I wanted to get some advice on my recent planning application which got rejected. My architect is not much helpful and directing me down the route which she says could cost thousands.

So, here is my application: https://planning.welhat.gov.uk/Planning/Display/6/2022/0893/HOUSE

In the delegated report, the planning officer mentioned few things which I don't understand...

Firstly, he states:

Furthermore, the ridge of proposed gable roof of the extension would project approximately 4.5m at a point of the gable roof of the current dwelling which measures approximately 4.3m in depth. This disparity in size further emphasises the proposed developments bulk and massing.

From my understanding, he is talking about the length of the ridge of the extension. This, he says is 4.5M and I assume the 4.3 is depth of original house?

The house is little less than 6m by 7m. I don't understand how they got that figure of 4.3M.

Secondly, he states:

The eaves to the left side of the proposed gable roof when viewing the dwelling from the rear would also extend beyond the existing eaves of the dwelling. The existing eaves project outwards from the front and rear elevations of the dwelling in a form that this is replicated at each end of terrace dwelling in the four blocks of dwellings located to the north side of Stonecross Road. The proposal would therefore interrupt this uniformity in the eaves and would consequently detrimentally detract from the character of both the application dwelling and wider area.

The rear projection clearly shows a small bit outside the original house but somehow this is not visible in front projection... I think this is architect's mistake?

Is there any way to circumvent the issues or am I doomed because of the corner property nature?

Also, I think most of the application is permitted development and the council has approved them under PD few years ago:

https://planning.welhat.gov.uk/Planning/Display/6/2018/1136/LAWP


Also, I found few other applications which are visible from the road as mine and their applications were approved for much larger extensions:

https://planning.welhat.gov.uk/Planning/Display/6/2022/0249/HOUSE

https://planning.welhat.gov.uk/Planning/Display/6/2022/0055/HOUSE

https://planning.welhat.gov.uk/Planning/Display/6/2021/3183/HOUSE

https://planning.welhat.gov.uk/Planning/Display/6/2022/0407/HOUSE

 

[jeds]

I think the only thing you might have done is replicate the corbel type feature onto the gable end of the proposed extension. Otherwise I think you've fallen foul of a planning officer over thinking things and looking for issues that don't really exist.

You've got two options now; go back to planning with a compromise or go to appeal. If you go back to planning you have to have a compromise proposal. My advice would be add the corbel features to the extension gable and perhaps bring the NE elevation of the extension in by about 300-400mm so it is not in line with the house gable end. I would send that to planners for a reaction. If it is negative, go to appeal and also offer that alternative to the inspector.

PS the bit about the 4.5/4.3m ridge is *******s.

 

[^woody^]

Can you summarise the reasons for rejection. Is it just the two quoted above?

Generally, its a crap design. Looks like a modern extension with no character on an older house with character. The frames are all up and down and out of alignment too and bad visual design does not help.

 

[Nakajo]

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.

 

[tony1851]

PS the bit about the 4.5/4.3m ridge is *******s.

Agree about that - I couldn't understand a word of it....

 

[rak85]

I think the only thing you might have done is replicate the corbel type feature onto the gable end of the proposed extension. Otherwise I think you've fallen foul of a planning officer over thinking things and looking for issues that don't really exist.

You've got two options now; go back to planning with a compromise or go to appeal. If you go back to planning you have to have a compromise proposal. My advice would be add the corbel features to the extension gable and perhaps bring the NE elevation of the extension in by about 300-400mm so it is not in line with the house gable end. I would send that to planners for a reaction. If it is negative, go to appeal and also offer that alternative to the inspector.

PS the bit about the 4.5/4.3m ridge is *******s.

I'm meeting my architect in person tomorrow. I will ask her. Thanks for the advice.

Can you summarise the reasons for rejection. Is it just the two quoted above?

Generally, its a crap design. Looks like a modern extension with no character on an older house with character. The frames are all up and down and out of alignment too and bad visual design does not help.

There are about 5 paragraphs in the "main issues" but three of them talk about the council's planning policy and one describing the build... part flat roof, part gable yada yada. The other two are as follows:

Due the size, scale and concentration of development to the rear of the
property, the bulk and massing of the proposal would appear overbearing
towards the application dwelling. The proposed extension would represent a
substantial addition to the rear of the dwelling, with the bulk and massing of the
extension clearly visible from the street scene due to the corner plot of the
application site, the end of terrace nature of the dwelling and the positioning of
the first floor development on the application dwelling. Furthermore, the ridge
of proposed gable roof of the extension would project approximately 4.5m at a
point of the gable roof of the current dwelling which measures approximately
4.3m in depth. This disparity in size further emphasises the proposed

developments bulk and massing. The eaves to the left side of the proposed
gable roof when viewing the dwelling from the rear would also extend beyond
the existing eaves of the dwelling. The existing eaves project outwards from
the front and rear elevations of the dwelling in a form that this is replicated at
each end of terrace dwelling in the four blocks of dwellings located to the north
side of Stonecross Road. The proposal would therefore interrupt this uniformity
in the eaves and would consequently detrimentally detract from the character
of both the application dwelling and wider area.
It is therefore considered that the proposed development would represent a
poor standard of design, contrary to District Plan Policies D1 and D2; the
Supplementary Design Guidance; and the National Planning Policy
Framework.

 

[^woody^]

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.

 

[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.

Thanks for this. I went back to my architect and she is amending the plans slightly...
1. Adding a hip to the rear end
2. Maybe move the wall slightly so that it is not flush with the house
3. Align the windows with existing house

We are going to do a permitted development application for single storey as we absolutely need space now and I am planning to do appeal myself. Hopefully it will be decided before construction finishes.

 

[^woody^]

Whilst a hip will deal with the "long ridge" comment, it would seem to be out of keeping with the rest of the terrace in context of the planners other remarks.

Your designer may want to have some conversations with the planners first before submitting an amended design

 

[rak85]

Whilst a hip will deal with the "long ridge" comment, it would seem to be out of keeping with the rest of the terrace in context of the planners other remarks.

Your designer may want to have some conversations with the planners first before submitting an amended design

Thanks for pointing that out. Will ask my designer to talk to them. She did try to get an update before the application was decided but got no response, it seems. May be a pre-planning advice is better?

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

I call BS, I've never not been able to get hold of a planner to see how they're minded to go, then you get a chance to perhaps make some amendments to get it approved, it's a fundamental part of a good designers job to find out. I know a few crap designers who just whack an application in and then say its up to the client to speak to the planners. You don't just send one email and then forget about it you ring up and carry on ringing up until you get a response.

 

[^woody^]

Yes, having no notice of the application being rejected in a failing of the designer.

The designer should as a matter of course, check progress with the planners as soon as the consultation period has ended (week 4 after registration) and then again later and not let an application be refused without the option of withdrawing or amending it.

And you don't really want the designer to repeat the same mistakes with any resubmission.

 

[rak85]

So, I emailed the case officer and got this:

Good afternoon,

Thank you for your email.

I was the case officer managing the application so I am best suited to answer your queries.

The 4.3m measurement refers to the width of the gable roof of the dwelling where the proposed dormer intersects. The below screenshot indicates the area I am discussing in the report:

In regards to Permitted Development, applications submitted under Permitted Development are assessed against the criteria outlined in the General Permitted Development Order and as such are assessed differently in comparison to householder planning permission.



Kind Regards

Kirsty Shirley BSc (Hons) MSc

Development Management Planning Officer

This feels so stupid... I can go higher to the point that 4.3 becomes zero but that obviously looks bulkier than the one I submitted.

 

[^woody^]

She's suffering from Long Stupid and should really be signed off work

 

[Nakajo]

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