Attempting to 'reason' with a planning department.

[garyo]

This was a full application, not PD. The 50% is their own rule for what they do/do not allow when it comes to extensions.

Ours has a similar greenbelt policy. Normally it's framed as "disproportionate development will not be allowed in the green belt, we take this to mean 50%"

In reality, they're flexible depending on the circumstances of each individual house. My neighbour has somehow increased a 125% increase (i.e his house is now 225% of its original size) and yet I've had to argue the toss with them to get a 69% increase. I went in with a 90% proposal, had an outright rejection and settled on 69%.

What I'm getting at is that you should talk to someone that knows the local policy, and can look tat the individual circumstances of your house.

In the end I've devised a scheme of maxing out PP and PD, and sequencing the builds in the right order in an attempt to get the best of both sets of regulations. Maybe you can do something similar?

 

[lt8480]

If you get a chance to discuss with an officer you can acknowledged the policy, but be clear it is not a rule.

There is flexibility stated in planning law that makes clear no policy need to be blanket applied and that each application should be considered on its merits and impact etc. - I.e. they should not simply say its against the 50% policy (which is perhaps more positively seen as saying developments up to 50% are generally acceptable, rather than those over are not allowed), but the delegated report should then assess whether being over is acceptable in this instance.

Of course once you go beyond the policies, particularly by such large amounts, the onus becomes on the applicant to also put forward some kind of argument why the development is acceptable.

Often people point at other developments, but this is wrong when these have happened when policies were different. If they are however recent developments then a planning statement should be submitted with the application that basically identifies the other development and you can re-use much of the delegated report of that application to build the argument.

 

[PeteWilliams]

The onus becomes on the applicant to also put forward some kind of argument why the development is acceptable.

This is something I've wondered about. In our case, we are a family of 8 living in what is currently a 4 bedroom house. We simply need more space and moving isn't an option. I'm presuming that's not something that would make any difference in an appeal though?

 

[lt8480]

This is something I've wondered about. In our case, we are a family of 8 living in what is currently a 4 bedroom house. We simply need more space and moving isn't an option. I'm presuming that's not something that would make any difference in an appeal though?

They wouldn't usually consider it at all.

There are only space/extending arguments/allowances for say adding things like accessible toilets as the argument is clearer why they are needed (but they may still expect you to reconfigure instead of extend). But simply "needing" more space more more people isn't an argument as there would be no stop.

If the property is demonstrable as being overcrowded (Property Act 1985 I think) and there is genuinely no reason why you cannot move under you own terms then a route may be to apply to the council for housing rather than planning.

 

[lt8480]

If they will consider needing more space then the space standard is 124sqm for a 4 bedroom 8 person dwelling. I don't know how big your house is but if over this size the argument may be difficult to argue in any case.

 

[garyo]

This is something I've wondered about. In our case, we are a family of 8 living in what is currently a 4 bedroom house. We simply need more space and moving isn't an option. I'm presuming that's not something that would make any difference in an appeal though?

In mine and my neighbours case there were two factors that seemed to help : the large plot sizes given the relatively small sizes of the house, and being a chalet bungalow they deemed that a lot of the percentage square footage increase was in the roof and didn't really correspond to visible development. Any good to you?

 

[RichA]

Peter - what are your permitted development options? We are in Surrey greenbelt and have fallen back on PD to assist with our build. We obtained planning for a side extension (limited to <35% to avoid disproportionate development), followed by a 3m PD rear extension (combined increase c100%)

 

[big-all]

They wouldn't usually consider it at all.

There are only space/extending arguments/allowances for say adding things like accessible toilets as the argument is clearer why they are needed (but they may still expect you to reconfigure instead of extend). But simply "needing" more space more more people isn't an argument as there would be no stop.

If the property is demonstrable as being overcrowded (Property Act 1985 I think) and there is genuinely no reason why you cannot move under you own terms then a route may be to apply to the council for housing rather than planning.

thats an interesting idea to apply to the council housing department under what grounds ??
a few simple facts you need a very high points score to even be on the council housing list
having your own house gives you close to zero points score
as an aside assuming you have seating in the kitchen for all 8 occupants and say 2 reception rooms your 4 bed can now be up to a six bed under council housing rules

 

[lt8480]

thats an interesting idea to apply to the council housing department under what grounds ??
a few simple facts you need a very high points score to even be on the council housing list
having your own house gives you close to zero points score
as an aside assuming you have seating in the kitchen for all 8 occupants and say 2 reception rooms your 4 bed can now be up to a six bed under council housing rules

We're getting a bit beyond original scope, but thought it was important to highlight in case it is a severe problem as there are other routes away from planning, but as you suggest it is often hard to demonstrate overcrowding as the standards are very low as they are designed to be a minimum requirement, rather than an ideal situation. But, if overcrowding can be proven then some occupiers would be classed as homeless and they would score points. Although anyone deemed not to be dependable on the homeowner(s) (usually non related adults not requiring care) the expectation of the council would probably be those people should just move out or only those people would be housed (rather than housing all 8 people as a unit).

Pete, if you are flexible on where the extra space is created and happy to move stuff around internally you may consider loft conversion/extension (if you don't already have one). You can add up to 50 cubic meters under PD to the rear of the original roof so can add a large box dormer, which based on your sketch I'd guess would be full width of the original house. You can also add rooflights etc. in the front.

Depending on context you may also getting planning for converting the roof spaces in the side extension too.

If the roof has a low pitch and is trussed, then you may even consider replacing the whole roof in which case a steeper pitch will give more space internally - with a good design this may be readily acceptable by planning assuming rooflight and dormers etc. are designed appropriately.

 

[big-all]

We're getting a bit beyond original scope, but thought it was important to highlight in case it is a severe problem as there are other routes away from planning, but as you suggest it is often hard to demonstrate

unfortunatlely private and social housing are two different beasts
if you went to the council and said i am in an overcrowded family situation and my parents own the house they can place you on the housing list with so few points you may in several years be in the top 1000
the council will have zero interest until you turn up with the eviction notice that has been enforced
now if you have young children they have a statutory requirement to house the kids which will virtually always be in b&b or hostel type accommodation but only if you can prove your genuinely homless
they dont have to house the adults just the kids
and whats more the suitable accommodation can be several hundred miles away and if you refuse the offer they have fulfilled there obligation under the "act" and you have now made yourself intentionally homeless so no longer entitled to housing help at all
random example here
https://www.gardencourtchambers.co....-miles-away-in-birmingham-for-the-third-time/

 

[PeteWilliams]

Thanks for the replies. Council housing etc isn't on our radar. We can make do with what we have, it's just annoying that we're on a nice big plot with plenty of land out the back and to the side, and neighbours with no objections, yet we're not allowed to do extend our own home.

We did look into a loft conversion but the layout of the house and the angles of the roof meant it wouldn't be very efficient - we'd effectively lose a small upstairs bedroom and gain a slightly bigger bedroom with small ensuite upstairs. We may go down that road in the future if we get desperate.

Other than that we're doing what we can with PD - converting the internal garage into a bedroom, creating an outhouse to serve as a utility room/services closet, and then rejiggling the internal walls to split a large bedroom into two smaller ones and make better use of other rooms.

 

[securespark]

A cynic would say that the developer is giving the council a nice backhander so they will get permission, but the private individual gets stuffed.

Same as tax. Corporations get away with paying nothing or very little, individuals get hounded into the grave for every last penny.