Dc 3 planning help

[Unclebigtree]

Hi all

Any help will be great.
I have an old 1950s 3 bed bungalow ( not tradition in any way) it was an old prefab on 2 acres.
I have gone for planning to turn it into a house ( full 2 story). There are no bungalows for half a mile in any direction and some guy got planning for 5 bed house on an infill plot just round the corner last year.
The planners are saying I cant have my property changed because under policy dc3 the extention is to big and it's not inkeeping with the local properties.
How can this be right, surely I have a case as they have given planning round the corner and dc3 states it is there to protect " small traditional properties".
We are resubmitting 1 1/2 story plans as a compromise but that's not what I want to make this place a home.

 

[jeds]

I presume DC3 is the local plan policy. Obviously first step is to read that and see what it says. Next step is to look up the planning for your bloke round the corner and see what the planning report said and also the planning decision. That should tell you why he got planning.

 

[Unclebigtree]

Hi John and all
Dc3 is an adopted policy where I live.
It's says it's to protect small traditional dwellings in the country side.
You planning must be

1 the same as local properties
2 in keeping with size of site
3 proportionate to existing dwelling

As I say my local properties are house 2 and 3 story houses
And the planning that was permitted last year was given on an infill plot by appeal. The council said it was to big and highways weren't keen either but it still passed.

Im contacting a solicitor tomorrow as this just seem a joke to me.

 

[DevilDamo]

It sounds a little similar to properties I deal with that are located within the green belt. Some LA's adopt a small house policy and the most feasible way to extend is under PD (Permitted Development).

 

[Unclebigtree]

Hi David

Thanks for your reply we are classed as countryside ( not greenbelt although our village has no settlement boundary).
We have thought about permitted development but we would like to
1 get the place more like a home and add simple things like insulation before winter.
2 we can do what we like if we keep it a bungalow but I don't see why I should be the only bungalow ( have no visible neighbours in any direction).

I think the policy you are talking about sound very similar to ours, I really need a case to put together as I don't think my house is traditional at any stretch of the imagination.

Thanks again fir your replies


Fingers crossed.

 

[DevilDamo]

Hi David

It's Damo (Damian), not David.

In your first post, you mentioned about making it a traditional full two storey dwelling. Are you talking about raising the existing roof to accommodate a new first floor? If so and this is why the planners aren't favouring it, is there any reason why you can't look at installing dormers to the front and rear elevations, thus converting it into a chalet bungalow?

 

[Unclebigtree]

Sorry damo

Thanks for your advice.
My architect has said as you have to go for a chalet type.
But being 6 feet 3 they are not preferred. Plus I can't see why I can't have what all the other houses are around me.
I'm really looking for a loophole or decent argument to aid my case

Thanks

 

[DevilDamo]

The LPA will tell you applications are looked at/dealt with on a case by case basis. What a neighbour may have, doesn't mean you will get the same or similar. If your application was refused, there's no reason why you couldn't go down the appeal route in which an independant planning inspector would assess the proposal on its own merits and its relationship with the surrounding area. An appeal doesn't guarantee an approval, but there's no harm in trying. However, it can be a lengthy process.

 

[joinerjohn]

A brown envelope full of unmarked notes, given to a local councillor is known to work wonders with planning applications.

 

[jeds]

I think your only option is to apply for what you want and if (when) refused go to appeal. Before you use the bloke around the corner (or anywhere else come to that) as a precedent, make sure they are in exactly the same designated area as you. LPAs are rigorous when it comes to development boundaries for the simple reason that ignoring them or bending the rules would leave them open to no end of claims and judicial review. Using examples in different plan areas will weaken your case.

 

[Unclebigtree]

Many thanks to all.
I fear John maybe right, I'm up for the fight but would have preferred the easy option.
As my plans ( chalet style) are in I'm gonna try to bag them and then and
then change them, just so I have something in my pocket.

Thanks I'll keep you informed