Hi,
I have a 40 metre garden, i'm trying to build a 2 bed bungalow but planners have refused it. One of the main issues was parking for the host dwelling (house at the front) on the plans your see 2 cars facing the road, but the front garden is 4.87m in depth by 6.5m wide, apparently parking spaces need to be a minimum of 5.5m in depth if they are infront of a curtilage (bay window), so that means that the front garden is only big enough to accomodate 1 car and it would need to be sideways with a dropped kerb etc, 2 parking spaces must be provided as a minimum for a 3-4 bed house, Architect wants to add another space for this in the rear garden next to the 2 spaces for the new bungalow but the council aren't willing to except anymore revisions as they don't see it passing planning.
I've included their response here, any guidance appreciated, especially on parking.
"The proposed dwelling would be in a backland position which would appear at odds with the general pattern and grain of development in the locality, which generally comprises two-storey dwellings fronting the street with an established front building line. In this case, the proposed dwelling would be a bungalow and have no street frontage, tucked away behind (removed), in an area of open gardens free from development. Visibility from (removed) would be to an extent limited, but it would still be visible when looking up the driveway and experienced from neighbouring gardens. Whilst it is acknowledged that the dwelling would be a bungalow and so would be less conspicuous than a two-storey dwelling, it would still draw attention to itself as an incongruous feature that conflicts with the existing settlement pattern and consequently, character of the area.
This would be exacerbated by the fact that the new and existing dwelling would have a smaller garden/different site layout than its neighbours, which would appear further out of character and would give rise to a contrived and cramped appearance to the development.
I note that the applicant has drawn attention to (removed) a dwelling erected within the rear curtilage of (removed), the property of which is located to the south-west of the application site. The outline permission was allowed at appeal in 2004 (Removed) with the reserved matters granted in 2006 (Removed). The dwelling was therefore permitted prior to the NPPF and the local plan as they stand, so under an entirely different policy context. In addition, the example is considered to serve to illustrate the harm.
The permission of (removed) is so old that is doesn’t hold planning weight but also the context is different because of how the dwelling under the current application would be accessed. The development at (removed) involved an access running along the ends of adjacent gardens rather than through a narrow gap between houses.
Following the obtainment of dimensions for (removed) front curtilage, it is clear that this area is of sufficient size to accommodate only 1no. vehicle. You now propose to submit a revised plan showing the additional space to the rear. By having to split up the parking for the existing dwelling further emphasises the contrived nature of the development and does not represent high quality design. The realities of the occupiers using the rear parking space seems unlikely given the distance to the properties entrance door, which would lead to 2no. dwellings parking to the front which is contrary to the Councils policies. There is no realistic or enforceable way to control the amount of vehicles to be parked within the front curtilage.
By reason of the above, I am reluctant to accept further revised plans as officers do not see the overarching concern raised being overcome."
I have a 40 metre garden, i'm trying to build a 2 bed bungalow but planners have refused it. One of the main issues was parking for the host dwelling (house at the front) on the plans your see 2 cars facing the road, but the front garden is 4.87m in depth by 6.5m wide, apparently parking spaces need to be a minimum of 5.5m in depth if they are infront of a curtilage (bay window), so that means that the front garden is only big enough to accomodate 1 car and it would need to be sideways with a dropped kerb etc, 2 parking spaces must be provided as a minimum for a 3-4 bed house, Architect wants to add another space for this in the rear garden next to the 2 spaces for the new bungalow but the council aren't willing to except anymore revisions as they don't see it passing planning.
I've included their response here, any guidance appreciated, especially on parking.
"The proposed dwelling would be in a backland position which would appear at odds with the general pattern and grain of development in the locality, which generally comprises two-storey dwellings fronting the street with an established front building line. In this case, the proposed dwelling would be a bungalow and have no street frontage, tucked away behind (removed), in an area of open gardens free from development. Visibility from (removed) would be to an extent limited, but it would still be visible when looking up the driveway and experienced from neighbouring gardens. Whilst it is acknowledged that the dwelling would be a bungalow and so would be less conspicuous than a two-storey dwelling, it would still draw attention to itself as an incongruous feature that conflicts with the existing settlement pattern and consequently, character of the area.
This would be exacerbated by the fact that the new and existing dwelling would have a smaller garden/different site layout than its neighbours, which would appear further out of character and would give rise to a contrived and cramped appearance to the development.
I note that the applicant has drawn attention to (removed) a dwelling erected within the rear curtilage of (removed), the property of which is located to the south-west of the application site. The outline permission was allowed at appeal in 2004 (Removed) with the reserved matters granted in 2006 (Removed). The dwelling was therefore permitted prior to the NPPF and the local plan as they stand, so under an entirely different policy context. In addition, the example is considered to serve to illustrate the harm.
The permission of (removed) is so old that is doesn’t hold planning weight but also the context is different because of how the dwelling under the current application would be accessed. The development at (removed) involved an access running along the ends of adjacent gardens rather than through a narrow gap between houses.
Following the obtainment of dimensions for (removed) front curtilage, it is clear that this area is of sufficient size to accommodate only 1no. vehicle. You now propose to submit a revised plan showing the additional space to the rear. By having to split up the parking for the existing dwelling further emphasises the contrived nature of the development and does not represent high quality design. The realities of the occupiers using the rear parking space seems unlikely given the distance to the properties entrance door, which would lead to 2no. dwellings parking to the front which is contrary to the Councils policies. There is no realistic or enforceable way to control the amount of vehicles to be parked within the front curtilage.
By reason of the above, I am reluctant to accept further revised plans as officers do not see the overarching concern raised being overcome."
