Planning permission to convert bungalow to two storey

[akist]

Hello everyone,

I live on a cul-de-sac of bungalows built between 1960 and 1980. Over the years, most of these have built bedrooms upstairs in their lofts. In particular two bungalows have built box dormers at the rear spanning all the width of the bungalow, flat roof, and quite ugly. One has even put a balcony up there.

Over the years I have applied to build a two storey house and have been refused consistently.

Lately I applied to extend downstairs and to raise the roof height by 1.5 meters and that was approved, complete (pleasant) surprise!

Then I applied to have large dormers at the rear with pitched roofs (not ugly box dormers like the neighbours) and much smaller dormers at the front inside this enlarged loft space and was refused. The refusal said that no one had dormers at the front, which is fair enough. It also said that the rear dormers were large and not subservient to the bungalow. I protested saying that at least two other bungalows had built monstrosities of box rear dormers completely squaring out the rear elevation and how could they then say that my rear dormers were not subservient even though they were (proportionally) smaller with pitched roofs? I therefore appealed and in the appeal I provided photos of those other bungalows and their monster rear dormers, partly visible from the street, while mine would be 100% invisible. I lost the appeal because the inspector said that no other bungalow had front dormers, and again fair enough, but he also said that he was unaware of any rear dormer extensions in the street !!!! This is ignoring the appeal application complete with aerial photos and approved plans for other applications with huge rear dormers.

So then I complained to someone at the Planning Inspectorate and incredibly they replied:
"Whilst your disappointment in not gaining the planning permission you sought is understandable, this in itself does not mean that the Inspector was wrong, or that he has ignored or perverted the facts, as you suggest. As you say, it may be that other properties opposite your property have similar rear dormer extensions. However, he would not have been able to see these at the rear of the properties concerned. He does not say that they are not there, only that he was unaware of any."

So if the inspector did not see those rear dormers, which are visible from the street as you drive down to my house, how did he arrive at my house, was he teleported? Even if you could somehow miss them, his job is to know the facts before basing his decision on incorrect statements...

This is the situation I am at today. It feels as if I am talking to some third world government officials, as you see on some old films...

I am thinking of re-applying and taking out the front dormers, which is fair enough, but I have no guidance on the rear.

Any ideas short of shooting the planners would be mostly welcome!

Many thanks

 

[^woody^]

I could book you in next Thursday at 2pm for another hour, to listen to your problems if that will help?

Alternatively you could just design in accordance with the local planning policy.

 

[wessex101]

Difficult to say without seeing your Statement of Case document. Did you make your argument about neighbouring rear dormers prominent enough in the document?

Besides, if you accept that the front dormers were unacceptable your appeal would have failed anyway. You should have gone with a re-submission without the front dormers and then appealed.

 

[akist]

Difficult to say without seeing your Statement of Case document. Did you make your argument about neighbouring rear dormers prominent enough in the document?

Besides, if you accept that the front dormers were unacceptable your appeal would have failed anyway. You should have gone with a re-submission without the front dormers and then appealed.

Well, the case was made by a Chartered Town Planner, member of the Royal Town Planning Institute with 16 years in Local Government planning, I quote selectively, as he introduced himself. My rear dormers would be invisible from the street and he acknowledged that.

I am confused how the inspector can so blatantly disregard the written statements and the photographs? To ignore such evidence is a sign of corruption.

I will reapply, as you said, by taking out the front dormers, but there is nothing stopping them from rejecting and once more ignoring all evidence written and photographic. Is there another way?

 

[wessex101]

You haven't actually said why the original application was refused and the appeal denied. I assume as you employed a planning consultant he specifically addressed those issues. The only reason for refusing the rear dormers that are not visible from the highway that springs to mind would be loss of privacy to neighbours and possibly overbearing/bulk. Those can usually be argued as you would probably be able to do the same thing under permitted development. I had a very similar project a couple of years ago and was worried about the rear dormer so I put in a pre-app for the dormer on it's own to get confirmation it was PD. Once I had that in the bank I went in with the main application for the new roof with raised ridge and exact same rear dormer... it sailed through when I was expecting a real fight.

In my limited experience appeals can be a bit of a lottery. All you can do is present your appeal statement of case in the best possible way. I have found that rather than using a scatter gun approach and deluging the inspector under an avalanche of plans and photos etc. and hoping he picks out the salient points I'd go for a more targeted statement where I focus on 2 or 3 or my strongest arguments and really ram those home. The existing rear dormers to neighbouring properties would have been one of those examples, but again it depends why they didn't like your rear dormers.

 

[akist]

Original application was refused because of (a) front dormer windows, even though small, no one else has them in the street, they all have Velux - and (b) rear dormers not subservient, even though invisible. There were no issues with overlooking.

My dormers are large, yes, but so are the others, even more so proportionally.

The case statement was good, I thought, but the inspector had none of it. As a second storey is taboo on our street, on anyone's house, and some very old residents are very, very vehemently against, I was very surprised when one house actually got permit for a two storey house plus new roof with loft over it, but it was won on appeal. The poor man did not have money to actually complete it, and only managed to re-build the garage. But even if he had built it, the council do not care it seems. Because he has built the garage, his permit is still valid I believe.

I am now thinking of re-applying and taking out the front dormers, see where this gets me.

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

Pretty clear why the appeal failed then.

Do you even need planning permission for your rear dormers? Normally they're PD.

 

[LukeB123]

There's a lot more specifics here that would help, but I'll do a semi generic response - the others have provided useful information so far.

You'll probably find that the statement would of been okay, but a statement to an inspector needs to be written with a different mind set to a planner - and even then as Wessex said - it can be random who picks it up and looks at it.

and (b) rear dormers not subservient, even though invisible.

So if the inspector did not see those rear dormers, which are visible from the street as you drive down to my house, how did he arrive at my house, was he teleported? Even if you could somehow miss them, his job is to know the facts before basing his decision on incorrect statements.

You need to take emotion out of it unfortunately. If you're saying other dormers are visible and yours are invisible, that shouldn't be your main argument - you don't want yours to be any different. You could potentially pick faults with the statement in this regard - for starters I assume you provided the inspector with specific planning reference numbers of the other dormers that have been refused and how the policies they were approved under relate directly to your proposal. (If you don't they will often say "no information before me to corroborate this" or "No evidence available" - even if there's photos etc)

In any regard whether or not you can see something from the street scene doesn't mean you automatically can build something overly dominant. As freddy said - most rear dormers can be done under permitted development If your exceeding the allowances meaning permission is required then (depending on design) I can see why they are considered not to be subservient to the main dwelling.

 

[wessex101]

As I read it the rear dormers need planning permission as they are to be added to the previous new roof with raised ridge height approved plans which hasn't been built yet.

 

[Footsoldier888]

Maybe you need to raise the roof another 2m and build some extensions, then the rear dormers might become subservient to the bungalow!

Only joking but perhaps others have followed a different sequence for example. But alternately policy may have changed...

 

[akist]

for starters I assume you provided the inspector with specific planning reference numbers of the other dormers that have been refused

I think you mean "approved" and yes, we have, both to the planners and to the inspector.

and how the policies they were approved under relate directly to your proposal.

I think that was all in the appeal, it was done by a professional planner.

In any regard whether or not you can see something from the street scene doesn't mean you automatically can build something overly dominant.

Accepted. However, proportionally, my rear dormers are smaller and blended in much better than the others. They have built a complete square box spanning the entire width and height of the roof. It is so ugly I cannot describe it. I proposed to build something smaller, with individual pitched roofs, yet they call mine "dominant".

The problem here as I see it is arbitration, I cannot find a better word. The decisions seem to be arbitrary there are no measures no percentages no calculations to base a proposed design on.

My only option is to re-apply with smaller dormers and keep applying until they allow it. I wish there was an appeal to the appeal!

 

[Notch7]

Sadly other developments that gained consent in your neighbourhood, do not set a precedent. I serm to recall there is something in the planning policy framework that says as such.

Your LA isnt Wealdon is it? They can be a pain.

 

[Nakajo]

The time to have this sort of discussion is before you submit the appeal.

 

[Nige F]

Sadly other developments that gained consent in your neighbourhood, do not set a precedent. I serm to recall there is something in the planning policy framework that says as such.

Your LA isnt Wealdon is it? They can be a pain.

More so when your house is within the Ashdown Forest protected area

 

[akist]

You should have gone with a re-submission without the front dormers and then appealed.

Both the planning and appeals officers have found the rear dormers too bulky. The proposed rear dormers are less bulky than the neighbours that went in without a hitch. I can make them even smaller t appease the planners but then I am left with a much smaller space than the neighbours, proportionally.

I attach the neighbours plans that went in without a hitch. As you can see especially on the cross section this is using 100% of the possible roof space.