Post pre application

[A_Novice]

Hi,

We had a meeting with the council today about extending our 3 bed semi detached. Basically adding a bedroom and ensuite onto the existing garage and kitchen that are positioned on the side of the property.

The reason for the pre application was because we need to be able to build to the boundary on the side to have enough space. The planning officer was confident if we stepped the front in or used a catslide roof with dormer we would avoid the terracing problem.

We are meeting with an architect next week but wanted to know what people thought of the catslide roof idea. With the catslide we could probably build nearer to the front of the house with possibly stepping in 1.5m.

My concern is where you lose headroom , is it just at the front by the dormer?

I have attached the original plans I did for the preapp.

Thanks everyone.

 

[Nakajo]

I still don't understand the reason for the pre-application. Anyway, isn't the council simply suggesting something like this...?

 

[A_Novice]

Hi,

Many thanks for the reply.

The reason for the pre application was because the council have historically made people come in from the side boundary by 1m to avoid terracing.

I didn't want to pay out for an architect to do full plans for them only to be rejected. I wanted to gauge the view of the planning officer as having to come in 1m from the side would mean the project was a non starter.

I also didn't want to pay an architect to do a pre application for me.

If you had to choose between stepping the front in by 1.5m or going for the catslide, what would it be?

Thanks

 

[wessex101]

Surely they just want you the set the front elevation of the first floor back slightly, usually 1 metre. That will give you more useable floor space than the catslide roof.

 

[Nakajo]

I'd go for the setback. It allows for a larger loft conversion at a later date.

 

[A_Novice]

Across the road were made to go back 1.4m for some reason on an indentical development.

I'm a novice at all this and struggle to imagine how it might be inside with the catslide and dormer.

The officer did mention the catslide quite a bit in discussions and used it in a example of one approved last week.

We were planning a ground floor extension to the rear also so if the stepping in option was taken we could gain by going out the back on the 1st floor.

The main thing from our point of view was she said going to the side boundary is possible.

 

[wessex101]

Was your pre-app just a meeting or do you get written confirmation? Just because they said you could go to the side boundary does not mean they will automatically approve it. Pre-App is only guidance, I have had them take a different view once the application is submitted.

Somewhere buried in the Council's planning policy documents they have probably got some sort of design guide which may give some advice on side extensions in respect of side boundaries and front set backs. Failing that if you are meeting local architectural designers they should know the local policies so you can pick their brains, it could be part of the test to see if they get the job.

 

[^woody^]

What is the actual policy? Does it state dimensions or just a subjective view of what terracing is?

When planners assess applications your designer should keep on top of things and if something is not aceptable, and can't be negotiated, then the designer should (if alternatives are acceptable to you) redesign to get approval. You or your designer should not let applications be rejected unless you want to go to appeal.

 

[A_Novice]

We are going to get written confirmation hopefully next week of the meeting.

The officer said proceed in finding an architect and submit the full plans. As long as something is done to reduce terracing as she has suggested then it should be fine.

Obviously I'll wait til I read the letter before spending any money.

She did state she would advise us not to proceed if she thought it was impossible.

I suppose it is always going to be a bit of a gamble but at least we have something that suggests it should be a positive outcome.

Thanks

 

[Nakajo]

The written confirmation's not worth much either. Incidentally, the issue of terracing is one which is sometimes won on appeal, in case they do become difficult about it.

 

[A_Novice]

I think it is more a subjective view of terracing but will dig out the actual wording for you.

So pre applications are completely worthless?

 

[^woody^]

I still don't understand the reason for the pre-application. Anyway, isn't the council simply suggesting something like this...?

WTF? Do you design for Hobbits?

The eaves of the extension should start at the height of the front canopy roof (ie just below bedroom window cill level), and could be in line with the front house elevation (ie no set back)

 

[wessex101]

Not worthless, just guidance.

Results of my side extension appeal due in a couple of weeks....watch this space.

 

[^woody^]

So pre applications are completely worthless?

For this case yes, as the policies should tell you what can and can't be done.

 

[wessex101]

For this case yes, as the policies should tell you what can and can't be done.

Sometimes the policies are so vague and ambiguous I advise clients to go for a pre-app rather than them waste money on plans if I think their proposal is dubious. As someone else suggested sometimes the official policy is just a vague comment about avoiding terracing, some interpret that as setting in from the side boundary, some a set back to the front elevation or both. They don't always give clear concise guidance with recommended dimensions, that would be far too helpful.