Post pre application

[^woody^]

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.

I would expect the designer to know how to avoid terracing, and if that is all the policy says, then there are several options. The planners will know the options as will the inspectorate so it should be relatively simple to come up with a design or be confident that if need be, an appeal would be likely to succeed.

I tend to find that pre-application advice (just like LDC's) is more often used by inexperienced and amateurs. A designer should be confident in his knowledge and skills, and thats what a client wants. Don't bow to planners, but push for the best outcome for the client.

Advice should be limited to something that is going to be non-standard, to get a feel for how it would be interpreted

 

[A_Novice]

This is the exact wording (from a 2010 doc)

The front of the proposed extension should be set behind the building line of the main dwelling in order to achieve a visual break in the line of the building frontage. With two storey or first floor flank extensions, in order to decrease the possibility of "terracing", a minimum gap of 1 metre from the common boundary with the adjoining dwelling should be retained for the whole length of the extension and a hipped or half-hipped roof should be used.

Although it is still subjective as the house across the road has been granted permission with the comments to the policy reading...

Following pre-application advice the applicants were advised to either set back the front elevation of the extension from the main dwelling, or set the side wall in from the boundary, in order to meet the requirements of the policy. The drawings now under consideration show the first floor recessed approximately 1.4m from the front elevation of the main house. Whilst the side elevation would continue to adjoin the boundary, there should not currently be a problem of visual terracing as the side of number 8 is set well away from the boundary.


And also from the example that the officer had approved recently with the catslide roof. She quoted this example of how we can achieve going to the boundary while avoiding terracing.

The design has been amended from the previous withdrawn application to include a cat slide roof and dormer to the front elevation.
The ridge would be set down from the main roof ridge and the extension would be set slightly back from the front elevation.
As such it would have a subservient appearance to the main dwelling. The proposed design is considered to be acceptable.

The amended design to the front elevation ensures that the two storey side extension creates a visual break and would not give rise to a visual terracing effect within views of the street scene.
The set back from the front elevation, the cat slide roof with eaves lower than those of the main house, and the small dormer set within the cat slide roof, all contribute to the subservient feel of the extension which prevents terracing.
There are other examples of two storey side extensions up to the side boundaries in Road and Road, all of which have some design feature or siting advantage to ensure they do not create any visual terracing.

I'm basically trying to do a risk assessment so I don't throw money down the drain. Based on the meeting with the senior officer and my neighbour being granted similar planning in the last 9 months I feel it is probably worth the punt.

Open to views though

 

[wessex101]

Obviously I don't know the area or the local planning history but from that policy extract and what OP has said so far I would be inclined to go for a 1 metre setback to the front and maybe drop the extension roof eaves and ridge slightly. You'd get maximum floor area whilst still "reducing terracing".

It does make you wonder why they bother to have the 1 metre gap to side boundary in the official policy if they are routinely ignoring it. So not only do we have vague and ambiguous to cope with we've now got downright misleading as well.

 

[A_Novice]

Obviously I don't know the area or the local planning history but from that policy extract and what OP has said so far I would be inclined to go for a 1 metre setback to the front and maybe drop the extension roof eaves and ridge slightly. You'd get maximum floor area whilst still "reducing terracing".

It does make you wonder why they bother to have the 1 metre gap to side boundary in the official policy if they are routinely ignoring it. So not only do we have vague and ambiguous to cope with we've now got downright misleading as well.

And then if there is an issue with this we could always revert to the catslide option as a last resort I suppose.

The confusion between the policy, the advice given and the recent approved plans obviously has made me very cautious. After meeting with them for an hour and discussing the boundary concerns I feel it is worth going for.

I have only had one quote from an architect so far as per below. Apologies if this thread is covering a few topics.

SURVEY
• measured survey
• production of existing drawings (plans, sections and elevations)
£400
FEASIBILITY STUDY
• briefing summary
• design approaches for over garage extension and remodelling of ground floor extension,
• potential options for internal layouts,
• possible external forms,
• materiality,
• meeting to discuss proposals
£500
CONCEPT DESIGN & PRE-PLANNING APPLICATION
• design development,
• production of formal drawings: 2 no. plans, 3 no. elevations and. sections,
• local planning precedent research
• production of design and access statement,
• submission of pre-application & correspondence,
• excludes planning authority fees,
£700
DESIGN DEVELOPMENT PLANNING APPLICATION
[dependent on planning department feedback]
• design development and amendments
• amendments to design following planning feedback.
• submission of application & correspondence,
• excludes planning authority fees and additional costs for OS maps, etc. required as such,
£350

 

[wessex101]

I would expect the designer to know how to avoid terracing, and if that is all the policy says, then there are several options. The planners will know the options as will the inspectorate so it should be relatively simple to come up with a design or be confident that if need be, an appeal would be likely to succeed.

I tend to find that pre-application advice (just like LDC's) is more often used by inexperienced and amateurs. A designer should be confident in his knowledge and skills, and thats what a client wants. Don't bow to planners, but push for the best outcome for the client.

Advice should be limited to something that is going to be non-standard, to get a feel for how it would be interpreted

One of these days I would like to visit planet Woody, where client's have bottomless cheque books to pay for speculative applications and numerous re-designs and all planning policies are clear and simple and planning officers helpful and approachable. It sounds wonderful.

 

[wessex101]

Fee seems on the high side, shop around and I'll bet you'll halve it.

 

[^woody^]

One of these days I would like to visit planet Woody, where client's have bottomless cheque books to pay for speculative applications and numerous re-designs and all planning policies are clear and simple and planning officers helpful and approachable. It sounds wonderful.

This is what I do. I design a scheme that should in my opinion get approval.

If the planners don't like it, after consulting with the client I redesign at no cost. That's how I think it should be done.

I would only charge extra if the clients want the design altered, or if they want a complete rethink after a rejection.

 

[^woody^]

And then if there is an issue with this we could always revert to the catslide option as a last resort I suppose.

The confusion between the policy, the advice given and the recent approved plans obviously has made me very cautious. After meeting with them for an hour and discussing the boundary concerns I feel it is worth going for.

I have only had one quote from an architect so far as per below. Apologies if this thread is covering a few topics.

SURVEY
• measured survey
• production of existing drawings (plans, sections and elevations)
£400
FEASIBILITY STUDY
• briefing summary
• design approaches for over garage extension and remodelling of ground floor extension,
• potential options for internal layouts,
• possible external forms,
• materiality,
• meeting to discuss proposals
£500
CONCEPT DESIGN & PRE-PLANNING APPLICATION
• design development,
• production of formal drawings: 2 no. plans, 3 no. elevations and. sections,
• local planning precedent research
• production of design and access statement,
• submission of pre-application & correspondence,
• excludes planning authority fees,
£700
DESIGN DEVELOPMENT PLANNING APPLICATION
[dependent on planning department feedback]
• design development and amendments
• amendments to design following planning feedback.
• submission of application & correspondence,
• excludes planning authority fees and additional costs for OS maps, etc. required as such,
£350

Way too much.

Less than £1k all in for planning approval. A few hundred more for the building regs design - as most of the work will be done at the planning design stage.

 

[A_Novice]

Way too much.

Less than £1k all in for planning approval. A few hundred more for the building regs design - as most of the work will be done at the planning design stage.

Really??

I am in the South East and speaking to people it is costing between 3k-3.5k from start to building regs plans.

I would love 1k and would have probably already had a punt at the application if that were the case.

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

This is what I do. I design a scheme that should in my opinion get approval.

If the planners don't like it, after consulting with the client I redesign at no cost. That's how I think it should be done.

I would only charge extra if the clients want the design altered, or if they want a complete rethink after a rejection.

What about if the client wants something that may not get approved? You ignore that and draw them a box?

 

[wessex101]

Really??

I am in the South East and speaking to people it is costing between 3k-3.5k from start to building regs plans.

I would love 1k and would have probably already had a punt at the application if that were the case.

I wish I could get away with charging £3.5k for a planning application for a little 2 storey side extension. Seriously I would love to know how they do it. Is it just the jaunty bow tie and brightly coloured shoes?

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

Really??

I am in the South East and speaking to people it is costing between 3k-3.5k from start to building regs plans.

I would love 1k and would have probably already had a punt at the application if that were the case.

Yep, I'd be less than £2k for planning and regs so easily less than £1k each. Fees on top mind. But in my defense I have sod all overheads.

 

[A_Novice]

I wish I could get away with charging £3.5k for a planning application for a little 2 storey side extension. Seriously I would love to know how they do it. Is it just the jaunty bow tie and brightly coloured shoes?

Although when speaking to people that 3k might include structural engineers fees etc which they consider part of planning when really it might not be as that comes after approval.

Just got another quote. All excluding VAT. So for this one £800+£400+Council fee to do the planning bit.

For any alterations to plans its £50 per hour.

Stage 1
To: Visit site and take check measurements, copy clients £ 400.00
existing paper drawings and produce a preliminary scheme.
Request and attend Pre application meeting. Plus reasonable
disbursements.
Invoiced on attendance of site meeting.
Stage 2
To: Carry out a full measured survey and produce existing
drawings and two Proposed schemes.
Invoiced on Issue of drawings to clients.

£ 800.00
Plus reasonable
disbursements.

Stage 3

To: Produce Proposed drawings and submit Planning Application.
Invoiced on issue of completed Planning drawings to client
and prior to submission of Application to Local Authority.

£ 400.00
Plus reasonable
disbursements.

Stage 4
To: Upgrade drawings and produce additional drawings / details
as required and submit Building Regulation Application.
Invoiced on issue of completed Building Regulation drawings
and notes to client and prior to submission of Application to
Local Authority.

£ 1100.00
Plus reasonable
disbursements.

All the above figures exclude disbursements, Engineers and Local Authority fees. Each
stage fee must be settled in full before work on the next stage can proceed.

 

[A_Novice]

I have probably exhausted this thread now so just wanted to say thanks for everyone's opinions and helpful views.

I'll keep you posted.

Cheers

 

[^woody^]

What about if the client wants something that may not get approved? You ignore that and draw them a box?

The clients are asking for the designers advice.

That advice should include translating the client's wishes and requirements into something than can actually be built - both in terms of planning permission and technically for building regulations - and economically (assuming cost is a consideration).

So if the clients are hell bent on the application going in contrary to the advice, then that's fine. I appreciate that some people want to test the planning policy and/or take a chance.

I have done some applications where the application would in no way be approved, and that was advised, but they wanted to take the chance because the gains would have been considerable.