Planner refused our first floor extension as it would be incongruous and overbearing. We have complied with the 45 degree rule.
He also said it was not subordinate even though the roof is more the 50cm below the terrace roof line, doesn't take up the full width by any stretch and is shorter than the ground floor extension which put in on the 60s.
Was based on the design of other two other approved extensions on the same terrace. Both approved in the last 3 years and council have not adopted new policies in that time.
Our agent spoke to him and he said along other things he didn't want to create a precedent for first floor extensions on the street (despite there already being several which he fails to mention in his report) and also, if we built it and next door but one then built one it would make the mend house feel like a tunnel. None of this in the report but surely they can't take hypothetical future applications into consideration?
He also said it was not subordinate even though the roof is more the 50cm below the terrace roof line, doesn't take up the full width by any stretch and is shorter than the ground floor extension which put in on the 60s.
Was based on the design of other two other approved extensions on the same terrace. Both approved in the last 3 years and council have not adopted new policies in that time.
Our agent spoke to him and he said along other things he didn't want to create a precedent for first floor extensions on the street (despite there already being several which he fails to mention in his report) and also, if we built it and next door but one then built one it would make the mend house feel like a tunnel. None of this in the report but surely they can't take hypothetical future applications into consideration?