Pre-Planning - not a good response

[LittleEsme]

Has anyone managed to successfully get planning despite a negative response from Pre-plan? Our plans have not been looked upon favourably for a few reasons - a few things we can compromise on (i.e. a 5m side extension instead of 6m), using local stone for the side extension in keeping with the area (although it's not listed nor a conservation area).

That said, really don't want to compromise on the roof height. We are elevating it slightly to get more space in the attic conversion, but lowering it (the original gable wall is already very short - confirmed by a builder) so if we lower it, we lose the potential for space in the attic area.

The property is on a steep road with no houses at all in front of it. The houses behind are higher up, even with the elevated attic.

Has anyone ever compromised on pre-planning without making the full changes straight away? Help!

Well there’s no harm done in submitting (with your eyes wide open) a full planning application based on what you want - compromising where you can.

If it’s permitted - great.

If it’s refused you can submit within 1 year, free of charge, a revised application to try and overcome the reason for refusal. You can also submit a planning appeal to the Planning Inspectorate against the refusal of planning permission.

In my experience, people often use the first go as the equivalent of a pre-app - they submit their optimal scheme, knowing that if it gets refused they have a solid decision notice and delegated/committee report to work with when planning amendments. This is partly because with caseloads and the need to attempt to get a full planning application dealt with within the 8 week target date, pre-apps tend not to be dealt with any faster than a planning application, and you have the advantage of getting a formal response rather than a “without prejudice” informal response.

Thank you @Janleverton. I understand.
I'm concerned about the attic elevations. If we reduce height, then we compromise on quite a lot of space inside which has a knock on effect on the space available for the room configuration. I have 2 very tall teenagers - touching 6'1 and 5'8 (and growing). Any lower and this will be unworkable for them. Would it be any point in me stating that lowering the roof would halt our plans and prevent us from developing this property to suit our needs (cannot extend other side nor back)?

Can you put up a picture of the plans?

I don’t think they would count as specialty circumstances unfortunately. Personal circumstances are rarely material planning considerations, unless, for example, accommodation is being built to provide disabled access/facilities.

You might be a tall family. The next family living in the house might be short. If you see what I mean - it’s about the building and not really the occupier.

Understood.

The only way of extending this house for us is to the side and upwards.
Pre-plan is already saying that we should take the 6m side extension down to 4 which is already making Bed 4 in the attic really narrow, and reducing roof height is going to make this even narrower.

We're buying this property and planning this renovation to give us more space. At this rate, we're going to have less.

Gutted, isn't the word.

is there scope to lower the ceilings on the 2nd floor to get the height in the attic?

@Africa2go Thank you for your suggestion, but I really doubt it. The property isn't quite a cottage, but it has that same style. Ceilings are already at their lowest.

I'm all for compromise, but the very things he wants us to change are deal-breakers for us. I'm so flat!

Is it too late to pull out of the purchase?

Does your design meeting the planning policies or were you looking for an exception? Has a local architect drawn up the plans - if you've not got that far, it may be that there's a way of making it work (eg different roof covering / thinner insulation etc so you meet the Council's external roof height but you get more internal head height than you currently expect?)

Thinner insulation? Just no!

What you really need to do is evaluate what’s been allowed in the area. What’s the local design statement? You are not listed or conservation area but design statements cover all areas? How much are you allowed to extend? What’s been allowed elsewhere? Do they think you will over extend on the plot?

For what it’s worth, think of this development as several stages. The big money developments around here pull down the original house and start again. 50% extra space given automatically. We are green belt and AONB. Then, apply for an extension after the first build. You will of course know where the extension is going but you don’t ask for it first time around. The other way: build down. Build below ground level. I’m assuming no architect is involved because you are thinking in one dimension only. I’ve seen proposals change considerably around me. Going down on a sloping site is now the big thing. You get the space and the height.

A friend of mine wants to move house as they can't get planning to raise the roof and the space in unworkable without it.
Apparently its something to do with the line of houses on the street, even though there are taller blocks of flats around. So I feel your pain.

Yes, we were refused but got a planning consultant firm on board and a new architect who came up with new ideas. We actually prefer the new design, which isn't so far from the original.

Thanks for everyone's advice.
I can't compromise on insulation - especially in a roof.

We could pull out, but this house and the area has huge sentimental value to DH. He's counting on moving there.

Apart from maybe doing a 3d sketch up on the original street view (to form part of an impact statement) I can't think of any other way of appealing to pre-plan.
So frustrating.

I think it’s unlikely that through the pre-application process you will get a relaxation of policies or a softening of their stance.

The point of a pre-app is that it’s a without prejudice informal advisory service. There are no guarantees and no certainties.

The big thing is proportionality. Would the extensions ‘lose’ the perception of the original dwelling, would they be disproportionate?

If you’re wanting to extend by 6m to the side along with raising the roof, you’re potentially looking at a two storey side extension with an overall bulkier roof? What pp said about looking at what else has been constructed locally is spot on. This is particularly relevant if there’s a uniform or common character within the street scene. Planners look at groupings of buildings, at the scale and proportions of the original house, in order to work out whether what is proposed would be overdominant or disproportionate. Whether the space between buildings contributes to visual amenity etc.

But going back to the stage you’re at - a pre-app is an opportunity to highlight potential issues and give a rough idea of what is acceptable. It’s a jumping off point really. You won’t get certainty through the process - partly because no planner can ever say before a formal application is submitted what will or won’t get planning permission with any certainty - there won’t have been any local consultations, councillors may get involved, things that are finely balanced could go either way depending on the response to consultations.

If it’s not in a conservation area or listed, have you looked at the max. Permitted development build you could do? That won’t help with the roof I’m afraid - but might give you a “fall-back” that you could argue would be worse than what you’re proposing.

If you google “permitted development - a technical guide for householders” you should get to a helpful document on the various provisions (I would link but I’m on my phone). But an extension which would raise the ridge height of a house wouldn’t, I think, be permitted development that you can do without planning permission.

Interesting presentingpercy. Round here if you’re in the green belt and demolish/rebuild, the council tend to remove the permitted development rights for the house and use the original dwelling volume where new build wants an extension. In green belt Basements are also counted as volume regardless of whether they’re below ground or not - whether they are visible and would impact on openness or not. It’s something I can’t really get my head around, but have seen appeal decisions where the basement approach was backed up by Inspectors.

I have two Newly developed houses near me. Both have basements. Both are significantly bigger than the bungalows they replaced. Different planning authorities. Some work on m2 and some work on m3. They are supposed to look at 1948 m2. They are definitely more generous than that.

House 1 that replaced a wooden bungalow had a self contained basement included. The owners opened it up to their garden by sinking the garden. Not difficult as it was on a slope. Council insisted on pp which they refused. Appeal allowed it.

Exactly the same design has been used to turn a basement into a lower ground floor just around the corner. The basement will open out to a reduced level garden. It makes both replacement bungalows 3 storeys but, crucially, keeps the roof line low as the use of dormer windows is employed. There is another house which has done the same around 10 years ago! It is definitely the way to get more space whilst maintaining a sensible roofline. It takes persistence and money, as it’s not cheap construction, but it’s definitely something for the op to consider if height of roof is an issue.

My local council looks at floor space - saw one about 18 months ago for a replacement house where plan a included light wells and was refused. Plan b had no lightwells and would have been invisible from outside - refused and dismissed on appeal because of the house resulting in excessive increase in floor space - test being whether the replacement house would be materially larger than the one it replaced, rather than whether it looks materially larger above ground. But that’s green belt - not sure whether OPs house in green belt, and clearly different authorities have different approaches in assessing against NPPF.

I agree 100% that more and more people are looking at basements as a way to enlarge. V expensive though.

Is there no space to go back into the site rather than up and to the side, OP?

There was or is an application up the road from us that took a while to get through planning. There were 61 objections! Plenty of grounds given for refusal but they persevered, made adjustments and planning finally was granted so anything is possible... Look at reducing mass and the height as suggested. Consider going downwards (mentioned before) as this might be the best option and actually not hugely more expensive. Also think about reconfiguring what rooms are what function. Bedrooms for tall people do not have to be at the top of the house.
Get some sight lines drawn up so you can prove you will not affect amenity, do this for all aspects that seem important to your planners (design sympathetically to neighbouring buildings). Planning depts always like extensions to be set back and less height than the original building even if it results in something odd lookng, don't know why frankly but there you go.
You have to think about how to use this building and make a business case to take to the planners.

Thinner insulation? Just no!
Sorry, should have explained - I didn't mean "thinner" in terms of doing away with it or less efficient insulation, I just meant the possibility of a different product that gives the same amount of insulation but is thinner so you gain a few cm of head height internally.

We are AONB and Green Belt. The basements have been allowed and both now access reduced garden levels outside. So in effect these are 3 storey houses replacing bungalows. Both have new double garages too where no garage was on the site before. One went to appeal and the householder won.

The other key point is that with a new house, the new benchmark is the date of the new house. There is then scope for further extension. Several neighbours have done this. All objected to but they go through. We don’t object because I’m not concerned but we have many villagers who object to everything!

both now accessed via reduced garden levels.....

I'm really grateful for everyone's input - I'm sorry for not replying sooner - it's been a tricky few weeks for other reasons.

The face/front of the property doesn't face the street so the view seen from the street is the side view, which we are going to extend and improve. We cannot extend back or at the other side (too close to boundary walls - all the land is at the front or to the other side). Going down to a basement isn't an option either.

I've been advised to write a letter explaining why we want to make these changes. I have had no guidance and don't know where to start.

The starting place is an architect with experience of planning decisions and guidance in your area. There is possibly local planning guidance on preferred materials. Here it’s flints and local bricks. You don’t have to have this (we don’t) but you need first class design advice. Can you not use the steepness of the road to your advantage at all? Most decent architects know how to push the boundaries for planning and that’s what you now need to do. Builders haven’t trained as architects and you now need better quality advice.