Going to planning appeal

[didireallysaythat]

So after having the planning turned down we're going to try an appeal using a consultant. Any top tips?

(We're looking to put one room above a single garage which is connected to the house so the room isn't massive)

Why was it refused? That’s still going to be the key question. If the house is in AONB or green belt and subject to special local policies it won’t make any difference. What policy was it refused under? What did the officer report say? Did the councillors refuse or was it officer refusal? Ask the consultant if this was accurate based on the policies. If it was councillor refusal but the planning officer was happy and recommended approval, you have a decent chance of success.

What do other houses look like? Is it too big? Does it overlook and take light from others? What did your architect advise regarding design? Did you follow it? They usually know local places planning quirks.

Lots of questions but I would do a bit of homework on the decision and just tweak the design rather than appeal if that’s all that’s needed.

@PresentingPercy the empty space we want to put a room in is part of the street scene, building is over development of the site and thus contradicts the plan for the area. We tweaked the plans to reduce the impact (dropped the roof line, partial diner window) and it was refused (with the addition that the dormer isn't in fitting with the rest of the house). Parish council in favour, no neighbour objections, all positive except the planning officer. The over development of the site is a strange one as it's a detached house on the road into the village, every house is different, our neighbours are a bungalow with two enormous extensions, and we want an extra room on top of a flat roof garage in a 1/3 of an acre plot. The architect was completely speechless at the first rejection (we were completely led by his advice, we haven't made it as big as possible so as to keep light into our neighbours utility room and we plan to clad in a light material to aid light bounce), so we amended and hoped for a different officer (bit of a long shot but if it had worked it was the path of least resistance). Other architects have also expressed surprise at the grounds.

Not an ANOB, not green belt, neighbours on the other side converted their bungalow into a two storey house (no mention of over development there!) so the space above their bungalow wasn't an important part of the street scene yet above our garage is? Maybe it's because it's on the boundary of the plot but walking around the village (as we do every day at the moment) there are lots of examples of recent extensions that extend across the entire plot.

We withdrew and reapplied with tweaks the second time but there's little scope for tweaks on a third plan, so we figured appeal and get an a second opinion. Of course it all takes so long....

That does sound a harsh judgement. I think I would appeal and cite every similar house extension in the vicinity. Have the policies changed? Officers must follow policies but over development can be subjective. I’m assuming members were not involved. The planning consultant should be able to advise but you could look at similar successful applications and see if they differ. Could you move the room back from the front of the garage? Could you extend at the back of the house instead? I have to say I know loads of houses that have extended over a garage so I am surprised. I think it could be a design issue. Your consultant should know though.

@PresentingPercy thank you for your response. It was getting hard to see if we are just being unreasonable here but my gut feeling is that we're not asking for the moon, and the plans (and the amended) plans did attempt to make the extension subservient to the house). They suggested setting it back wouldn't address the point that planning just doesn't want something there. There's a 1960 extension on the other side set back about 4 metres but we're not attempting to balance in that sense

We could build behind but really don't want to - it would ruin light into our house and neighbours bungalow. Ironically we can build another storey on the entire house without requiring planning (with considered placement of windows only in the back) which would really change the street scene and be very out of place.

The design plans for the region date from 2015 so the buildings that gave just been extended in the village date from after that

It feels rather subjective - the house is set back about three car lengths back from the pavement, the plots is 5-6 cars wide (we don't operate a small carpark in our front garden but it's an easy metric when I look out of the window). We want a box the size of a car on top of the garage and we'll out a sloping roof on top to tie in with the existing roofline). Doesn't feel like over development compared to the squeezing of 2-4 houses into a plot where a bungalow once stood, which happens everywhere around here.

So has it already been extended? Is this the issue? Will this make the house seem over large? I’m sure a consultant can advise better than me! I would be interested in their views and why they think it’s been turned down, rightly or wrongly!

Sounds like you have a pretty good chance, if there are no other factors.

@PresentingPercy it's a 1950s house and we think in the 1960 a "garden room" was added downstairs so that it had two reception plus kitchen downstairs. The kitchen is a flat roof which sits behind the garage. The people before built on top of the garden room in the 1980s so didn't increase the footprint. So the house has had a lot of additions over the years and it maybe that's a point against us but there was no mention in either of the letters or phone calls we and the architect had with the planning officer.

I think the bit I find hard to understand is how it's fine to cram 2-3 storey town houses with practically no garden, no off street garden into a small space and yet trying to fit a 4th bedroom (which we'll be using as an office now we're all WFH) and if we can a shower (the current bedrooms are small so we can't fit an ensuite in) is a step to far for planning. I understand they are there to protect the look of the village but as our architect said "your house is nothing special to look at, none of the houses in the road are!".

The house takes up perhaps 1/5th of the plot so I don't think it's overly big but the plot is longer than wide. But that's often the case surely.

We toyed with a bright pink shepherd hut (on wheels of course) in the front garden - that probably would change the street scene.

I do think it is worth seeing what the consultant advises. It does not seem fair and you do not have any real outsanding features on the road or as far as your huse is concerned. You have plenty of off road parking. So I do not see why it is over development but you might have to consider alternatives. Presumably the garage is already on the boundary of the plot so I cannot see any argument there.

Would roof lights andnot dormer(s) make a difference? How well does the extensionsit with the rest of house? Is cladding the right material?

The consultant we will approach lives in the village and obviously can't promise but thinks we have a 70% chance.

In the amended plans we dropped the roof and the front window became a slight dormer. Planning officer hated that because it's not in fitting with the rest of the house (no dormers) but does match the bungalow to house conversion next door. We suggested some kind of cladding to wrap around the new to replace the tiles on the bay on the bay on the existing house, but it was icing on a cake the planning officer didn't like. We have 4 or 5 different brick types across the building so matching isn't easy but that doesn't seem to be a concern. If she had suggested painting it orange and putting velux in, or even making it some kind of futuristic glass and cedar cube we could have talked about how we'd approach this. But her issue is with putting anything on top of the garage, not the materials or look apparently.

Well yes. It should not be materials where there are no materials constraints. I wonder why the consultant thinks 30% no success?

Personally I wouldn’t be a fan of a dormer if there are none on the main house. Do they think this adds to bulk? That might be what I would look at and also look at improving the front of the house so it has an overall coherent look.

Are these any good for ideas. All have been extended over the garage.

Is it right on the boundary? It is quite common for Councils to require first floor additions to be at least 1m from the side boundary.

The Officer report should set out why the proposal is deemed to be overdevelopment. What does it say?

Do you have a copy of the relevant local plans? They are the standard development should meet. It shouldn't be a subjective decision.

Have they quoted which points of the plan your proposal contravenes?

If they consider it over development, they will need a justification for that. To show it exceeds a defined threshold.

Tbo if it is considered over development I would be surprised if a change in visual appearance will make a difference.

Presumably the pp would have permitted development rights elsewhere? So sometimes development at the front and designate relevant but it nit picking quite often. Did the office cite the relevant planning policies? Do they make sense regarding rejection?

In answer to your original question, make sure you use a planning consultant with RTPI accreditation. These are the people actually qualified in planning issues. There are lots of individuals and small consultancies which offer an appeals service, and they are generally cheaper than the really big firms.

Dear @PresentingPercy, @Seeline, @tilder,

Apologies for the delay in answering - life gets in the way...

Here's the statement in the rejection letter

The proposal by virtue of its design, scale and siting is considered to result in a dominant and visually harmful development that fails to enhance or enrich the appearance of the existing dwelling or the streetscene. By virtue of its scale, design and location the proposal is considered to result in overdevelopment of the site and a form of development which would be substantially harmful to the existing dwelling and streetscene

I don't want to post here the sections of the local plan which have been highlighted as that's a bit outing, but I'd be happy to share with anyone by PM if you're still interested/curious. It's not that clear to me exactly which sentence in the section they've highlighted is the issue but I guess it's enhance ... the settlement edge, space between settlements, and their wider landscape setting. I'd hoped that the rejection letter would have some detail in it - the section highlighted encourages areas that maximise the opportunities for public art. We didn't do that either....

@PresentingPercy - those are rather beautiful rooms over garages, and our plan is nowhere near as beautiful or as big (again happy to share via PM) It does square off the house (but fills in the space which is the no-no) and covers a rather unattractive flat roof. We get caught in the mixed messages of an extension needing to be different to the main building and at the same time unifying it. We have tried both approaches in the two plans we submitted.

@Seeline the planning officer wouldn't accept anything in the space, even bringing it in from the boundary. In in the second plans we pushed it back a bit to try and make it subservient. And thank you for your advice re the accreditation of the planning consultant - this is all new to me to all advice is gratefully received.

You need to see a copy of the officer's report. It should be on the website. That should set out the thinking behind the reasons for refusal.

It sounds as though they think the extension is just to big and bulky, which will be detrimental to the appearance of the house and the character of the area.

Planning is often fairly subjective. If you have already amended the plans, it may be worth appealing to the Planning Inspectorate. A decent planning consultant should be able to advise you. If you look at the RTPI website, I think you can search for consultants by area.

I would consider moving the extension back and looking at a pitched roof to incorporate a porch at the front. Try and break the specs up a bit with attractive features. The extensions I posted are nothing extra special. I think they mostly enhance the houses though and look like they “belong”. They have a symmetry which is pleasing. Oreganos the officer is looking for better design. That’s subjective. I think you could win an appeal but your consultant needs to look at why other houses have been developed over the garage. Some of the other types of development you mentioned are irrelevant but look for very similar extensions for any appeal and address what the officer says.

Without plans, location or reasons for rejection report there’s not a lot we can say! It sounds from what you have posted that the officer thinks the design is too big for the the site and in relation to the original footprint and hasn’t taken account of sympathetic design in the area.

Best of luck on the appeal

Oreganos!! Perhaps the officer is looking for better design. That should have read.