Advice please on appealing refused application for extension

[wessex101]

I haven't done any work in Purbeck for a while so cannot comment on that particular council or their green belt policy although they used to be a nightmare, but over the last couple of years neighbouring authorities have dramatically tightened up their green belt policies. I had one recently where a modest pitched roof on a existing double garage was refused due to specific green belt policies (even after favourable informal feedback from planners) whereas about 4 years previously I had a large 2 storey extension approved relatively easily on the same property although it contravened the exact same policies. The joys of dealing with our wonderful planners.

In this case I would be inclined to go for a re-submission first, specifically highlighting the existing and proposed floor areas to verify your 38% claim. I can't be bothered to read Purbeck's policy but most seem to allow up to 50% increase so I would study the Purbeck policy and act accordingly. In worst case possibly consider pushing front of extension back slightly as the hall and landing look like they could afford to be trimmed slightly. If that fails then I would probably go to appeal.

Finally, without causing offence the drawings aren't great and aren't doing you any favours in providing a clear illustration of how the proposal meets current policies. Chappers mentions "emphasis the good design" above but I'm afraid I can't see it, just looks like a typical boring generic 2 storey box you can find on any housing estate up and down the country. I would have thought your designer could have presented it with a bit more flair and possibly given some context with the adjoining property, it could be a detached dwelling from the elevations and floor plans.

Good Luck

 

[^woody^]

That's not what is stated in the refusal nor the argument. What is stated in the refusal is that the new building may have an overbearing on the neighbours property, yet the neighbours property appears to have been extended to such a size that the new development would still appear subservient to the neighbours

You've quoted an answer to what goes on at appeal. That has nothing to do with why it was refused.

 

[jeds]

Not sure you've got your figures right. For the purposes of the National Planning Policy Framework, 'additions' means anything added to the original property. In other words it would be your proposed extension plus the conservatory. Just by eye, I make that more than 50% and probably more like 60-65%. It might be worth an appeal but in my experience inspectors don't often allow appeals where additions are much more than 50%. Not never - just not often! In your favour is the fact that you are basically infilling either side of an existing projection, so when viewed from the front or side the visual impact is less than if the existing projection wasn't there. Also in your favour is that your property is apparently not highly visible from the public domain. Neither of these is conclusive but will be given some weight by an inspector. The previous extensions on nearby properties doesn't help you at all so I wouldn't advise putting too much weight on that - if any at all.

I would look a bit more closely at the previous application if I were you - and when the conservatory was started. Is it that much different to what was approved 10 years ago? If the conservatory was started in time - i.e. before June 2008 - then that would definitely be a start on site and you would definitely be entitled to complete the two storey section.

 

[chappers]

Finally, without causing offence the drawings aren't great and aren't doing you any favours in providing a clear illustration of how the proposal meets current policies. Chappers mentions "emphasis the good design" above but I'm afraid I can't see it, just looks like a typical boring generic 2 storey box you can find on any housing estate up and down the country.

To be fair short of introducing turrets and ramparts there's not much flair that can be added to the already boxy nature of the existing property, it has already been designed set back by the looks of things to keep it subservient to the original property

You've quoted an answer to what goes on at appeal. That has nothing to do with why it was refused.

But that's the stage we are now at and the OPs original question

 

[jamboh77]

Any chance of throwing up a picture of the front of both of the properties.

Here's a shot of the front - it's a bit distorted as I couldn't get far back enough, so had to take a composite.

 

[jamboh77]

I haven't done any work in Purbeck for a while so cannot comment on that particular council or their green belt policy although they used to be a nightmare

Seems to be the general opinion of the people I have spoken to!

Finally, without causing offence the drawings aren't great and aren't doing you any favours in providing a clear illustration of how the proposal meets current policies. Chappers mentions "emphasis the good design" above but I'm afraid I can't see it, just looks like a typical boring generic 2 storey box you can find on any housing estate up and down the country. I would have thought your designer could have presented it with a bit more flair and possibly given some context with the adjoining property, it could be a detached dwelling from the elevations and floor plans.

No particular offence taken - I drew them myself which is why they look a bit crap. I could have put more effort in to be fair, but didn't think too much of it as I kind of thought (stupidly) it was a foregone conclusion (lesson learned!). with regards to the design though we have kept it purposely simple - partly to keep it economic, but also as it is a simple building (old farm workers cottages) so anything fancy would jar imo. Oh, and also I tried to keep it very similar to what had previously been approved!

 

[jamboh77]

Just by eye, I make that more than 50% and probably more like 60-65%. It might be worth an appeal but in my experience inspectors don't often allow appeals where additions are much more than 50%.

I actually ended up building a 3D model to produce the plans so I know basically down to the last mm the sq. area and volume, and the increase over the original footrprint is 45% (and that's including the conservatory). Obviously I can prove that (I will double check it though!) so I think there's a fair argument that less than 50% in not disproportional.

The previous extensions on nearby properties doesn't help you at all so I wouldn't advise putting too much weight on that - if any at all.

Not saying that you are wrong, but this just doesn't seem reasonable to me - how can it not have an impact if the properties fall under the same legislation!

I would look a bit more closely at the previous application if I were you - and when the conservatory was started. Is it that much different to what was approved 10 years ago? If the conservatory was started in time - i.e. before June 2008 - then that would definitely be a start on site and you would definitely be entitled to complete the two storey section.

Well it's interesting... when I spoke to the planning officer he stated that he had looked at the old application, and his report says that he considers the conservatory that was actually built to be different in shape therefore not part of the original application - and he's right it is different in shape, but actually i looked back at the old application today and the previous owner went in to have the application amended to the new shape, there's a letter of approval for this - so I think there is definite mileage in this as a last resort. It's almost as if he didn't really even look at the old application. The problem is I don't want to build exactly what they proposed (external window door layouts etc.)

 

[jamboh77]

A free half hour or even a paid one with a planning consultant would probably be time well spent.

An architect friend of a friend has recommended a local planning consultant, so I've arranged for him to come over Thurs to give me a free consultation and see if he can assist.

 

[chappers]

Here's a shot of the front - it's a bit distorted as I couldn't get far back enough, so had to take a composite.

View attachment 105083

I did actually take a peek on google maps and didn't think that there would be an issue with overbearing, though to be fair that wasn't really their issue. Armed with your calculations, showing them the error of their ways and maybe a quick letter from the planning consultant then a resubmission might be the way to go

 

[jeds]

Of course there are ways to measure a building and then there are ways to measure a building. I have strong doubts whether you will change the LPAs mind, so I think you will be looking at an appeal here. When you present your figures, back it up with a clear plan, including a scale, of your workings. Inspectors hate it when one side says one thing and the other something different but neither provides clear means to check for themselves. I would mark each area with dimensions and area and bring this together in a sum alongside. The local authority will not provide anything more than the original planning report and documents so it will come down to your excellent clear details against nothing from them. That'll be one-nil to you. On the adjacent properties I would mention them but don't suggest you think yours should be allowed because they were. The key factor is whether the openness of the green belt would be diminished. If the adjacent additions don't harm the openness then point to them and use them as evidence that the green belt won't be harmed. I would do this along with my previous points regarding visual impact.

 

[chappers]

Yep include as much detail as you can aerial shots taken from google showing how you are screened by all the trees, but also the wider shots showing that you are part of a small settlement of houses. when developing in green belt it is preferred that development occurs in already developed areas rather than bang slap in the middle of nowhere.
On the point of your neighbours development as Jeds says don't imply that you should be allowed because of what they have, but use it to dismiss the LA's concerns that you might overbear your neighbours property.
Include a personal statement regarding your wishes to stay where you are and your growing family's needs

 

[wessex101]

I started to read up on Purbeck's Green Belt policy, turns out they haven't got one.

All they have is a section in their local plan for "Countryside" and the policy on extensions is rather vague to say the least....
Extensions The alteration and extension of buildings in the countryside should:  Not result in a disproportionate addition over and above the size of the original building; and  Not detract from the character or setting of the original building.

That's not very helpful. Reading the officer's report it appears that the only thing he really has an issue with is this 60% additional floor area so that is your main priority to tackle. As I mentioned previously and others have picked up on you need to nail the exact additional floor areas and show it is not "disproportionate". In other parts of Dorset where they have proper Green Belt policies they give a figure of 50% but clearly Purbeck will take each case on its merits so you will have to make a case that yours is proportionate...I would suggest that anything over 50% is going to be challenging but looking at the photo and the neighbouring property not impossible.

It all seems rather silly when you look at that new housing development on the bypass. That's bloody disproportionate.

 

[jamboh77]

Thanks for all the advice guys, some really helpful tips. Which is the more important to their decision making, floor area or volume? I have been re-running some calcs, and actually the floor-area increase they have quoted is not too far off, I think in reality the increased is between 50-60%, depending of whether you're talking foot print or usable floor space. However as the conservatory is being counted the overall volume increase is much lower, about 40-45%. Seeing as how the main aim they quote is not "damaging the open-ness" of the green belt, you would think that volume would be the key factor?

I think I will gather all the arguments I can, take it to appeal, and if that fails consult with them about maybe reducing the size of the conservatory.

 

[chappers]

and then just build it the size you want anyway

 

[wessex101]

I'd seriously try a re-submission first and if that fails then go to appeal. It gives you an extra bite of the cherry. If you go straight to appeal and lose you are pretty much screwed. You can also introduce new information and do some extra work on the drawings to the re-submission that will help your appeal if it comes to that.

Reading the officer's report I'd say you are very close to a straight approval if you can come to some agreement over the floor areas.

Try to discuss it with the case officer, I know these days that's easier said than done but he should be able to give you some pointers. Even if you offer them a small concession it might help, move the front wall back by 150mm, lower the ridge by 300mm. Sometimes a small token concession is enough, it strokes their ego by confirming they were right to refuse it but ultimately you get a result. In answer to your last question, I tend to go with floor area first but as Purbeck don't have a policy you could use either and emphasis the one which is more favourable.

I would also try to differentiate between the extension and the existing conservatory. Although the conservatory will be taken into consideration for the increase in floor area it isn't really adding to the visual bulk of the building like an extension would.

By the way, I re-read your first post, I'm surprised you had a problem with the bat survey, I've always found the local bat warden from Natural England to be pretty good.