Planning Permission

[Colin100]

Hi,

We have a property in a Norfolk village, it is 2/3 of an acre, 30m frontage, 90m depth. People have often suggested that we develop as unlike many others locally it has a wide frontage which would allow for a property at the front and access to the rear.

Initially we had an architect draw up plans (plans_01) to demolish the place we live in and put four new dwellings here, a dorma at the front with three bungalows to the rear. The council had two main issues with this, the first rear bungalow was close to the bungalow next door and because the plot was over .2 of a hectare the rules stipulated that 40% of what we put on here should be affordable housing. It seemed to us that having to provide affordable on such a small site was not fair. I can see that if you are building ten properties then there would be scope for having two that were affordable but to have one or two out of four just seemed unfair.

The place we live in is a large 1920’s bungalow in need of complete renovation, wiring, heating etc. The blank slate approach seemed attractive although obviously by knocking it down we would be losing the value in the place. If we had to forgo one of the bungalows at the back and provide affordable housing it just didn’t stack up. We are no serial developers and still have a substantial mortgage left to pay. This was never going to be a kings ransom we just want to do the best with what we have here.

So last year we had new plans drawn up (plans_02). This time we kept the bungalow we’re in, this made the development plot smaller and took us out of the affordable requirement. We also had just two at the back pushed further down the garden acknowledging the councils issue with the proximity to next door.

We were surprised when the council came back to us that they would favour just one at the rear. The reasons they gave for this was…

‘…the two plots at the rear appear to have limited amenity space which would be detrimental to the potential occupiers of the site and also increase residential activity on the site to a level that would undermine the amenity of existing neighbouring properties. It is likely that any development over and above an additional single dwelling would raise unacceptable issues.’

I struggle with this, firstly, new properties tend to have very small gardens and the gardens here are larger than most. Secondly, both dwellings seem a reasonable distance from the next door neighbour and even further from neighbours at the bottom of the garden.

I would kindly like to ask people in this community for their views. In the current climate of a housing shortfall I thought the authorities wanted more housing. We have significantly reduced the concentration of dwellings from our first set of plans but the council still have objections.

If we were to go ahead despite the councils view we are unlikely to succeed. If this were the case would we stand a good chance at appeal? Would the appeal committee apply a more national view that we need the housing and that compared to many around the country and indeed within our local community this level of concentration is not unreasonable?

Any thoughts would be gratefully received.

Regards

Colin

Untitled

• Colin100
• 23 Jan 2013
• 1

Untitled

• Colin100
• 23 Jan 2013
• 1

 

[jeds]

Amenity space, site layout, design etc. should ideally be in accordance with the local plan. If it is, then the local authority could not justify a refusal. If it is not, then it will be down to negotiation. On appeal the inspector will take the local plan into consideration and also the local planners report. But they are not bound by any of that and if they think the development is reasonable they can allow it despite what the local planners think.

 

[luisdesign]

Hi there,

Local authorities will not approve a proposal for housing if it is not also in accordance with their requirements and of a good quality and design. yes, more houses are needed, but more cramped, undersized and overpriced houses are not (im not suggesting these are that btw).

You will also need to be able to show that the houses are sustainable and consider microgeneration technologies such as solar panels (I only really mention this because your bungalows have differing orientations).

What you need to be able to do is demonstrate to the local authority that the proposed development is of a good design and good quality and is exactly what the council are looking for.

As Jeds said, to do this you should (or your architect should have) consulted with the councils Local Development Framework. Within this, or the supplementary documentation, they should be able to set out some information that will help you determine things like how big they expect gardens to be, or minimum sizes / areas for rooms and buildings etc. be aware that this can vary from place to place so if your architect is used ot designing properties for one location then he may have just been going on experience without looking for this information.

One thing you should be aware of is that the council may be trying to dissuade you with their advice in order to minimise the development. I often find that officers will try to get developments reduced prior to an application because they may not be able to justify refusing it as it stands. The only way to find out is to assess the proposals against the LDF for yourself... if you can effectively tick all the boxes then you will be in a good position come the application stage, and if the application is refused then you will have a strong appeal case.

Other than that, it is difficult for me to assess the proposals in more detail as it's hard to make out scales on the pictures of what appear to be hand drawn plans! (haven't seen that in a while!)

I would comment that the houses themselves appear to be as large as the space around them - and significantly larger than the houses nearby. This may be a concern for planning because the development is not characteristic of the area. These sorts of "qualitative" concerns are the sorts of things that can be more effectively negotiated as opposed to the "quantitative" issues of size restrictions etc.

Finally, one thing to consider is that if you are thinking of doing extensive works to your own property then you do have to seriously consider demolishing and starting again. new build houses are VAT exempt... so sometimes it is worth looking into a rebuild because it can work out cheaper! You could potentially phase the works, to build the new dwellings, then move into one of them whilst your own property is built.

 

[Colin100]

Hi

Thanks so much for your responses.

Jeds, I have looked up the local plan, it is quite a few pdf's which I will work through.

I appreciate what you say about cramped, undersized houses luisdesign but isn't that how most properties are these days. I've always lived in the country in reasonable sized properties and I am always amazed at what is shoved in here and there. We need the houses and land is at a premium which results in this kind of development. If I was arguing for something different than is already commonplace I could understand the objection.

I have uploaded an image that shows a development of five bungalows not 200m from our property that were built within the last ten years. These are significantly more concentrated in regards to each other and the existing properties around them. Our proposal is shown at the same scale. Is there something different about the two plots that would make one more reasonable than the other? both are backland development. We have the railway bordering which I would think would benefit ours because we aren't hemmed in by neighbours unlike the other example.

I was dissapointed because we took on board what the council said in the first instance and eliminated the first property to the rear. For them to now have a problem with two when the other development is much closer to their existing neighbours doesn't seem fair.

I appreciate your comments, they are food for thought.

Thank You

Colin

Untitled

• Colin100
• 24 Jan 2013
• 1

 

[Nige F]

Hi,

So last year we had new plans drawn up (plans_02). This time we kept the bungalow we’re in, this made the development plot smaller and took us out of the affordable requirement. Any thoughts would be gratefully received.

Regards

]

You capitalists !

 

[luisdesign]

There may be differences between the developments yes. For example, the nearby development has neighbouring properties, but they are all of similar plot and building sizes, therefore the development may have been considered to be in keeping with the character of that area.

However, the surrounding buildings of your locality may be characterised more by bungalows in large plots so the planners may want to try to preserve that character (which may be why they are trying to limit development to a single extra house as a way of maintaining the larger plots).

Your answers on this will hopefully be revealed once you manage to get through the councils LDF.

You should also make a note of when this document was published. Although the nearby development was completed within 10 years, a new LDF may have been published and this is likely to have changed the local authorities policies and stance on development.

As a final note on this bit; just because sub-standard developments may have been constructed in the past, does not mean that they should be permitted now.

I come across the need for housing discussion a lot and it is a fallacy that just because there is a need for housing, the local authority will automatically approve a development which provides some. If there is such a need for housing, why not build a 27 storey tower block in your back garden? that will help solve some issues right? The truth is that there IS a need for housing, but this need MUST be met by good quality housing which is appropriate for the local area, which includes things such as being sustainable for local services as well as being of the right character and density. Developments should in all cases be in line with the council policies.


What this means is you need ot look to see where your proposal DOES NOT meet with policies (it has to meet them all, not just some). Then you can take this information and see how you can adapt the proposal so that it does meet them all.

As already mentioned, if a policy is subjective - such as "must be of good design" then don't assume that your proposal meets it. stick it into an unknown box. These are the policies that can be negotiated... as each persons idea of what it takes to meet them can vary.

 

[rjm2k]

Might also be worth getting hold of the planning report etc for the previous development, it may be online or you may have to go into the council to see it.