Planners being conservative

Author
Discussion

littlebasher

2,566 posts

112 months

Wednesday 15th May
quotequote all
No offence intended OP, but it looks like something my son built in minecraft - just without the blocks of TNT

Marmax

Original Poster:

44 posts

21 months

Wednesday 15th May
quotequote all
littlebasher said:
No offence intended OP, but it looks like something my son built in minecraft - just without the blocks of TNT
None taken. It would be a pretty dull world if everyone’s taste was the same.

jules_s

2,348 posts

174 months

Wednesday 15th May
quotequote all
Marmax said:
None taken. It would be a pretty dull world if everyone’s taste was the same.
Unless you live in the garden you wont be enjoying the look of your extension too much laugh

Just render with it with black accents

Equus

5,837 posts

42 months

Wednesday 15th May
quotequote all
Marmax said:


It is getting updated but obviously not to everyone’s taste.
It would obviously help to understand the context.

Whilst that, in isolation, doesn't look too offensive, it might be a different matter if it would result in the only rendered, contemporary-style property on a cul-de-sac of 80's brick developer boxes, with another house a couple of metres away from the side extension, and with adverse solar orientation (one of the problems of that design is that the parapet roof increases the effective eaves height, therefore makes it more overbearing... and the black brickwork won't help in that respect).

The Planner will be considering the impact on the whole street scene and in context with the local neighbourhood, not just as an isolated rendering with a vast, open blue sky behind it.

It may be that you can increase your chances by modelling the neighbouring properties as 'monopoly houses', to show how it sits alongside them in terms of scale, massing and solar orientation... or it may make things worse, if those aspects haven't been properly thought through.

Edited by Equus on Wednesday 15th May 23:25

PositronicRay

14,968 posts

124 months

Wednesday 15th May
quotequote all
Equus said:
Marmax said:


It is getting updated but obviously not to everyone’s taste.
It would obviously help to understand the context.

Whilst that, in isolation, doesn't look too offensive, it might be a different matter if it would result in the only rendered, contemporary-style property on a cul-de-sac of 80's brick developer boxes, with another house a couple of metres away from the side extension, and with adverse solar orientation (one of the problems of that design is that the parapet roof increases the effective eaves height, therefore makes it more overbearing... and the black brickwork won't help in that respect).

The Planner will be considering the impact on the whole street scene and in context with the local neighbourhood, not just as an isolated rendering with a vast, open blue sky behind it.

It may be that you can increase your chances by modelling the neighbouring properties as 'monopoly houses', too show how it sits alongside them in terms of scale, massing and solar orientation... or it may make things worse, if those aspects haven't been properly thought through.
I'm just intrigued by the extra front door.
Advertisement

BaldOldMan

244 posts

5 months

Wednesday 15th May
quotequote all
IMHO it's the second storey that's the problem

Rendering is usually acceptable if there's others on the street at least partially rendered - if you're the only one then maybe a little more problematic.

Anthracite windows are pretty much the norm as are larger ones

Anything you can do to soften the roofline will likely go a long way

blueg33

20,716 posts

165 months

Wednesday 15th May
quotequote all
Those crappy cgi’s are not helping! We could fo better cgi models 15 years ago.

Equus

5,837 posts

42 months

Wednesday 15th May
quotequote all
blueg33 said:
Those crappy cgi’s are not helping! We could fo better cgi models 15 years ago.
At a price....

To be fair, they're better than we provide for most basic householder applications, for the simple reason that most domestic clients aren't willing to pay even the £few hundred extra that a half-decent rendering costs.

It's a different ballgame to the sort of applications you're involved in, blueg33!

blueg33

20,716 posts

165 months

Wednesday 15th May
quotequote all
Equus said:
At a price....

To be fair, they're better than we provide for most basic householder applications, for the simple reason that most domestic clients aren't willing to pay even the £few hundred extra that a half-decent rendering costs.

It's a different ballgame to the sort of applications you're involved in, blueg33!
I know it’s a different ballgame, but the op had a design that’s bound to bring out subjectivity, therefore you need the images to look as good as possible.



jules_s

2,348 posts

174 months

Wednesday 15th May
quotequote all
blueg33 said:
I know it’s a different ballgame, but the op had a design that’s bound to bring out subjectivity, therefore you need the images to look as good as possible.
TBH planners will barely give a nats chuff about the subjective quality of a domestic extension rendering like that one

Equus

5,837 posts

42 months

Wednesday 15th May
quotequote all
blueg33 said:
I know it’s a different ballgame, but the op had a design that’s bound to bring out subjectivity, therefore you need the images to look as good as possible.
True, but if I was spending money anywhere, it would be on showing more of the context (ie. a streetscape incorporating neighbouring properties) rather than on the quality of rendering.

Indeed, I might be inclined to tone down the latter: 'photorealistic' rendering of the design and materials probably highlights starkly how much it conflicts with neighbouring properties, where as a non-photorealistic, sketchy, 'architectural' rendering in soft pastel shades would very much play it down.

Marmax

Original Poster:

44 posts

21 months

Wednesday 15th May
quotequote all
jules_s said:
Unless you live in the garden you wont be enjoying the look of your extension too much laugh

Just render with it with black accents
I do spend a vast amount of my spare time in the garden.
The reason for the rendering is the brickwork is very shabby with spalling and poor workmanship.

Marmax

Original Poster:

44 posts

21 months

Wednesday 15th May
quotequote all
Equus said:
It would obviously help to understand the context.

Whilst that, in isolation, doesn't look too offensive, it might be a different matter if it would result in the only rendered, contemporary-style property on a cul-de-sac of 80's brick developer boxes, with another house a couple of metres away from the side extension, and with adverse solar orientation (one of the problems of that design is that the parapet roof increases the effective eaves height, therefore makes it more overbearing... and the black brickwork won't help in that respect).

The Planner will be considering the impact on the whole street scene and in context with the local neighbourhood, not just as an isolated rendering with a vast, open blue sky behind it.

It may be that you can increase your chances by modelling the neighbouring properties as 'monopoly houses', too show how it sits alongside them in terms of scale, massing and solar orientation... or it may make things worse, if those aspects haven't been properly thought through.
Looks like the architect will have a bit of a redesign to do to appease the planning dept.

Marmax

Original Poster:

44 posts

21 months

Wednesday 15th May
quotequote all
[quote=PositronicRay]



I'm just intrigued by the extra front door. [/quote

Its a window.

Marmax

Original Poster:

44 posts

21 months

Wednesday 15th May
quotequote all
BaldOldMan said:
IMHO it's the second storey that's the problem

Rendering is usually acceptable if there's others on the street at least partially rendered - if you're the only one then maybe a little more problematic.

Anthracite windows are pretty much the norm as are larger ones

Anything you can do to soften the roofline will likely go a long way
No others rendered. Not sure what window colour to go for as I actually would prefer not to go architect grey.
Roofline? No answer to that one.

blueg33

20,716 posts

165 months

Thursday
quotequote all
Equus said:
True, but if I was spending money anywhere, it would be on showing more of the context (ie. a streetscape incorporating neighbouring properties) rather than on the quality of rendering.

Indeed, I might be inclined to tone down the latter: 'photorealistic' rendering of the design and materials probably highlights starkly how much it conflicts with neighbouring properties, where as a non-photorealistic, sketchy, 'architectural' rendering in soft pastel shades would very much play it down.
Actually it was the context I had in mind as much as the quality of the digital rendering.

As you say it’s the impact on the street scene that counts and the dreaded “character of the area”.

So

15,519 posts

163 months

Thursday
quotequote all
blueg33 said:
As you say it’s the impact on the street scene that counts and the dreaded “character of the area”.
If it's at the back the impact upon the street scene will be limited surely?

It could, of course, be an arse of a PO you're dealing with. We had this problem on a project a while ago with a PO, so we modified the design to suit her crackpot viewpoint (which involved moving all manner of street furniture) and she passed it. Then we submitted a revision back to our original plan, with a request for a different PO. He passed it without query.

I do acknowledge Equus's point about the property not necessarily being of strong enough character to carry it off. If the extension were at the front it would be a bigger problem. I think our architect would probably say, "it's at the back, it's his money, it's him who has to look at it, what's the problem?".



Marmax

Original Poster:

44 posts

21 months

Thursday
quotequote all
blueg33 said:
Actually it was the context I had in mind as much as the quality of the digital rendering.

As you say it’s the impact on the street scene that counts and the dreaded “character of the area”.
The side extension facing the front is set back at least 3m from front elevation and is approx 1700mm wide.
The rear extension isn’t very big,I’m only extending 4m.
The white render I can live without as it was a afterthought to freshen up the tired exterior.
Maybe the computer render the architect did hasn’t done me any favours with the planning dept. rolleyesrolleyes

KAgantua

1,450 posts

72 months

Thursday
quotequote all
Marmax said:
I’ve put in for planning and the case officer has just been to visit site because one of my neighbours has kicked off.
I got the feeling from him that they are going to refuse it because it’s “different”.
To say I’m a bit pissed off is a understatement.

Marmax

Original Poster:

44 posts

21 months

Thursday
quotequote all
So said:
If it's at the back the impact upon the street scene will be limited surely?

It could, of course, be an arse of a PO you're dealing with. We had this problem on a project a while ago with a PO, so we modified the design to suit her crackpot viewpoint (which involved moving all manner of street furniture) and she passed it. Then we submitted a revision back to our original plan, with a request for a different PO. He passed it without query.

I do acknowledge Equus's point about the property not necessarily being of strong enough character to carry it off. If the extension were at the front it would be a bigger problem. I think our architect would probably say, "it's at the back, it's his money, it's him who has to look at it, what's the problem?".
I fully agree the house is characterless.
But I didn’t realise they would be so conservative with a rear extension bearing in mind I’m not overlooked,and as you say it’s at the back,my money and I have to look at it.

"