Planners being conservative

[Escort3500]

So said:

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?".

Others have to look at it too, hence the objection/s I assume (nb in many instances I’m not averse to the concept of a starkly contrasting extension, though in this case I agree with Equus’ sentiments).

[Equus]

So said:

..."it's at the back, it's his money, it's him who has to look at it, what's the problem?".

His immediate neighbours have to look at it too, and live with its potentially overbearing influence.

Without having either scaled/dimensioned drawings or details of the neighbouring properties, we have to face the likelihood that what we have here is a circa 4 metre rear extension, with a 2 1/2 storey eaves height, in black brickwork, towering over the neighbouring garden a metre or so from the boundary. That relationship may well be unacceptable even if the design wasn't out of keeping.

They may also have been shown the rendering of the front, which as previously discussed could represent a gleaming white-and-glazed monolith in the middle of a row of '80's brick developer style.

Edited by Equus on Thursday 16th May 08:58

[anonymous-user]

So said:

Marmax said:

Equus said:

Well, I think you might find that the Planners disagree.

They may well take the view (and I would support them to some degree) that the character of the neighbouring development simply isn't robust enough to carry it off.

I suspect you are right.
I didn’t realise the planners were so conservative regarding rear extensions.

I wonder whether you might have a phone conversation with the PO, ask whether the scheme is likely to pass, if not withdraw and resubmit with the assistance of a planning consultant. In my experience, councils don't have much stomach for a battle over something trivial and when all is said and done it is at the BACK.

Alternatively resubmit a design that looks like an actual turd.

Personally I think he's already done that.

You might like it OP but to my eyes that is God awful ugly and shouldn't be allowed out at night.

If I was your neighbour I'd be complaining about it too.

[So]

Equus said:

quote=So]
..."it's at the back, it's his money, it's him who has to look at it, what's the problem?".

His immediate neighbours have to look at it too, and live with its potentially overbearing influence.

Without having either scaled/dimensioned drawings or details of the neighbouring properties, we have to face the likelihood that what we have here is a circa 4 metre rear extension, with a 2 1/2 storey eaves height, in black brickwork, towering over the neighbouring garden a metre or so from the boundary. That relationship may well be unacceptable even if the design wasn't out of keeping.

They may also have been shown the rendering of the front, which as previously discussed could represent a gleaming white-and-glazed monolith in the middle of a row of '80's brick developer style.

Didn't the OP say the neighbours have trees shielding the view?

I'd be interested to see some photos.

[Gompo]

So said:

I don't agree, I think it is good.

I'd check the dimensions to make sure the new extension is approximately 1.62 times wide as it is tall. If it was architect designed into probably is. But I think it's a good effort.

Do they really take notice of the Golden Ratio when it comes to these things?

[Equus]

Gompo said:

Do they really take notice of the Golden Ratio when it comes to these things?

Not unless we're designing Georgian windows.

[blueg33]

Gompo said:

So said:

I don't agree, I think it is good.

I'd check the dimensions to make sure the new extension is approximately 1.62 times wide as it is tall. If it was architect designed into probably is. But I think it's a good effort.

Do they really take notice of the Golden Ratio when it comes to these things?

I wish more architects did, especially those that design for house builders! I also wish they understood that if you are building a 3 storey brick townhouse, its looks stupid if teh windows on the top floor or in the roof are as big as the ones lower down.

eg. This is a carbuncle



this is better



also better



as is this



and this is horrid



sorry, i'll get off my soap box now

[Equus]

blueg33 said:

I wish more architects did, especially those that design for house builders!

Genuine question, but why do you think that the golden section is important for developer housing design?

I can tell you that there are far too many technical and commercial constraints for us to be able to take much notice of it, even if we wanted to.

[Pheo]

I think you may be making assumptions re the site visit - albeit I would defer to the experts here, but we built a brick extension matching existing and they still visited site - you get the feeling they do so to make sure that their decision cannot be challenged on technical grounds

[Equus]

Pheo said:

I think you may be making assumptions re the site visit ...

They should visit site on every application, regardless - that's a matter of routine.