Planners being conservative
Discussion
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.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.
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.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
Roofline? No answer to that one.
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.As you say it’s the impact on the street scene that counts and the dreaded “character of the area”.
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.
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. 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?".
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.
Gassing Station | Homes, Gardens and DIY | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff