Planning refused again - Help
Discussion
So we have submitted plans twice now and been through the appeal process again rejected to have our detached garage/office enlarged.
It's a standalone box for use of a better phrase, roughly 8mx4m split in two with a garage on one side and a home office on the other. The plan was always to seek planning to have this removed and the plot enlarged to accommodate a cars length and put a pitched roof on for additional storage etc.
Rather than go into the objections, none from any neighbours by the way just the local grey suits at the council I'm now thinking what's the maximum size I could replace this with without any planning restrictions would anyone know.
Also, are there any planning restrictions to stop me building two buildings within this size limit. My thought process is could I build a garage of a certain size and height and a separate office of a certain size and height which wouldn't be connected but would sit side by side.
Any help would be appreciated.
It's a standalone box for use of a better phrase, roughly 8mx4m split in two with a garage on one side and a home office on the other. The plan was always to seek planning to have this removed and the plot enlarged to accommodate a cars length and put a pitched roof on for additional storage etc.
Rather than go into the objections, none from any neighbours by the way just the local grey suits at the council I'm now thinking what's the maximum size I could replace this with without any planning restrictions would anyone know.
Also, are there any planning restrictions to stop me building two buildings within this size limit. My thought process is could I build a garage of a certain size and height and a separate office of a certain size and height which wouldn't be connected but would sit side by side.
Any help would be appreciated.
Impossible to offer meaningful advise without seeing the site and knowing all the background, even what you can possibly do withing planning permission depends on site specifics. If you've been knocked back twice now they is probably something fundamental to address, I suggest that you employ a planning consultant that is local to you.
It's been refused again because it's apparently too big.... basically I wanted to extend my current 8x4 foot print to 8x7. I have 1m I would go back to the fence and then come forward in the other direction.
For reference, I live on a single track country lane with a property to the left - no objection, to the right there is a cowshed which my plans would be lower than and then further down is the next neighbours property - no objection.
Council have said you will see it from the road, you can already see the existing building from the road..... for reference the road that no-one lives on other than the properties mentioned. The guy who submitted the appeal was scratching his head how it had been rejected given I live pretty much in the middle of nowehere... but here I am again.
Like I said I'm fed up, out of pocket by £1000's submitting plans, getting new plans drawn up twice and then spending another couple of £K on appeals so want to know if I could simply build two separate buildings side by side on the existing plot that would fall under the no planning needed guidelines and effectively build what I want and to the size I want but in effect two buildings rather than one which gets the council up in arms.
For reference, I live on a single track country lane with a property to the left - no objection, to the right there is a cowshed which my plans would be lower than and then further down is the next neighbours property - no objection.
Council have said you will see it from the road, you can already see the existing building from the road..... for reference the road that no-one lives on other than the properties mentioned. The guy who submitted the appeal was scratching his head how it had been rejected given I live pretty much in the middle of nowehere... but here I am again.
Like I said I'm fed up, out of pocket by £1000's submitting plans, getting new plans drawn up twice and then spending another couple of £K on appeals so want to know if I could simply build two separate buildings side by side on the existing plot that would fall under the no planning needed guidelines and effectively build what I want and to the size I want but in effect two buildings rather than one which gets the council up in arms.
Freakuk said:
It's been refused again because it's apparently too big.... basically I wanted to extend my current 8x4 foot print to 8x7. I have 1m I would go back to the fence and then come forward in the other direction.
For reference, I live on a single track country lane with a property to the left - no objection, to the right there is a cowshed which my plans would be lower than and then further down is the next neighbours property - no objection.
Council have said you will see it from the road, you can already see the existing building from the road..... for reference the road that no-one lives on other than the properties mentioned. The guy who submitted the appeal was scratching his head how it had been rejected given I live pretty much in the middle of nowehere... but here I am again.
Like I said I'm fed up, out of pocket by £1000's submitting plans, getting new plans drawn up twice and then spending another couple of £K on appeals so want to know if I could simply build two separate buildings side by side on the existing plot that would fall under the no planning needed guidelines and effectively build what I want and to the size I want but in effect two buildings rather than one which gets the council up in arms.
Would you be willing to post links to the last application that was refused, seeing actual plans makes giving any meaningful advice much easier. Being too big is not a reason for refusal in itself, what was (word for word) the reason for refusal? It presumably references against the relevant local plan or national planning policy.For reference, I live on a single track country lane with a property to the left - no objection, to the right there is a cowshed which my plans would be lower than and then further down is the next neighbours property - no objection.
Council have said you will see it from the road, you can already see the existing building from the road..... for reference the road that no-one lives on other than the properties mentioned. The guy who submitted the appeal was scratching his head how it had been rejected given I live pretty much in the middle of nowehere... but here I am again.
Like I said I'm fed up, out of pocket by £1000's submitting plans, getting new plans drawn up twice and then spending another couple of £K on appeals so want to know if I could simply build two separate buildings side by side on the existing plot that would fall under the no planning needed guidelines and effectively build what I want and to the size I want but in effect two buildings rather than one which gets the council up in arms.
RedWhiteMonkey said:
Impossible to offer meaningful advise without seeing the site and knowing all the background, even what you can possibly do withing planning permission depends on site specifics. If you've been knocked back twice now they is probably something fundamental to address, I suggest that you employ a planning consultant that is local to you.
This.To provide any detailed advice we would have to see the plans, the appeal decision(s) and know the site constraints.
There are permitted development rights for outbuildings, but again it depends on the site constraints (conservation area etc), site history (any conditions removing permitted development rights), location of the outbuilding and dimensions.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2015/596/sched...
Someone I know got around height restrictions enforced by planning by digging down, not the cheapest, but it allowed him to get the cars he wanted in, and put a car lift in so he could get a couple.
We aint talking a multimillionaire btw, but he summasied it would be cheaper to do that then constantly appealing, submitting planning etc
We aint talking a multimillionaire btw, but he summasied it would be cheaper to do that then constantly appealing, submitting planning etc
HughG said:
It sounds like coming forwards may be classed as building forward of the building line.
In my experience you can normally submit a pre-application and then have a sensible conversation about what the planners will accept so that may be another route to explore.
Stafford BC has no pre-planning facility so we have had to submit full plans and wait for the outcomes.In my experience you can normally submit a pre-application and then have a sensible conversation about what the planners will accept so that may be another route to explore.
RedWhiteMonkey said:
Would you be willing to post links to the last application that was refused, seeing actual plans makes giving any meaningful advice much easier. Being too big is not a reason for refusal in itself, what was (word for word) the reason for refusal? It presumably references against the relevant local plan or national planning policy.
Here's the planning ref - 25/41048/HOUStafford BC
The architect is local and deals with Stafford BC daily so I find it hard to believe some of the comments to be honest.
Decision
1. The appeal is dismissed.
Preliminary Matter
2. While the proposal has been presented as a replacement building, the Council
indicates that the existing outbuilding does not benefit from planning permission.
This is not disputed by the appellant. Even if I were to accept the proposal as a
replacement, the existing structure is significantly smaller in scale and of a simpler
design than the appeal proposal. Consequently, it is not directly comparable to the
scheme before me. It therefore carries limited weight in the consideration of the
appeal.
Main Issue
3. The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the
character and appearance of the area.
Reasons
4. The appeal property comprises a modest former agricultural building and forms
part of a small cluster of dwellings. Outbuildings associated with neighbouring
properties are subservient in scale to their respective host dwellings, thereby
preserving the prominence of the principal buildings and maintaining a clear and
legible building hierarchy. Despite its proximity to the nearby industrial estate and
the planned extension, the site’s immediate setting is characterised by open fields
which contribute to a distinctly rural character, and it is within this context that the
proposal would be experienced.
5. Although the conversion has retained much of the building’s traditional agricultural
character, domestic additions including the gravel driveway, patio, and formalised
lawn have eroded its purely agrarian qualities. The proposed use of timber
cladding, Staffordshire blue tiles, and the overall design approach would not
appear discordant with the traditional character of the host building and its rural context.
Furthermore, the siting and building arrangement would broadly reflect the
pattern of traditional agricultural complexes in the countryside.
6. However, the footprint of the proposal would be excessive in comparison to the
host property, and the roof form, while reflecting the existing pitch would not be
subservient in height. Consequently, its overall scale and massing would compete
with, rather than defer to, the host property, resulting in a dominant and intrusive
form of development. Although public views of the proposal would be limited, its
unduly dominant and disproportionate scale in relation to the host property would
be visible from the lane on the approach to the site.
7. For these reasons, I find that the proposed development would harm the character
and appearance of the area contrary to Policies E2 and N1 of the Plan for Stafford
Borough 2011-2031. amongst other aspects, these policies seek to secure a high
standard of design which takes account of local character and context.
Freakuk said:
HughG said:
It sounds like coming forwards may be classed as building forward of the building line.
In my experience you can normally submit a pre-application and then have a sensible conversation about what the planners will accept so that may be another route to explore.
Stafford BC has no pre-planning facility so we have had to submit full plans and wait for the outcomes.In my experience you can normally submit a pre-application and then have a sensible conversation about what the planners will accept so that may be another route to explore.
ked. I remember hearing our local planning office once referred to as "a collective group of failed Geography teachers, with power". Lol.
(I think I know which property it is and the first check would be if your PD rights exist)
For example, if it was an agricultural barn converted under Class Q of the GPDO (PD legislation) then it wouldn't require a full planning application and might not be 'searchable' on the LPA's (Local Planning Authority) website as it would have been a Prior Approval type of application and you would have to request info from them.
If it was done this way then the GPDO (in respect of a dwelling house) states;
Development not permitted
E.1 Development is not permitted by Class E if -
(a) permission to use the dwellinghouse as a dwellinghouse has been granted only by virtue of Class M, N, P or Q of Part 3 of this Schedule (changes of use)
So, as a change of use (Class Q) it doesn't have PD rights for extension, detached outbuildings, etc. to a dwelling house.
This might be why you have been advised/gone down the planning application route which has unfortunately been refused. So, you need to consider the reasons why it has been refused (at Local and Appeal levels), address those issues and then resubmit.
Lack of neighbour objections doesn't really carry much weight, if any at all, as all applications would be judged against local planning policy. For example, if 20 neighbours support the application, but it goes against Policy x/y/z then it isn't going to get permission.
Equally, a building next door might have been agricultural PD (from many years ago) and the LPA had little control over what was built.
NOTE - just refreshed the page and Stafford will do pre-app for 'householder applications'... or they did three weeks ago... but are taking upto 12 weeks to validate applications...
For example, if it was an agricultural barn converted under Class Q of the GPDO (PD legislation) then it wouldn't require a full planning application and might not be 'searchable' on the LPA's (Local Planning Authority) website as it would have been a Prior Approval type of application and you would have to request info from them.
If it was done this way then the GPDO (in respect of a dwelling house) states;
Development not permitted
E.1 Development is not permitted by Class E if -
(a) permission to use the dwellinghouse as a dwellinghouse has been granted only by virtue of Class M, N, P or Q of Part 3 of this Schedule (changes of use)
So, as a change of use (Class Q) it doesn't have PD rights for extension, detached outbuildings, etc. to a dwelling house.
This might be why you have been advised/gone down the planning application route which has unfortunately been refused. So, you need to consider the reasons why it has been refused (at Local and Appeal levels), address those issues and then resubmit.
Lack of neighbour objections doesn't really carry much weight, if any at all, as all applications would be judged against local planning policy. For example, if 20 neighbours support the application, but it goes against Policy x/y/z then it isn't going to get permission.
Equally, a building next door might have been agricultural PD (from many years ago) and the LPA had little control over what was built.
NOTE - just refreshed the page and Stafford will do pre-app for 'householder applications'... or they did three weeks ago... but are taking upto 12 weeks to validate applications...
Looking at the original refusal, it states;
1. The proposed garage by reason of its excessive height and overall footprint, bulk and massing would represent a disproportionate addition resulting in harm to the retained agrarian character and appearance of the converted traditional agricultural building. The proposal therefore conflicts with policies E2 (e) and N1 (g) and (h) of The Plan for Stafford Borough.
So, it is too big and doesn't look right...
Looking at the submitted drawings, the proposed ridge line is pretty much the same height as the house and the new building is around 60% of the footprint of the house. So, you can hopefully see where they are coming from in terms of bulk/massing?
Planners like things to be subservient and in this case it is difficult to argue that it is and the design gives issues over 'footprint, bulk and massing'. It may be that a redesign of the roof/pitch/height/etc. might be acceptable to them.
In terms of appearance, they feel that it doesn't reflect the agricultural appearance (agrarian) 'expected' in rural locations, so changing the materials might overcome this issue. It shows oak cladding, however if there is no other examples of that, then it might go against you... despite the cost of those materials.
It shows exposed rafter ends, but if these aren't on the dwelling then you are proposing something with a more 'intricate detail', that is then fighting against the subservience that an outbuilding needs.
However, without some form of pre-app discussion, then you are p*ssing in the wind... trying to second guess what they might think is acceptable but wanting something that is fit for your purpose.
Sicking a flat roof on might overcome the issue of bulk/massing, but isn't going to give the appearance of anything found nearby and isn't going to work... however a mono-pitch and using corrugated metal cladding (:-o) - as found next door, might be appropriate in their eyes?
There doesn't appear to be a planning statement or Design & Access Statement as part of the submitted documents. In this case, given that it had already been refused once, then it would have made sense to put forward arguments for/against and quote relevant Policy and/or examples of other approvals. Basically a written explanation as to who/what/when/where/why the design is what it is.
This will become more pertinent with the changes to the Appeals process... simple terms, you can no longer add 'new material' during the Appeal, so it needs to be 'in' at the time of the original application. This is something I have done for many years, even for small domestic extensions, as it gives the opportunity to 'head off' arguments that the planners might have and essentially try to force them into a corner and to approve.
Yes, it takes time to do this 'additional work' and costs more upfront, but it might give you the decision first time and remove the cost of subsequent applications and/or Appeals.
1. The proposed garage by reason of its excessive height and overall footprint, bulk and massing would represent a disproportionate addition resulting in harm to the retained agrarian character and appearance of the converted traditional agricultural building. The proposal therefore conflicts with policies E2 (e) and N1 (g) and (h) of The Plan for Stafford Borough.
So, it is too big and doesn't look right...
Looking at the submitted drawings, the proposed ridge line is pretty much the same height as the house and the new building is around 60% of the footprint of the house. So, you can hopefully see where they are coming from in terms of bulk/massing?
Planners like things to be subservient and in this case it is difficult to argue that it is and the design gives issues over 'footprint, bulk and massing'. It may be that a redesign of the roof/pitch/height/etc. might be acceptable to them.
In terms of appearance, they feel that it doesn't reflect the agricultural appearance (agrarian) 'expected' in rural locations, so changing the materials might overcome this issue. It shows oak cladding, however if there is no other examples of that, then it might go against you... despite the cost of those materials.
It shows exposed rafter ends, but if these aren't on the dwelling then you are proposing something with a more 'intricate detail', that is then fighting against the subservience that an outbuilding needs.
However, without some form of pre-app discussion, then you are p*ssing in the wind... trying to second guess what they might think is acceptable but wanting something that is fit for your purpose.
Sicking a flat roof on might overcome the issue of bulk/massing, but isn't going to give the appearance of anything found nearby and isn't going to work... however a mono-pitch and using corrugated metal cladding (:-o) - as found next door, might be appropriate in their eyes?
There doesn't appear to be a planning statement or Design & Access Statement as part of the submitted documents. In this case, given that it had already been refused once, then it would have made sense to put forward arguments for/against and quote relevant Policy and/or examples of other approvals. Basically a written explanation as to who/what/when/where/why the design is what it is.
This will become more pertinent with the changes to the Appeals process... simple terms, you can no longer add 'new material' during the Appeal, so it needs to be 'in' at the time of the original application. This is something I have done for many years, even for small domestic extensions, as it gives the opportunity to 'head off' arguments that the planners might have and essentially try to force them into a corner and to approve.
Yes, it takes time to do this 'additional work' and costs more upfront, but it might give you the decision first time and remove the cost of subsequent applications and/or Appeals.
Gassing Station | Homes, Gardens and DIY | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff