This project is a lesson in persistence. The client’s home came with a large side plot which could accommodate a subdivision with little impact on the amenity (and value) of the original home.
The site is located in a residential area with properties being mainly two-storey in design, several of which accommodate large side extensions giving an almost terraced like appearance.
An application was prepared for an design which mimicked the (pedestrian) architecture, materials and fenestration and provided a 3-bed dwelling. Other improvements were offered such as burying the LPG tank and the introduction of new landscaping.
Sadly the application was ignored by the LPA for a few months so the decision was taken to go to appeal. A year later, despite no objections being received from the Parish, neighbours or statutory consultees and by Infill being supported by the Neighbourhood Plan, the Inspector inexplicably refused the scheme due to a perception of the undeveloped gap between these houses having some form of important contribution to the local character. This appeal decision made no sense to both the client, us and both the LPA given the decisions made about further applications.
A two-step approach was then agreed with client whereby we would secure permission for a large 2-storey side extension to the original dwelling, and then most recently, a second application was made to turn that extension into a new to a new dwelling.
This was approved by the local authority who likely shared the same view of the inspectors judgement from three months prior. This site is a case study in taking good advice and being persistent and tenacious in your approach. Whilst one could argue that the LPA may have approved the original submission, this particular LPA have a very high caseload, and there is no guarantee that this alternative wait-and-see approach would have been any quicker nor as positive.
The site is located in a residential area with properties being mainly two-storey in design, several of which accommodate large side extensions giving an almost terraced like appearance.
An application was prepared for an design which mimicked the (pedestrian) architecture, materials and fenestration and provided a 3-bed dwelling. Other improvements were offered such as burying the LPG tank and the introduction of new landscaping.
Sadly the application was ignored by the LPA for a few months so the decision was taken to go to appeal. A year later, despite no objections being received from the Parish, neighbours or statutory consultees and by Infill being supported by the Neighbourhood Plan, the Inspector inexplicably refused the scheme due to a perception of the undeveloped gap between these houses having some form of important contribution to the local character. This appeal decision made no sense to both the client, us and both the LPA given the decisions made about further applications.
A two-step approach was then agreed with client whereby we would secure permission for a large 2-storey side extension to the original dwelling, and then most recently, a second application was made to turn that extension into a new to a new dwelling.
This was approved by the local authority who likely shared the same view of the inspectors judgement from three months prior. This site is a case study in taking good advice and being persistent and tenacious in your approach. Whilst one could argue that the LPA may have approved the original submission, this particular LPA have a very high caseload, and there is no guarantee that this alternative wait-and-see approach would have been any quicker nor as positive.