Objective design opinion

[BTH K10A]

Just looking for some objective opinions as to whether this is really poor design that is too high and wide for its setting or just the view of incompetant planners who are unable to undertake even basic trigonometry.(claimed they were 33m tall)



http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f120/emttsd15/sc00338838.jpg

http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f120/emttsd15/houses-1.jpg

Marco, feel free to delete this if you feel it's not appropriate for this forum. Just feeling a bit battered at the moment.

[Reid Malenfant]

33M tall? That's over 100ft or ten stories where I come from :eyebrows:

33ft perhaps ;) Which would be 3 stories & a bit for the roof :)

[Covenant]

I have an architectural background and IMHO the block seems balanced and in proportion.
Average storey to storey height is 3.0m so 9 metres to the eaves, 12 m to the ridge.

[YNWaN]

Is it the design of the roof that is the sticking point?

[The Vinyl Adventure]

33m eh ... im scared of that 4-5m tall man ... and those cars are pretty over sized for our roads!

[Alex_UK]

I think the proportions look fine.

[BTH K10A]

I have an architectural background and IMHO the block seems balanced and in proportion.
Average storey to storey height is 3.0m so 9 metres to the eaves, 12 m to the ridge.

Pretty much spot on. The height is 12.5m.

Using the guidelines of a line drawn at a 25 degree angle from half way up a gound floor window, the buildings would overshadow the house opposite at a height of 32.5m. So they planners stated they were 33m tall in the delegated report.

They also stated they overlooked the front garden of the house opposite by using the standards for rear private gardens (26m) instead of that for the front which is 21m. the proposal was 25m distance.

They also did not like that 3m of the roof projecting above the bounary wall at the rear of my garden.

[BTH K10A]

Is it the design of the roof that is the sticking point?

It probably bugged the planners but their own website linked to a government document on good design that featured a very similar design in a conservation area.

[Covenant]

Could the design be altered to reduce the height of the roof at the rear? If you can point out their obvious misinterpretation of national guidelines and offer a compromise on the last point you may get somewhere.
I designed my house and its 19 metres face to face with the house opposite. It never came up as an issue!

[BTH K10A]

Yes I could reduce the height but I cant see how it's unacceptable to have a build that has only 3m of roof visible above a 2m boundary wall.

If that test is applied to say a level plot, even a bungalow would he higher.

[Covenant]

I agree and I am sure you would win on appeal but finding a solution that allows the planners to feel they 'reduced the visual impact' as they are likely to say will be the quickest way to obtain your planning permission and involve least cost/delay.
IMO of course.

[YNWaN]

It probably bugged the planners but their own website linked to a government document on good design that featured a very similar design in a conservation area.

The reason I mention the roof is because it doesn't seem to fit with the local vernacular of the other buildings shown - this, coupled with the misunderstanding over height, may be the issue.

[BTH K10A]

The reason I mention the roof is because it doesn't seem to fit with the local vernacular of the other buildings shown - this, coupled with the misunderstanding over height, may be the issue.

Yes the roof details is different but the road I live in has, to quote the local council " an eclectic mix of buildings of no particular vernacular form but the use of stucco on the lower levels on a number of buildings providing a unifying feature to the streetscene. The Georgian buildings on the terrace behind all have various forms of dormers, some quite large.

There was no misunderstanding regarding height. The LPA planner is quite senior and it was a deliberate act so that the proposal failed the overshadowing guidelines by 0.5m. This was pointed out to the LPA in the access statement of a resubmission along with calculations but they still made the same statement in the delegated report. The first time could have been a mistake or incompetence but the second becomes intentional.

What has been very enlightening throughout my experience with the planning process has been the conduct town planners. I took to recording events and meetings which has now paid off. The planning inspector made a serious error in process ans conduct. He could have just said he made a mistake but has instead fabricated a story. If that person is foolish enough to counter the affidavits from my witnesses by making a sworn statement then I'll provide the irrefutable video evidence. My moral dilema is: Do I forwarn the inspectorate that I have that evidence or do I deliberately let the inspector commit an indictable offence?

[Reid Malenfant]

My moral dilema is: Do I forwarn the inspectorate that I have that evidence or do I deliberately let the inspector commit an indictable offence?
I'd suggest you let them hang themselves :) If you let them know you have evidence that they messed up then it's quite possible they may well think you are attempting to use some leverage shall we say ;)

Keep yourself out of possible trouble...

[bogle111]

I took to recording events and meetings which has now paid off. The planning inspector made a serious error in process ans conduct. He could have just said he made a mistake but has instead fabricated a story. If that person is foolish enough to counter the affidavits from my witnesses by making a sworn statement then I'll provide the irrefutable video evidence. My moral dilema is: Do I forwarn the inspectorate that I have that evidence or do I deliberately let the inspector commit an indictable offence?

Did you advise/inform them that you were recording events. I believe that you legally must inform someone if you are recording them, but I could be wrong.

I wouldn't let them hang them self, cause one day they may just come back with something else that they are not happy with. It can be a dodgy game playing with an official's integrity - best avoided I think.

I would tell him only though, face to face, and try that out come, otherwise they will see you were out to "trap them".

[bobbasrah]

Personally, I would let the clowns hang themselves, however, it can have consequences as these little hitlers can be arrogance personified. It rarely makes any difference, other than them scrutinising every little detail in search of vengeance.
I recall one case which went so far as the High Court in Edinburgh, and the Court in it's summary jusgement stated that it was incredible that such a blatantly illegal and improper decision by the planning authority had been made in the first instance, compounded against all logic and at public expense by delay and fillibuster to arrive in the Court. Costs were awarded against the authority, nobody lost their job, and they made the plaintiff's life a living hell. All for a dormer window for a loft bedroom conversion.
And we complain about chinese bureaucracy.....