CO Woes - do I have grounds for a grievance?

[paulbandler]

"I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore!... " - I feel exactly like Peter Finch's character in the 1976 film 'Network'.... but perhaps rather than blowing my brains out on national TV, I can seek some sane council from this forum?

Background:

I'm seeking permission to extend (and renovate) a very modest 1920's cottage located within a conservation area in a village close to Oxford. The cottage has no decent kitchen and the original 3rd bedroom upstairs was at some stage converted to a bathroom. It is in a fairly prominent location and, though positioned behind quite a high stone wall and gates, is something of an eye-saw as it turns its back to the road with unsightly drains painted blue and clad in nasty concrete grey render and no windows at all facing the road. Its main architectural elevation contains 2 stone bay windows that are at the rear of the property and face the garden. We started the renovation of the existing house last year before moving in and while plans for the extension were drawn up. Significantly its layout is such that the property is mostly only 1 room deep - i.e. it has quite a wide frontage already for its very modest space within. I engaged a local architect to draw up the plans for an extension to the side of the property. He came up with what we thought was a great design featuring a glazed link to separate new from old (just like I've seen heralded as what CO's love in other postings on this forum), and a 'cat-slide' roof to extend the downstairs accommodation towards the rear of the property to provide a breakfast area.

However, while all the neighbors were very happy to see the house being brought back to life, much to my surprise the local Parish council objected on a number of grounds, principally loss of significant view and important gap. Then, the CO/Case officer indicated that they did not think the Parish councils concerns were particularly reasonable, but they expressed concerns over the size and massing, insufficiently subservient to the existing dwelling, fenestration not complementary to the existing, too many roof-lights that would form a cluster when viewed from afar across the valley etc etc. In short I got told that it was insupportable on design grounds and we really should have pre-consulted. So, like good little school-children, we did what the CO/Case officer wanted (given time was running out and they really did want to meet their planning SLA targets before Christmas), and we withdrew the application prior to determination.

I haven't got to the bit I'm mad about yet - patience please!

The Sting

We subsequently arranged a 'guidance' meeting with the architect and CO and case officer and we agreed an acceptable smaller envelope and to simplify aspects of the fenestration. In particular they indicated that a separating link was not necessary but confirmed that the cat-slide roof was acceptable, all of which was duly minuted. I followed up initially with elevations produced from my own amateur cad-package produced interpretation of the smaller design, one of which was super-imposed on an existing photo to clearly illustrate the size, massing and subservient ridge line. They confirmed the acceptability of this form in general terms but asked me to submit the architects drawing for check prior to submission. However, I raised further questions with illustrations proposing a dormer within the cat-slide roof but they said no. I pushed for more clarification from the CO as to whether any sized dormer would be acceptable, and in a phone call and in subsequent email got told that basically they didn't have any more time to discuss such detail and that I should submit the application. I decided not to risk going with the dormer window and sent in the architect's drawings of what I felt confident would be well received. But as the CO had told me to submit the application, whereas the case officer's earlier advice had been to send the drawing for a final check before the application I was unsure whether I still needed to do this. So I sent them in for a check with an email indicating that there were mixed messages from them in this respect so could they let me know if there were any issues otherwise if I didn't hear back from them in 2 days I'd go ahead and submit the application, which is what I did....as I didn't get any response within that time or since.

Local parish council (bless them), of course still objected to the loss of view etc, but I felt confident that we'd been so 'good' and followed all the guidance so carefully that the CO/case officer would support the application and take on the parish council at the planning meeting... Until this week when I received an email from the case officer indicating that they (CO/case officer) had concerns over some of the 'detailing' on the design. I had expected some tweaking of the design, and 2 of the 3 points I can accept as reasonable 'detail' that could not have been seen from earlier drawings. However the 3rd point is a bomb-shell and blows the entire design out of the water. It is that they've now decided that as the house faces away from the road that the cat-slide roof (which also slides towards the rear), is inappropriate as it dominates the existing dwelling. Now, we could have an objective discussion as to whether this is or is not a reasonable objection to make. But should it not have been raised by them at a much earlier stage? I mean, I've spent another £1000+ on architects fees and invested huge amounts of time and effort planning the detailed interiors, arranging builders etc since the guidance meeting at which we explicitly checked on the acceptability of the cat-slide roof? Don't we the public have any rights or can these public servant ride rough-shod over us as they hold the power of planning permission over our heads... as I said, I'm mad as hell.....

It gets worse... A simplistic implementation of the changes they asked for ("just change the cat-slide roof for a lean-to"), would yield an design not worth building so again I commissioned the architect to revisit the design in the light of the comments (yet more dosh), and he's come up with yet another scheme, something of a hybrid between the first and second but without the cat-slide. It gives us less amenity within, much more cramped and is less well laid out, but hey, CO's don't care about that it seems. Anyway, rather than do nothing this Spring we'd probably be prepared to accept it, but it is quite a big change and going by previous experience the case officer doubt that the case officer will be able to support the scheme without being certain of the CO's support. I've asked that we meet with them again to go through it but it seems the CO is away for 3 weeks holiday as of next week, and the case officer won't delay its consideration for the CO's return. So we'll meet next week sometime when the case officer can find us 30 minutes in the day, but the chances of success seem remote.

Any advice on how to approach this would be most welcome... thanks for your patience in reading this far... at least I've let off some steam...

 

[Moo]

Poor you. I do wish I had a magic wand.

 

[andrew gayton]

What is the delegation agreement? - i.e if an officer wants to refuse the application, does he/she have authority to do so without (elected) member approval? if members have to have final say at a planning meeting, you should be able to present your case (most allow this now). Whatever the situation or out come, you have the right of appeal.

if it were me, I would apply for what I ideally sought, and go down the appeal route if refused.

 

[paulbandler]

Thanks for the reply.

Yes I appreciate what avenues are available to me given the time, money and energy to pursue them. My frustration is over the hash made of the process so far, and whether I have grounds for a grievance based on the material loss and time/stress I've suffered due to it. I.e I know that there's an appeal process I can use to argue the planning point, but independent of that and whatever the actual planning outcome is, do I not have a valid grievance that I could make a formal complaint about?

 

[middi]

It appears that in this particular situation the cliche' of " it is not what you know but who you know" is well justified.

To clarify, and without prejudice to the person/architect that provided the drawings, this situation would have not become as frustrating if a conservation architect was engaged which would have, initially, discussed your requirements with the CO.

These discussions would have been made with a language which was derived from the same vocabulary as to appropriate proposals which would have taken into considerations your need in a sensitive conservation aerea.

When this kind of approach is used, a good conservation architect would normally produce draft drawings which would reflect the sensitivity of the situation and , bar perhaps to some minor alteration,more likely to be accepted and permission granted.

As Andrew suggested, you can always appeal against an unfavourable decision.

You may feel that you have followed the correct procedure in order to achieve what you want, - AND YOU HAVE !! -, I have reservations in believing if the right architect has been used to help you through this process.

As to Parish councils views, whilst these are taken seriousely when building applications are submitted, the final decision rests with the planning DPT.

 

[andrew gayton]

Procedural matters/grievance can be reviewed by the local ombudsman................

Hi Middi - I hope that your feet have thawed out after the trip to Norfolk!

 

[middi]

My feet are fine Andrew, it's my ears, I am still trying not to touch them in case they fall off.
l

 

[paulbandler]

Thanks again for the further replies.

Middi's point regarding 'conservation architects' is an interesting one. To be honest, outside of this forum I've not heard of architects presenting themselves as specialists in conservation, but perhaps that is indicative of my narrow experience. When seeking an architect we spoke to 3 very local architects, 2 of which have offices actually within the conservation area. While claimed experience in the locale, none specifically mentioned being conservation architects.

The one I chose actually recommended against pre-consulting on the grounds that in his experience it was better to put in for what you want, following of course an interpretation of local design guidelines. He tells me that most of his collegues in the region (I think he's the chair of some RIBA association or something like) are agreed that this is best. But when the first application all went pair-shaped, I thought, well so much for not pre-consulting and we duly consulted, took minutes etc and I began to think he must have been wrong to advise not to pre-consult.

Now that this second application with consultation has also gone off the tracks, it seems he has been proved right - that you can't rely on the pre-consultation anyway! ggrr.

We have a meeting arranged with case officer, architect and locale counciler to oversea the process - I hope something can be rescued but I'm not optimistic...

 

[ajbaker]

To clarify, and without prejudice to the person/architect that provided the drawings, this situation would have not become as frustrating if a conservation architect was engaged which would have, initially, discussed your requirements with the CO.

I'm sorry Middi, but my experience is quite the opposite. I have always consulted with our Conservation Officer before planning/applying for anything. Just recently, he vetoed a design by my architect that he had previously said could be considered.

Meanwhile my neighbours have extended without permission and the CO is reluctant to do anything. Lesson learned: go ahead with what you want regardless.

Of course that is not the solution, but it does feel as though you are fighting an individual rather than a defined set of guidelines. I can empathise with the OP. To then be told there is more "time to discuss such detail" is a joke. In my case I am in the process of submitting a formal grievance about the way in which my case has been approached - and it has only set me back £250! I don't expect any compensation and have no desire for it to go further, but I do not find it acceptable that a public organisation can behave like this.

 

[middi]

I accept that in some situations proceedings in obtaining planning permission, especially where LB consent is sought, somehow it seems to go off the rails and some party or other gets totally p****d off in the process.

This is mainly due to the fact that wilst there exists clear rules regarding application, it is not so cut and dry when the interpretation and requirements for the sake of conservation become relevant. If this was the case there would be no need for conservation officers, therefore open season for every architect which would be dealing with LB's.

It is due to this muddy aerea in interpreting " conservation" and extremely important that a respected conservation architect be engaged, if possible, to negotiate with the CO on your behalf. Purely on grounds
that they would be discussing any process on the same wavelenght from the very beginning, the likelyhood of misunderstanding is more or less eliminated.

By all means, invite the CO for an initial site visit to explain you needs , then relay his comments to a prospective architect. A good conservation architect is more than likely to come up with the goods towards any sensible proposals one may wish to submit.

It has been my experience that a number of , very good I must add, architects, have tried their luck with totally inappropriate consideration to the welfare of conservation. In such a situation they are mostly guided by the CO's interpretation of the situation which inevitably results in a number of drawings and re-drawings to be made .

This is when patience starts getting very thin from every direction.

 

[middi]

........I would like to add to my previous post that, ironically, nobody has really made a professional mistake, just costly misunderstandings.

 

[paulbandler]

Well, this 'costly misunderstanding' is that whereas at the guidance meeting, it was minuted that:

"tem 2.3
Definition of external envelope – ‘cat slide’ roof.
XXXX(architect) confirmed that this roof form would assist in the internal planning of the staircase. XXXX(planning) confirmed that they had no strong objections to this roof form."

The comment on the submitted design says:

"A catslide roof is a common vernacular feature to introduce
additional space at the rear of a building. Because of the orientation
of this building, the street frontage is actually the rear and the
garden front is the main, architecturally designed elevation. The
projection to the rear is overly dominant and not in keeping with the
character of the main house. "

It seems to me that that is more than a mis-understanding, it is a change of mind that has cost me dear...

 

[Moo]

Translation :

1 "Yes, fine, a catslide roof would be perfectly ok."

2. "Whoops! We'd forgotten to check which way round the house is."

 

[ajbaker]

I'm fairly sure if my council had less 'misunderstandings', council tax would be lower. Regardless of definition, local council now operate in a commercial environment and should therefore appreciate all errors, faults, mistakes or misunderstandings are costly to someone. If I misunderstood a parking sign do you think the local council would let it drop?

 

[Flyfisher]

I suspect part of the frustration is that on one side of the equation you have people with little personal vested interest in any decisions/mistakes/change of mind and ot the other you have the individual property owner for whom every little decision/mistake/change of mind has a profound personal impact in terms of time, money and emotional stress.

If I misunderstood a parking sign do you think the local council would let it drop?

I once took Westminster Council all the way to a parking tribunal after I was wrongly ticketed. They ignored my letters, my photographs, the comments from two Police witnesses and then didn't bother turning up at the tribunal, which I won in about 5 minutes flat. I asked for my costs over the 9 months the whole thing took . . . "oh, there are never any costs awarded by parking tribunals". No wonder they don't seem to care about their on-commission wardens just dishing out tickets to all and sundry. I'd bet a reasonable proportion of wrongly ticketed people just give in and pay anyway. Scandalous really, but I digress.

 

[Nemesis]

Conservation architects:

http://www.aabc-register.co.uk/

 

[skier-hughes]

XXXX(planning) confirmed that they had no strong objections to this roof form."

It seems to me that that is more than a mis-understanding, it is a change of mind that has cost me dear...

To me reading this post.

If XXXX had said they had no objections I suspect you'd have cause for complaint, but as they said no strong objections they obviously had reservations about it, which they are now bringing to the fore.

 

[worth]

Go to appeal we fought our council for three years because we wanted to knock down an old cottage(pile of rubble) in a green belt they refused because it would set a prescient(think thats how you spell it) we won the appeal the council had no grounds for their objections I did the appeal myself it cost nothing

 

[Moo]

precedent

 

[paulbandler]

While it's good hear of successful stories where common sense prevails over uncaring bureacracy I'm not prepared to spend 3 years of my life on this - its not a project peripheral to my living, but affecting us on a day-to-day basis as we 'camp' in what we'd expected to be tempory cramped conditions.

As for the use of the word strong before objection, while this is how it was minuted, I don't in fact recall any objection at all being mentioned to the cat-slide roof in the earlier written CO report or subsequent guidance meeting.