CO Woes - do I have grounds for a grievance?

[Nemesis]

I may have missed something here as too much to do and a trip away has meant a rather skimmed reading of this but - as far as I can see the catslide was considered OK it it was on the back of the property which usually means not the public side - but in fact the back is the public side. Was your CO aware of this at the time of indicating the work would be OK? Or did that only coem to the fore later?

In addition - a cluster of rooflights may be one way of getting in more light but it's not really very sympathetic to a period building. It is very visually disruptive and not really considered a good thing.

I also add another general point - don't buy a listed building in the expectation that you can extend and expand it. It doesn't always happen. better to try to buy something large enough to begin with.

 

[paulbandler]

The CO and case officer both visited the site during the first application last October. The back of the property is not the public side but it is the architecturally significant side - i.e. its rear elevation looks exactly like you'd expect a front elevation to look like (2 bays either side of a central door, porch roof across.

The rear view is almost totally hidden from public view although you can catch a glimpse of it from one position - prior to buying the place I'd lived iin the village 7 years without noticing the property and I drove past it every day!

 

[Nemesis]

Right. Three bay then, as that includes the door. Public view of course isn't really totally significant as there are many listed buildings in the middle of acres with no public access, I just thought it could have been a small part of the difficulty.

It does sound a pretty dramatic change to the building I have to say. Sometimes too what sounds OK in theory when it comes to the architect's interpretation isn't, and attempts at getting a quart out of a pint pot spring to mind.

 

[paulbandler]

Thanks for your interest Nemesis.

This is not a listed building, just a very modest small 1920's house that lies within a conservation area. It has very modest accomodation relative to its plot size. I don't know when it got its conservation area designation, but all around are examples of plot over-development (adjacent a commercial property occupies 100% of its plot and has permission to build a second story on it). This house has a relatively large plot for such a mid-village location and we do not need to increase the plot area developed by much at all (as we propose to demolish a garage and outbuildings that must have been erected in the '60's - nasty asbestos concrete roof, block walls etc).

The earlier guidance discussion with the CO and case officer wasn't purely in theory as it was in the context of the previously submitted and subsequently withdrawn scheme which also included a cat-slide roof - i.e. we already had the benefit of the architects interpretation. However in that scheme we had the benefit of a separation of the cat-slide from the existing building by a glazed link, which we were asked to remove to make the size and massing of the extension acceptable and to reduce the multiple fenestration levels.

Regarding the 'cluster' of roof lights, the second submission reduced the number of rooflights accordingly like the good little parisioners that we are, doing what we were told.

On the subject of roof-lights, what is it that is so attractive about the so-called 'conservation' rooflights with their morbid black vertical mullions? Over 90% of the rooflights I've counted in the village are not of this type, yet the CO/case officer insist that conservation roof lights should be used to be consistent with the area - heaven-to-betsy...

IMHO any fair and objective assessment of the proposed scheme would conclude that it will result in a significantly more pleasing contribution to the public space than at present. However it feels that as it breaks certain gold CO determined rules, these are inflexible and out-weigh everything else. For example the CO suggested that the ridge-line could be futher lowered by digging-down the extension. They fail to lend any weight to the fact that digging down introduces a change of levels within the property which has a major impact on disability access - something I'm keen to avoid knowing all to well the difficulties this can present.

 

[Nemesis]

Well the rules aren't made up by the local authority, but they are interpreted, based on law, national and local policies and case law. Without seeing the plans it's hard to know why they aren't acceptable. Your local authority will have locally adopted policies too for what happens in conservation areas, and there may be a conservation area appraisal in place you can ask to look at.

http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/server/show/nav.1062


It may be that others have done things to buildings without having to apply for permission - they have permitted development rights. What has been done in the past may have been before the conservation area was declared. Yours is new work and comes under the need for planning permission therefore your building has to conform to those policies. All work has to be seen to 'conserve and enhance' the conservation area. What that means in reality may be not what you want for the building.

Roof lines and what happens to roofs is one aspect of what is generally restricted in conservation areas, even more stringent regulations are in force if an Article Four direction is in place.

Conservation roofloights - well, in my opinion they do look better than those things which sit on top of the roof structure and are flat glass expanses, where it looks as though holes have been punched in the roof. Visually very disruptive, especially on a traditional roof. Glazing bars tend to tie them in with the rest f the building's fenestration.

This is a site about buildings in conservation areas - it's quite detailed and useful:

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/HomeAndCommunity/Planning/PlanningPermission/DG_10026179

 

[paulbandler]

Thanks for that useful reply Nemesis. I'll look at the links later.

One specific question I have is on the in regard to the scope of what is deemed as relevant to that which can 'conserve and enhance' the conservation area. In particular most of what I've read to-date on the goal of a conservation area seems focused on how the proposed change effects the public environment. Is it written down in policy or law somewhere that the conservation restrictions apply equally to the private space not visible to the public as they do the public? This is what seems to be happening in my case. The CO/Case officer are happy (now) with the street facing elevation, but not the garden/private elevation. They believe they are required to to control this just as much as if it were a public view. OTOH, my architect (who has 10 years experience working on the local authority side of the fence) says that usually more flexibility is allowed on the private side...? I'm just the confused lay-person in the middle (shelling out the dosh...)

 

[Nemesis]

The people to ask work at your local authority. They interpret (democratically adopted) local planning guidelines - ask for yours for the conservation area.

 

[paulbandler]

Thanks - I've read the local planning guide end-to-end and found nothing that I can point to definitively. Found lots of policies I could use to support the application, but on conservation in regard to public verses private space, nothing. It's open to CO interpretation. Everyone I've spoken to locally about this is a little surprised by the CO position, but it doesn't make the CO wrong necessarily.

To win the argument I need something specific about public cf. private space/visibility and something that says they need to take a view on balance so that my inability to meet one design concern needs to be weighed objectively against the benefits of the scheme overall - which it doesn't seem to be at the moment...

 

[Nemesis]

I can't think of anything which says some parts of a conservation area are covered by policies whereas others aren't. All design in a conservation area needs to be of high quality and 'enhance'.