Period planning permission.......

[mims&pip]

Hi guys,

Hope everyone had a splendid Christmas

I have a query regarding planning permission to subdivide a house within a Conservation Area that is also subject to an article 4(2) direction.

Our neighbour bought his detached, 1850s house at auction about six months ago. In our road of approximately forty houses - all of which are detached - the five (iirc) oldest comprise the Conservation Area and these also have an article 4(2) as they are considered to be "of townscape merit". In 2002 (pre the application of the 4(2), but since the creation of this CA) the previous owner applied for and was granted permission to add a 51' garage attached to the side of the original house. This not unattractive, pitched-roof building stands partially on the footprint of another Victorian house - also detached - that stood between our house and his and was demolished in the 1960s.

From the outset our new neighbour had a rather gung-ho attitude to the property, removing several trees in the rear garden without first approaching the council for permission. He told us his intention was to convert the large garage to a kitchen for his family replacing the current basement kitchen in the original part of the house. Last week, at a pre-Christmas neighbourhood party, he informed us his family weren't settling and that they may do "a quick refurb" and put it back on the market. He also half jokingly dropped into the conversation that he had considered splitting the house into two semi-detacheds........

Fast forward to yesterday and he appeared on our doorstep informing Pip that he had that morning submitted a planning application to the council (complete with architect's plans) to do just that - subdivide the whole building into two houses. I didn't see the plans - and they are not yet online - but Pip said they showed various extensions to the rear, alterations to the roofline (of both the 1850s house and the 2002 garage, the latter of which will form part of the newly created house and a carport providing parking for four cars for both properties) and changes to the front elevation.

I appreciate the need for more housing, but in a road with relatively large detached houses, and particularly as his is one of the original properties in the area, I am not happy with his proposals to change forever the exterior appearance and set a precedent for further alterations. We intend to speak to someone soon (hopefully the Conservation Officer) at the planning dept, but just wondered if anyone had any knowledge/experience of the likelihood of planning permission being granted to transform a detached house in a CA with a 4(2) into two semis?

Thanks in advance for any thoughts!

Mims x

 

[plasticpigeon]

I'm sorry to hear this Mims. i feel like saying "that's the West Midlands for you". I have lost count of the number of times buildings have been demolished, butchered or intrusively and even illegally extended without any planning permission at all, only to have retrospective approval. One conservation area in Birmingham had it's conservation area status withdrawn as so many of the residents flouted the system. In your case it is hopefully positive that plans have been submitted, which means that objections can be made before any work starts, as there is no chance of returning a building to a former state once work has been carried out.

http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/local-news/council-gives-up-on-bordesley-green-88473

 

[jocelyn plummer]

That is AWFUL--- I sincerely hope that you can raise objections within the criteria set for such matters, and PLEASE god he doesn't start the work prior to proper consents etc.

Not a good start to the year.

xx xx

 

[mims&pip]

Thank you PP and Jocelyn x

I had imagined it might be the case that here in the West Mids there is more apathy towards such acts of architectural desecration. The property in question unfortunately bears little resemblance towards its original incarnation as a three-storey, but otherwise relatively humble detached cottage as it has been gradually and inappropriately extended over the past few decades - firstly it had an integral garage added (this has since been given permission to convert back to habitable space), then it had a large attached garage appended to the side. This in turn was enlarged up to the boundary, but perhaps with a view to future conversion it was given three large windows overlooking the extensive rear garden and countryside beyond. A further 'cartlodge' style garage was erected in the garden and an ugly white upvc Victorian style conservatory added to the rear of the original cottage. The whole house was painted brilliant white (straight over the brickwork for the most part) and white upvc windows fitted. Imho, from the rear it now resembles a white car showroom :roll:

At least the alterations/extensions to our house in 1924 were characterful and added interesting features to the overall appearance! Moreover, the successive owners of our house in neglecting to do much internally (or externally for that matter :roll: ) actually preserved many of the features, whereas one particular owner of next door (who lived there for thirty years till 2014) seemed hell bent on removing all traces of the house's history.

Therefore, whilst it does have the Conservation Area and article 4(2) protection, I have a nasty feeling the council might consider it too far gone to be of architectural interest and allow the desired changes to go ahead. I wonder whether setting a precedent by being the only pair of semis in a road full of detached houses is an argument worth pursuing?

There is a house on the opposite side of the lane that was built in the 1980s (?) that has had so many additions and changes externally granted permission over the years it now resembles a carbuncle on the original building. Of course it is not in the CA so slightly different, but I do know that when the last change was applied for, another neighbour (in 'the big house' which is in the CA etc) submitted a letter of objection, stating that the property had been gradually nibbled away at till it looked nothing like the intended design. Planning permission was refused - and again on appeal - although I believe this was more to do with insufficient parking to support the desired change than anything else, but perhaps the 'nibbling away' at the original building is a good analogy to employ here too.......

In the meantime we are still debating whether our own future lies in this area or not. I had convinced myself it was not so bad, but Pip feels differently and wants out asap :?

Happy New Year to all, btw!

Mims x

 

[jocelyn plummer]

It is not merely the architectural implications of this application, it is a question of whether the property should be turned into two semi detached dwellings--there is the matter of car ingress/egress and appropriate parking for at least 4 more cars. I am sure that you are familiar with the criteria for objecting to planning applications--if you need to know more then go to the local planning portal and there you will find the criteria for objections--there may well be some grounds for doing so.


I was going to ask whether your plans to sell would be affected by this--I suppose a potential buyer could be put off by the thought of building works disruption/being overlooked etc

 

[mims&pip]

Thanks again Jocelyn, your further thoughts are most appreciated

Yes, imho the fact that the current owner plans to make two houses from one is just as big a concern as the damage that will be done to the remaining integrity of the original building. However, I'm also aware that if we choose to object we need to do so in such a way that doesn't portray us as petulant nimbys :roll:

Car ingress/egress is currently an issue, for whilst the set up includes the aforementioned 51' garage (plus additional cartlodge on the lawn), the lane itself is narrow meaning that cars struggle to get into/out of the garage and consequently end up parked inside at an angle. The plan as we saw it when given a brief glimpse of the drawings is to open up the majority of the 51' garage width from the lane and extend outwards behind this into the garden with some sort of carport. The intention is to provide parking for four cars (two for each property) in this space. The garden (probably 140' wide) will be divided up to allow portions for each house and a third section will house the cartlodge providing storage for both properties and access to/from the carport/garaging. A small portion of the garage (furthest from our own house) will be incorporated into the newly formed second semi with an alteration to the roofline at the rear elevation to allow extra bedrooms to be created.

Fortunately both our properties/plots are wide and even allowing for their extension to the rear/roof space our house/garden will not be overlooked in any way - although we are wary of his intention to extend the length of the garage/carport as it will have an impact on the light coming into our kitchen. In addition I am concerned about the impact major building work would have on our own plans should we proceed with selling. Pip, however is convinced that the neighbour is deluded* and even if he does obtain planning permission, the current market here will see him struggling to find a buyer at the price he has mentioned.........

Mims x

* a neighbour has had his (non-conservation area), nine bedroom house with planning permission to demolish and replace with three smaller detached houses on the market for some six years!!! He last reduced the price in 2011 :shock:

 

[MatthewC]

I once lived in a large village down a narrow L-shaped lane which had only eight houses; one was a bungalow on the corner of the L and thus had a very large garden. The owner applied for, and was refused, permission to demolish and build SIX houses on the one plot. I think the reason for this was the extra traffic it would have created on this narrow unadopted lane, so I suggest that you try the same sort of approach if you can.

Eventually the owner split the plot and sold the empty half with PP for only one new bungalow. When he then moved out of the remaining bit, the new owner was a builder, who decided to extend his bungalow by building a brand new building all around it and somehow this was called an "extension"! Then he decided to build a new double garage with a "games room" above - I objected to the application on the grounds that, as a building contractor, he wanted to run his business from that building. To my surprise the PP specifically excluded that possibility as one of the conditions.

Then another plot down the lane was sold with PP for a "dormer bungalow", which somehow ended up as a normal two storey house... one thing about Planning is that there is no consistency!

 

[jocelyn plummer]

Pip is very probably right!!