22/1624/FUL REFUSED: Home Renovation inc. Side Extension and Loft Conversion

Lower Road, Chorleywood | Three Rivers District Council

Refused Planning Application for Construction of part two-storey, part single-storey side and rear extensions, loft conversion including insertion of rear dormer to provide one, new residential flat, front roof lights and photovoltaic panels, rear balcony amenity area.

Read full planning application here.

This scheme is basically a former post office, architecturally uninspiring, which currently contains 2 flats and the owners are looking to add a further flat. The planning decision to refuse has five reasons for refusal, which is quite unusual, one or two reasons are the norm. The reasons are as follows:

1. The additions to the building, which are a contemporary addition to a traditional building form, are out of keeping with the original - easily resolved with a more traditional design
2. The balcony above the rear single-storey extension overlooks neighbour’s privacy, and thus they lose amenity – remove the balcony, remove the problem 
3.  Affordable Housing Policy – this is a difficult one if the authority will not grant approval for a single additional flat without it being classed as ‘Affordable’, which usually means it needs to be owned and run by a social landlord/housing association, then does this mean that no further normal houses for rent or sale will be approved in the area, this needs to be challenged
4. Lack of car parking – If this is in a sustainable location which is on a well-serviced bus route, and near shops and other amenities then there is no reason why a small flat needs a car parking space. This location is right next to a railway station and so no car is required.‍
5. Biodiversity – further bat surveys are required to eliminate issues with the protected species

We note from the planning portal that an appeal has been submitted for this application. Clearly the Local Authority are not wanting to support this application, and the refusal refers to the fact that no pre-application advise was sought prior to the scheme being submitted, which not only puts the planners nose out of joint, but gives them another good reason to refuse.

Pre-application submissions were introduced around 10 years ago and although in some cases are helpful, in a lot of cases they do not actually tell a seasoned professional anything that they do not already know, they can also delay the whole process by a further 3 months in many cases.  In this case it may have been ‘more hast, less speed’. The beauty of the pre-application services is that you get the honest views of the planners, in writing, before the scheme is published to the wider public, and they have chance to sway the planner’s opinions. If this scheme had been submitted for pre-app they may have embraced the contemporary design approach which has now been re-buffed. 

In this case, in order to endeavour to overcome the objections above, we would advocate meeting with the planners prior to appeal, and discussing how best to overcome their issues. We would then re-design the scheme to eliminate the majority of issues, drilling-down to the actual key issues, and then re-submit the application, and maybe in parallel submit the appeal. Clearly this adds another 6-months to the process but it is the best way forward to try and gain a planning permission.

‍

‍