Introduction
Our planning poposal involves the roof reconfiguration from double pitched to flat roof on the extension of the commercial buildindg.
The picture below provides an arinl viwe of the entire building including the double roofed extension.
elevation drawings Proposed side extension
Below is the side extension with a flat roof. The height is in line with the current roofs ridges height. The builing as a whole is hiden from full view from the Harold street and the main roads. Especially the extension is particularly hidden due to its lower height than the sorrounding buildings. The design is perfectly in line and blends in with the existing building and the character of he area. Vissually even if it not easily visible the proposed design is much more pleasing than the present design.
Windows
There are existing windows on both sides of the extension overlooking both the back yards of the properties in Castle street and Harold Street.
, the privacy concerns in connection with any windows facing any of these properties have been extensively studied and it is clear that no rights are infringed on to any of these properties even in case there were not existing windows and entrance doors in place on both sides of the extension. As we have examined extensivelly no right would be infirnged even if these windows were not previously existing.
The preexistance of windows on both sides of the extension eliminates compltelly any possibility of objecting to any additional windows on the upper levels.
The windows facing the playground do not cause any privacy concerns. They are facing land that is already developed and activity conducted in this land is considered public, not private.
Development merits review summary
From a planning perspective this minor development is classed as a building envelope alteration. More specifically a roof alteration because we will not increase the height of the roof, we will only convert the roof from double pitched to flat keeping the flat roof top height the same or lower height than the existing pitched roofs ridges. Therefore the top height of the extension will either remain unchanged or will be lowered slightly. This alteration will not increase the top height of the extension. To be clear, after the alteration ins complete, the height of the extension will be the same as the top height as of today and lower than the height of all surrounding houses and buildings therefore not visible from the main roads in the same way as it is not easily visible today. Therefore it is a very minor development. Because it only seeks to modify the roof configuration from double pitched to flat roof.
This minor development is:
1Fully compliant with the national planning framework
2 Fully compliant with local panning policy
3 Our alteration does not increase the footprint of the building.
4 It does not increase the internal square footage
5 it does not have any adverse impact on any neighbouring property.
6 it does not infringe upon any rights of the neighbouring properties. No right of light no privacy rights are infringed.
7 It does not cause any overshadowing.
8 due to its location and its height this building (both the main building and the extension) is not not visible from any main roads.
9. It adds a disproportional value to the area while being a minor development and having no negative impact to any neighbouring properties.
10 This proposed design choice renders private development a feasible proposition both in the medium and long term.
11 Once the project is completed it will foster further investment by the occupying the premises, and it will very likely spark further invetment in the areaas explained in detail later on.
12 This minor proposal is classed as sustainable development as per definition of the national planning policy. Later on it is clearly demonstrated how this is a sustainable development as defined by the national planning policy framework as such there is a very strong bias for approval as clearly stated by the national planning framework. This is clearly stated in the section “The presumption in favour of sustainable development“.
Minor Development/Alteration
This is considered a minor development of building envelope or building alteration.
If it were feasible to restore this building utilising the existing construction style of the extension this could be done without planning emission. However given the several issues of this double pitched roof design this building requires some minor modifications and design optimisation for the regeneration of the building to produce a “sustainable” building.
This is a minor development because:
1 it does not increase the footprint of the extension or any part of the building, it only seeks a roof reconfiguration.
2 It does not increase the top height of the extension.
3It seeks to regenerate and modernise this existing building with an optimal design,
4 It does not increase the scale of the building.
Under these parameters this is proposal is classed as a minor development or mminor building alteration.
The Similarity of this alteration with permitted development rights of householders.
Permitted development right of householder allow the extension of the part of the roof using dormers almost up to the edge of the eaves provided that any part of the dormer is not higher than the top ridges of the roof. This is applicable to the part of the house that is not visible from the any road (like in our case).
Although, in this instance, permitted developments do not apply, in our minor building alteration:
1 the roof is only converted from double pitched to flat roof, and like permitted development rights for householder the final roof is not higher than the top ridges of the original roof. In other words, the top height of the flat roof is going to either be the same height or slightly lower than the ridge of the existing roof.
2 the extension is positioned in a location not easily visible from any main road. However even if it were visible from the main road the impact would be positive since our design is an objective improvement form the original design and the current state of the double pitched roof. Additionally the flat roof would be much less expensive in terms of maintenance than current configuration in a double pitched roof. As we will see this fits well with the government’s definition of “Sustainable development”.
Given this stark similarity with permitted development rights of householders is one of the several factors in favour of the approval of this Minor Development/ Building Alteration.
The main building visibility and the full extent of the expansion admissible of the extension from a planning perspective.
The non visibility of the building from the main roads is an important factor increasing the scope of what is admissible from a planning perspective.
The main building is two storey high with a double pitched roof. Its top roof ridge height matches the height of the surrounding houses. Because of the height of the surrounding houses being the same as the main building, this building cannot be seen from any main road. The whole building is not visible from Rutland street, Castle street and Harold Street.
The only part of the building that is visible form of the the main roads (Harold Street only) is the front access of the main building.
Additionally the existing double pitched roof extension is one storey lower than the main building and one storey lower than the surrounding houses. Therefore it is even less likely to be seen from any main road and therefore completely concealed.
It is known that for a planning proposal to be allowable form an architectural perspective, it needs not to stand out. It has to merge seamlessly with the area and fall in line with the height of the surrounding buildings.
A two storey alteration with a double pitched roof configuration with its top roof ridge matching the height of the main building and the surrounding houses, would fit the criteria of what is allowable. This is because the height would be the same as the surrounding buildings. The double pitched roof height would be the same as the main building and the surrounding houses. Because of this a double storey extension with a pitched roof matching he height of the existing building would not be visible from any main road. It would fit with the area look and feel. Therefore this would be allowable in principle.
In other words, given that the main building is not visible from any main road and it is two storey high, therefore, if the extension were made two storey high with a pitched roof and the top ridge matching the height of the main main building then the extension would still not be visible. Therefore since the extension would match the height of the main building, and not visible from the main roads then, this would make this double storey alteration with a double pitched roof allowable from an architectural point of view.
This double storey design with a pitched roof on top for the extension would be allowed as long as the right of light and the other rights of the neighbouring properties are not impeded. Studies have been carried out with this alternative design and it has it has been demonstrated that no rights of any neighbouring properties would be infringed.
The admissibility is due to three factors:
1 like the main building a double pitched roof configuration matching the main building height will be still be hidden by all the surrounding houses.
2 right of light, other rights of the neighbouring properties would not be affected by the structure.
3 even if the extension design is made to match the main building in height, the claim of scale and dominance is also dismissed based on all the points discussed in the “scale and dominance” section but also on the fact that this building is not visible from any main road in all circumstances.
Therefore the scope for what is admissible from a mere planning perspective is much more than what our minor building alteration requires.
Although making the extension two storey double pitched roof is architecturally allowable from a planning stand point, we put forward a more conservative design which fits the definition of sustainable development as defined by the national planning policy.
Our minor development/Alteration is a much more conservative design than the full extent of what it is allowable from an architectural point of view.
The extension is currently double pitched and one storey lower than the main building. It is also one storey lower than the surrounding houses that block its view from the main streets. As it is easy to observe from the main streets in particular Harold Street and Rutland street the main building which is one storey higher than the extension it is completely covered by all the surrounding houses. This is because the top height of the main building matches the top height of the surrounding houses.
Therefore even if the top height of the extension were to match the surrounding houses (it would be a double storey with a pitched roof or three storey with a flat roof) it would still not be visible from any ,main road because its visibility would be obstructed by the surrounding houses.
Under this minor development proposal the top height of the extension will remain the same as today. We will adopt a flat roof configuration and the top height of the flat roof will match the lower height of the present double pitched roof extension.
Therefore if the main building which is two storey high with a pitched roof, the extension with a flat roof that reaches only the current ridge of the roofs extension will remain not visible in the same way it is today.
Flat roof in line with the area look and feel, and better fit than the phooenix academy.
The phoenix academy building has a flat roof structure all throughout and the closest part of the building is in the region of 20 to 25 metres from the extension. It has to be noted therefore that our construction a flat roof is similar tho that of the phoenix building.
In particualr the Phoenix house has a sloped buoble pitched roof. The slope is very low and similar to a flat roof due to is very low slope.
The phoenix academy is not concealed by any house or building and it is visible from Harold Street.
The ohoenix building academy building complex has a simplistic type of construction in order to reduce building costs. This style of construction does not blend well with the area.
Our proposed building alteration in contrast is going to be constructed using the same or similar outer brick work as the surrounding houses therefore blending in well with the surrounding area even if it is mainly hidden from view.
Additionally the type of construction of our proposed building alteration is a much better fit than the phenix building which is also very easily visible from harolde street.
Our minor building alteration while is lower than the surrounding houses (therefore it is hidden from direct view from Harld street) is a better fit with the look and feel of the area. Additionally the top height of our minor building alteration will match the existing roof ridges height and will still be lower or similar height of the phoenix house. Our minor building alteration is of the same or similar height to the phoenix building. However since lower than the main builindg and the surrounding houses it is hidden.
To summmarise the main advantages to our minor development versus the phoenix builind comples academy and in particular the phoenix house:
1 our building is a much better fit with the area than the phoenix building. As we know the planning policy both local and central government’s prefer designs of buildings that fit with the area. In our case the flat roof matches with the flat roofs already existing on the phoenix building academy.
2 although our building is a much better fit with the area it is mostly concealed from view from any major road. The Phoenix building is very well visible from Harold Street. The phoenix building is not concealed whereas our building is concealed. Despite that our construction using the original bricks is a much better fit than the phoenix building, because the design of the phenix building was made with material that does not match the area as well and also a blue colour. Very likely this was done to save on construction costs.
In conclusion it is clear from the above picture that a flat roof design blends really well with the look and feel of the area (as required by central and local planning policy) as long as the colour of the build is in line in the area’s colour and feel.
Our proposal fits very well with the look and feel of the area and the height of the extension will be lower the surrounding houses. Therefore although our design is a substantial improvement from the current configuration and it is a better fit with the area, the alteration is not visible from any main road and it does not directly influence the look and feel of the area.
As we have seen and we will continue to demonstrate throughout this document, our building alteration is hidden from sight and the overall design is a very good fit with the area.
Scale, dominance, layout and density
The footprint of the extension will remain the same therefore any objection in term of scale in footprint is dismissed on the simple basis that the footprint remains unchanged. Additionally any claims of scale are also doiiosmissed due to the fact that the height of the extension is not increased since ths minor development will seek to match the new flat roof with the current didges height therefore not incresing the height of the extension.
In terms of height the extension will keep the same top height (height of the exiting roofs ridges) thereofre the objection in terms of dominance due to the height is dismissed due to the fact that the height of the extension remains the same. As we have seen the scope of what it is admissible from a planning perspective is much larger than our proposal.
Additionally this is dismissed because the extension cannot be dominant from a mere height point of view because it is lower in height than the main building and any surrounding neighbouring houses. By definition a building to be dominant it has to be meeting three criteria
1 it has to be taller than any other surrounding buildings
2 even if it taller it has to be clearly visible from main road
3 it has to be clearly visible and clearly stand out from all the neighbouring buildings or houses.
These three criteria have to be met in order for a legitimate and admissible claim of dominance to be made. A building that is lower than the surrounding houses and surrounding buildings, not easily visible from any main road cannot by definition be dominant.
Furthermore more simplisticly, the building is not visible from any main road therefore the claim of dominance is baseless also due to this mere reason.
From all the above it is clear that any claim of dominance is clearly legally and factually baseless.
Not withstanding the above, in case an argument is made that the building is dominant because of the increased height of the boundary walls on the part facing Harold st and castle street this is dismissed based on the following:
1 dominance cannot occur because our minor development will not increase the height of the extension. It can only legitimately occur if ALL the three criteria above are met.
2 the current height of the ridges is lower than the heghit of ANY of the sounding houses. The height of the flat roof it will either match the current roofs ridges height or be slightly lower. Therefore dominance claims cannot be made since the extension is currently lower and will remain lower than ANY existing houses surrounding it. So much so that the height of the sorrounding houses do cover the view of the extension as well as the main building whichwill remain 5 tot 6 metres higher than the extension.
In other words, because our minor development will keep the top height of the extension unaltered the extension will still not be visible because its view will still remain covered by the surrounding houses of harod Street and Castle street which are approximately 5 to 6 metres higer than the top height of our extension alteration. To be clear the height of thel flat roof will be the same as the current roofs ridges and it is and will remain 5 to 6 metres lower than the surrounding houses. . The claim could have some justification only if the heght of the flat roof would be higher than the existing ridges of the surrounding houses and it would be somewhat visible from any of the main streets.
3 Claim of dominance due to overshadowing or loss of light is dismissed due to our study that extensively prove there is no loss of light or overshadowing. Our studies proves how even if the extension would be made as a two storey building with a pitched roof matching the main building construction, overshadowing would still not take place in any neighbouring house.
4 The claim due to overlooking is dismissed because there is no material harm and no loss of privacy as proven extensively. Our studies proves how even if the extension would be made as a two storey building with a pitched roof matching the main building construction, material loss of privacy would still not take place to any neighbouring house.
Any claim in density or layout of development is dismissed since our minor development only involves the change in roof configuration from double pitched to flat roof. No increase in footprint is made nor any internal alteration is made. The development only seeks to change the roof configuration within the limits of its current ridges height. The current ridges height are lower than the ridges of all surrounding houses. Therefore there is no increase in density of the building in any way. No extra floor is added under this planning application. A claim in density could only be argued only if there is an application where the building would be extended beyond its original footprint (like a new extension for example).
The external layout remains unchanged because this minor development involves the modification of the roof layout only. Therefore any objection based on external layout is dismissed because there is no change in footprint of external layout to the building.
The external layout reims unchanged therefore any dismissal in terms of internal layout is unsubstantiated or baseless.
Central Area, local deprivation, delatidated, boarded up and unoccupied houses in the area.
The local policy map describes this as a central area. This is located right in between Grimsby city centre and Cleethorpes city centre. It is easily accessible on foot from both Grimsby city centre and Cleethorpes city centre. Cyclist commuters from both Cleethorpes city centre and Grimsby city centre can reach this location within 5 to 10 minutes. But generally far less than 10 minutes on a slow bicycle ride.
Therefore this area is very convenient for forking class families, and single people who have employment either locally or in the city centres.
However the general look and feel of the area is of deprivation. The root cause of deprivation in this area is the systemic long term lack of investment. This deterioration has started 20 yers prior and the are is currently still is in a downward trend due to the continued lack of investment.
The area has progressively deteriorated in recent years and it presents several challenges. At present this is NOT considered a “place where people want to live” as defined by the local planning policy.
The root cause of this is the systemic lack of private capital investment in the area. This is not due to the lack of business opportunities but the lack of public and private investment into the regeneration of the area.
It is possible to see more depilated and abandoned houses just walking around the area. Also the majour challenges of the area are:
Petty crimes, Robberies, burglaries, fly tipping, drug growth, drug use, unsanitary look of hte area, unclean pavements, litter all around and activities that discourage middle class families to move into the area.
The area is very much in need of investment to revive it. There are a number of boarded up and/ or burned down empty properties.
The overall outlook of both Rutland Street and Harold street is poorly and this is not only palpable in the area but there is also hard evidence of this and can be easily verified independently.
Any family that moves into the area does so because of low rent which still meets the payments fo the social welfare
To working professionals this area is only attractive due to the low rental payments. Most working households which reside in this area state that they will move into a better area at the first given opportunity. Therefore this is a transitional area to working families.
This area is currently long term residents to those who are on long term benefits.
Although our minor developemnt is allowable from a strict legisaltive and policy view point, it is good practice to be as leniant as possible with planning appicants in order to secure as much private investment in this area as possible. This will enncourage the much needed regenaration of the area.
The need for public and private investment.
In order to resolve all these issues investment is required from the private sector. There is already a beginning of private investment, which will bring signifiant benefit to the area. This is the residential development at the rear of 110 Harold street . However this is not sufficient to break the systemic lack of investment in this area. Further investment is required to reach the tipping point when private investment will flow in unencumbered and systematically. At that point the area will regenerate itself by default simply due to private investment.
Additionally this building is a pivotal part of the area and its regeneration will strongly contribute to the regeneration of the area. The planning approval of our minor development will provide us with the permission needed to invest private capital in a financially viable project.
Our minor development will allow key private investment into this key commercial building which is very likely to reach the tipping point required to attract further cascade of private investment. This is due to the increased business investment in the area in employment and skill development by the future occupying business/es. Our minor development will generate highly skilled employment in the area therefore increasing the local demand for high quality housing close to the area of employment. In turn this will encourage private capital to invest in further local business development and derelict housing regeneration due to the increased demand in this area (as we will see this is completely in line with the local planning policy, where the planners need to prioritise approval thoose developments that will lead to the reoccupation of derelict uninhabitable houses).
As this mionre development will allow us to revive the building, the whole area will experience a economic uplift as well as a new uplift to the look and feel of the area. In fact the approval of our planning applications will allow us initiate a viable project of regeneration of the building and the areas. This is because this building is pivotal to the area.
The immediate short as well as long terms consequence of our minor development is a significant contribution to the start of the regeneration of the area..
How the approval of this minor development is likely to spark a chain reaction of further private investment and area self regeneration.
It is acknowledged that the impact the public sector can make in meaningful investment in the regeneration is limited. Help is required by the private sector.
The benefits brought by this minor development which will regenerate the this commercial building are disproportional. It is very likely that this minor development could be the igniting the spark required to in turn attract further investment in the area not only from the future businesses occupying the building. Also other businesses in the area will find the increased business opportunitoes created by our private investment an attractive factor to make further safe investment in this area.
As a consequence, of the approval of this minot development, local high skilled employment will increase in the area. Therefore the housing demand and desirability of the area as a place to live close to the employing business/es will increase. The desirability of the area as a place to work and live will increase therefore allowing an increased housing demand which will in turn encourage private investment to restore uninhabitable derelict, boarded up empty homes in the area (this is a stated local planning policy).
Derelict state of the premises and its restoration.
The state of part of the premises although is structurally secure is partly derelict. The definition of derelict when referred to a building is “in a very poor condition as a result of long term lack of maintenance and neglect”. This building currently meets this definition. It can still be used but in a limited fashion and taking certain precautions. The building requires restoration, however this resoration needs to be performed using a “sustainable ” design and sustainable construction. As we will seee the deterioration of the extension is mainly due to the design choice made at the time of construction. This present design and mode of construction renders the extension not sustainable in the long term and it is recommended to adopt a sustainable design to allow a sustainable use of the building for several decades to come.
Thee same does not apply to the main building where the whole construction and design is highly durable and sustainable.
Design choice
An in-depth study has been carried out to find a sustainable design solution for the long term outlook of the building and the area. The word “Sustainable” in this case fits the definition made by the government in the national planning policy. More on this in the section where we examine the compliance of our minor development/alteration with the stated national planning policy framework.
A number of design solutions have been considered. This was done with sustainability in mind and also with what is allowable from a planning perspective. Therefore our final design solution is both desirable, sustainable and favoured from a planning perspective but also a viable project that will attact private investment in the area.
Therefore our proposal for the regeneration of this commercial building is considered to be the best possible “sustainable” solution for this building.
Summary of why selecting the flat roof matching the height of the current roof ridges.
The flat roof height does not exceed height of the current ridges, therefore the top height of the extension is not increased . This makes the planning reposal non intrusive a very minor development.
This height offers a much higher security of the building. this is because for intruders to attempt entry through the roof tEquipemt like ladders is required and this type of effort is too high risk especially at night. Therefore the likelihood of intrusion though the flat roof is dramatically reduced. This makes this development much more sustainable that any ther possible configuration.
The higher height of the flat roof allows a higher degree of security of any solar panels installation. The this is because the roof can only be accessed using ladders.
The higher height also allows the capture of less turbulent and higher speed winds by any possible roof mounted wind turbine producing more energy. The higher flet roof height height makes the wind turbine less subject to possible vandalism and theft.
For these and other reasons the higher flat roof design is the most sustainable solution while not increasing the top height of the extension. Therefore keeping our proposal clearly classed as a minor development because it seeks to modify slightly the envelope of the existing extension without increasing the top height of the roof.
From a planning perspective because we are not increasing the top height of the extension and the extension is in an area not easily visible from any main road this is generally considered a very low invasive planning proposition which is comparable to the household permitted development rights. The household permitted development rights allow the development of a dormer window of any shape including flat roof under the condition that the height of the roof or the flat roof has not increaed and other minor conditions. This is because the height of the top height of the building is not increased.
Current design unsustainability.
The current design is not sustainable in the area due to the high security risks caused by the low double pitched roof of the extension. the low height of the side walls have historically allowed easy, undetected and safe access into the building through the low part of the roof’s extension.
It is clear how the current double pitched roof configuration is not a sustainable design and structure. This is additionally due to the middle valley maintenance requirement.
On both sides of the extension (facing Harold Street and Castle Street) windows and entrance doors have been bricked up to prevent access to intruders . After the side windows and entrance doors were bricked up the easiest point of entry to the intruders was though the extension’s roof.
The method of entry was and is simply through taking off a few roof tiles and making way into the building, both safely and undetected. This have caused this building not to be financially sustainable throughout the recent years, leading to the present degree of disrepair.
The possibility to restore the current double roof configuration is unsustainable because this design presents intrinsic security risks.The inherent security risks of the extension’s current design renders the building not only unsustainable but also it is not possible to invest in its regeneration due to these intrisic design flaws. In order to overcome those inherent high security risks a sustainable design has to be implemented.
Therefore repairing this building using this current design is not a financially viable proposition, because any investment may not have a return on capital deployed , due to the inherent security risks and the high maintenance requirements.
For these reasons the current extension design is unsuitable for a regeneration project keeping keeping the extension’s design unchnaged.
The unsustainability of the extension’s current design is also demonstrated by the constant costly maintenance requirement to maintain the middle valley of the double pitched roof.
Lack of this essential maintenance will cause roof deteriorations which then causes roof damages which become prohibitively expensive to repair.
Also the current roof configuration does not allow installation of renewable energy sources in a way that can guarantee any return on capital invested. The reasons for it are amply discussed in the appropriate section.
For these reasons rhe current roof configuration is not sustainable and a sustainable design is required for the restoration of the building. Our proposed flat roof configuration although is minor alteration and at the same time it is a “sustainable” solution for the restoration of this building.
Sustainable extension design and construction, the consequence to the area .
Given the unfeasibility of the current extension design, our objective is to select the most “sustainable” building design for the extension. The word “sustainable” has to be interpreted as defined in the national planning policy.
The “sustainability” of the extension in terms of design and contruction, as a consequence will decrease the carbon foot-print of the whole building itself because it will require less ongoing maintenance and lower the running costs.
The potential of carbon footprint reduction will be exacerbated by the possibility to install effective renewable energy sources on the roof top.
The building will be capable to sustain long term occupiers. The longer businesses are going to occupy the building unsustainably the more the chances for the businesses to grow and create new jobs and invest in the area itself.
The area will benefit by the increased prosperity generated by the businesses that will be able to occupy this building sustainably. It is a very well known fact that that in order for an area to be prosperous the prosperity of the local businesses is what bring prosperity through investments in the local area, job creation and general uplift of the local community.
The design optimisation process.
The design choice had been made with sustainability in mind. Because the current double pitched tiled roof is clearly an unsustainable design, we have examined a number of possible solutions. Several alternative options have been considered and we have selected the best possible design considering both what is considered a minor development (which is generally permissible) and the most “sustainable” option.
The implementation of the most sustainable design option is the government priority to promote “sustainable development” as defined in the national Plannig framework.
The proposed higher side walls, which will match the current roof ridges height, will grammatically reduce the risk of intruders making their way in easily through the roof because
1 it is a flat roof at a a higher height which will requires the use of ladders pr other equipment to reach it,
2 the flat roof will not have tiles therefore much more difficult to break into. Noisy battery powered specialised tools would be required to break in through the new flat roof. This would attract attention.
The cost of vandalism. The un-sustainability of the current extension design/configuration.
One of the main issues that makes this extension unsustainable is the cost of burglaries and vandalism.
The present extension design presents several challenges. One of the major challenges is the general un-sustainability of its current double pitched roof design. This renders the building non sustainable to the businesses that occupy it.
Historically this building had been burgled and vandalised several times.
The vandalism and burglaries had accounted for the following damages over recent years:
1 Electrical wiring stripped out, replaced and stripped out again. The main motivation for this type of act is reselling the copper in the wires stripped out from the building. While the copper stripped from the wires can be resold for a few hundreds pounds, the repairs cost amounts to thousands of pounds every time. The cost of repair is very high mainly due to the costs of the employment of electrical contractors who also required to certify the new installation every time such large repair is carried out. Therefore the cost of repair is several times higher than the costs of the copper mainly because of the high costs of the specialised highly skilled labour required to perform the fault finding to identify the wires to reinstall, how and where. Then carrying out the new wiring installation, testing and certifying the new installation every time. This type of costs are devastating to small businesses.
2 Copper pipes stripped out a number of times causing floods, damage to goods and downtime to the businesses occupying the premises. Once again the motivation for stealing live copper pipes inside the building is the small gain for copper conversion into cash. Therefore not only the cost of repair had to be borne by the occupiers but also the cost of repairing the damage caused by the floods. Additionally the costs of replacing the goods damaged by the internal floods are significant. Again, every time the copper pipes are stripped form the building the copper can be converted into 3 or 4 hundreds of pounds every time while the copper pipes replacement cost alone amounts to thousands of pounds every time. This is because not only of the costs of acquisition of the new pipes but the high costs of skilled labour to install it again. The cost of the damage caused to goods can also be estimated to be in the region of thousands of pounds depending on the goods present in the building at the time of the floods.
3 Cost of replacing stolen merchandise. This cost varies depending on the value of the goods stolen each time.
4 Cost of roof repair since the intruders preferred entry point is through the extension’s roof, this is because the extension an a hidden access and it is easily accessible due to its low height.
5. Downtime to the businesses caused by these burglaries and acts of vandalism.
Historically, an act of theft in the building while it provided gains of less than 200 pounds to the thieves it cost several thousands of pounds in rewiring, roof repair, lost goods, downtime etc not including the increased costs of adding extra security to the building. These are crippling costs to a small medium sized businesses, and this security issue which is inherent to the building require a definitive long term solution.
Once the businesses occupying the building face these issues they are required to look for a more sustainable building that offers more inherent sustainable security. This inherent security issue made this building not viable throughout the recent years to several small medium sized businesses that occupied it. In fact the recent occupation history of the building shows that businesses only managed to occupy the building for a relative short period of time for then preferring other more sustainable buildings to conduct their business in . In turn they moved their businesses elsewhere whre they could grow their enterprises sustainably. Threfore this area have missed out in crucial growth opportunities due to the unsustainability of the current extension design.
The intrinsic security issue of the current extension design.
The cost of preserving security with the present extension’s double pitched roof configuration is very high and therefore unsustainable to the occupying businesses. As we will see here this is mainly due to its design and construction.
The preferred entry point for intruders or buglers into the building is the extension. The extension is not easily visible to the public therefore this offers protected, safe and easy access to intruders especially at night.
The extension is the easiest point of entry into the building because the path surrounding is not illuminated at night. The alleyways that lead to the extension are not illuminated and hidden from public view therefore, intruders feel safe taking this route to access the building. Furthermore the mode of entry through the roof does not require noise to be generated during the breaking ins.
Additionally the low height of the extension side walls allows intruders to make their way into the building through the roof. The side walls of the extension are low enough for intruders to access the roof without using ladders. There is no requirement for ladders to access the roof of the extension from the two lower walls facing Harold Street and Castle Street. Historically once reached the side of the roof without the help of ladders, intruders lifted a few roof tiles to make their way into the building (this does not generate any significant noise level that could wake up neighbours at night who might in turn alert the authorities). Hence the lifting of roof tiles, which does not cause any high noise level, and the non requirement of ladders, make this entry very easy and low risk to intruders. In this way intruders enter the building, at night, relatively safely and without being detected.
Therefore the high costs of maintaining the extension secure is mainly due to the low height of the side walls facing Harold Street and Castle Street and the method of construction of the roof.
A different design is required for the extension to make it inherently secure in the long term and therefore sustainable to the occupying businesses.
If the walls facing Harold Street and Castle Street were the same height as the roof ridges, a ladder would be required to access the roof and the extension would not be the preferred access point rendering the building inherently secure. This is because it is a risky and difficult endeavour for intruders to carry a ladder and other equipment to climb a high wall safely, especially at night. This high risk would deter most intruders from attempting to access the building through the extension. This alone will make the whole building inherently (by design and construction) secure and hence “sustainable” tot he occupying businesses.
The term sustainability, here, is also referred in the sense of the government’s stated definition in the national planning policy framework “sustainability” goals .
Also the flat roof will require the use of power tools to make a hole in it to gain access. These power tools would need to be specialised and battery powered which would require considerable prior extensive preparation and investment by the intruders. Additionally the noise generated by the power tools will inevitably attract attention. This would make the building even further inherently secure and therefore “sustainable”.
This is because by choosing the correct design for the extension, any means of entry will require the use of equipment and noise will be generated to gain entry into the building. Hence the increased risks connected to the unlawful entry into the building will deter most intruders.
The high ongoing maintenance costs imposed by the double roof configuration with a valley in between.
The middle valley requires onlgoing menitennece due to its construction. Failing to carry out contact yearly maintenence can result in severe building structural deterioration which can be extremelly costly to repair. This is the case when the construction like in the case of this building is made partially of wood ansd structural steel.
In case the whols estructure is in steel then pailure to carry out maintanence ofn the miidle valley will have minor adverse effect,however when the contruction is mixed steel and strucutral wood the damage of faialing to carry out maintennace could be devastgationg to the building.
Therefore eauther a different construction method is required for keeping this design which will rended the lack ofm maintennace not susch a devastating event in the long run or the design is changed to an overall better soliutuion . As we have seen and co0ntinue to see trere are instricsig design disadvantages in keeoin ghte present design and simply chanfing the construction into steel frame. This will still pose innhrent security challenges as we have seen int he section where we explain the ease of access by intruders with the cusrent desing.
as we have seen the cost of repklacing the structure from hybrid structural wood and structural steed to pure structural steel is not worthwhile due to the relatibve high replacement cost and the inherent risks of intuction plus the inahbility of a proper feasible installtion of renwable enegy sources on the buildin.
Whereas a slightly building alteration will make at alsmost the same replacement/building costs a much more “sustainable” building. As we ahave seen the suatainable term fits into the definition o fthe goverment objective for sustainble building in the national planning policy.
Summary of the main causes from a building design perspective that allows ease of access to intruders and the basic design solutions.
Therefore the building design has to be changed in order to make this building intrisicly secure,hence competitive and a unsustainable choice to the occupying businesses.
The ease of access is provided by
1 the low height of the side walls. This allow the intruders to access the roof safely without the use of ladders. Therefore our design requires a height which will require the use of ladders and other heavy equipment to access the roof safely. In this way access to the roof is more difficult and therefroe it will be deterred.
2 The ease of access into the building through the roof by simply lifting some roof tiles and creating a hole in the roof through witch the intruders access the building. The design solution therefore needs to have a roof which is higher and more impervious to intruders. A roof that requires power tools to allow access through it. If power tools required then the burglars and intruder are deterred because of the high noise levels geenrated dureing break ins attracting the attention of the neighbours.
Therefore a higher roof and more impervious roof construction are required to achive a sustainable security level
The alternatives explored to resolve this inherent security issue.
Changing the roof from tiled to other material, like resin or metal sheet.
This could improve the building security slightly because intruders would very likely require power tools to open up the roof therefore causing noise which would attract attention.
However the access is still very easy due to the accessibility of the roof from the two low walls facing Harold Street and Castle Street. The access to the roof will still not require ladders and other safety equipment therefore the extension will remain the most vulnerable access point to intruders and burglars.
Single storey flat roof
The intruders will still easily reach the roof and breaking into the flat roof to make their way in especially at night. This configuration will still allow easy access to the flat roof without the use of ladders therefore rendering the building intrisicly not secure.
A single storey flat roof would present the same inherent high risk of break-ins and vandalisation as currently with the double pitched configuration.
A single storey flat roof makes the installation of wind turbines on the roof less energy efficient (due to lower energy capture due to the higher wind turbulence at lower heights), consequently this will increase further the payback of any future wind turbine installation on the roof. This does not take into account the high risk of theft and vandalisation due to these low height.These risks and disadvantages makes the investment on roof mounted wind turbines not a viable investment for this building configuration.
The same high risk would apply to any solar panel installation. A single storey installation of a flat roof would make the investment not viable mainly due to the risk that the installation would be easily vandalised or stolen.
Therefore any possible future solar panels and/or wind turbines installations on the single storey flat roof will be highly vulnerable to theft and vandalism due to the low height. This will discourage private investment in renewable energy sources on this building. Renewable energy installations do increase the EPC rating of the building. Increasing the EPC rating of buildings throughout england and wales is a priority of the central government.
For these reasons a single storey flat roof is a comparatively unsustainable development, similar to the current single storey double pitched roof configuration.
Elevating the roof level to double storey. The building securiity risks are dramatically reduced if the height of the flat roof is the same or even slightly lower than the ridges of the current roof height. Matching the flat roof height to the same height of the current ridges would present several advantages, while at the same time not increasing the top height of the extension. The main advantage is the increased security of the building. therefore a more sustainable development due to the decreased running costs of keeping the building secure. These substantial savings which can be allocated to business development instead of incurring in constant high security costs.
Double Storey and Double pitched roof configuration. Two storey heigh extension with pitched roof matching the height of the main building. This design is intrinsicly secure, however requires costly construction. The the installation and payback of future renewable energy solutions on this type of roof configuration do not produce optimal payback compared to the two storey high flat roof configuration. As we have seen from a mere planning perspective it is allowable to match the height of the extension with the height of the main building and the surrounding houses. This is because the top height of the roof extension would match the height of the surrounding houses. Although it is admissible from a planning policy perspective (because it is consistent with the look and feel of the area), this arrangement has the following disadvantages 1 high maintenance of the middle valley double pitched roof. 2 Unfeasibility of the installation of solar panels in a way that renders investment on renewable energy a financially unviable proposition using private funds. This is due to the relatively low efficiency of the panels if installed on the pitched roof and also the high maintenance of the solar panels due to the height of the roof. A two storey building’s pitched roof is relatively more challenging for solar panels and wind turbines maintenance (versus a flat roof) because it requires special training and expensive health and safety preparations to work on a high slope. Any roof repair enquires the uninstallation of the solar panels and their reinstallation to carry out simple repairs which would otherwise be simple and inexpensive therefore the installation of solar panels in such a configuration increases the normal roof maintenance cots. The installation of wind turbines would be much more challenging on a two storey double pitched roof. Also the same applies to the maintenance of the wind turbines. Additionally the double pitched roof brings about a much higher degree of turbulence than a flat roof therefore decreasing the efficiency and therefore making the payback far longer and uncertain. Also this roof arrangement requires a mush higher installation costs of the wind turbine/s. All the above rrenders the investment into solar and wind too uncertain for tnhe appetite of private investors.
Single storey flat roof configuration Low height means that the installation of solar panels becomes a high risk investment since it is too easily reachable by intruders and thieves/vandals theretofore making the investment in solar renewable power not viable on a single flat storey roof. The same applies to the installation of wind power. The contruction costs of this type of configuration are slightly lower than placing a flat roof matching the cureent roof ridges of the extension. While an elevated flat roof is a much more sustainable design. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Why this development is classed as a minor building alteration
This is a minor building alteration because
1 the footprint of the building is unchanged
2 the top height of the extension remains the same
3 it is an alteration which only seeks to change the roof from double pitched to flat.
It will only increase the height of the side walls facing Harold Street and Castle Street to match the height of the current roof ridges.
The flat roof will be at the same height or lower than the current roof ridges and still one storey lower than the main building and one storey lower than the surrounding houses.
It does not seek to change the full extent of what is architecturally allowable from a planning point of view. What is architecturally allowable from a planning perspective is matching the extension height with the height of the main building keeping the roof as a double pitched.
How this small development/building alteration will have a disproportionate positive impact on the area.
This minor building alteration has no negative impact on any neighbouring properties as amply demonstrated in our studies presented in this document.
As we have demonstrated, this minor development (alteration) will not cause any loss of privacy, no loss of light to the neighbouring properties and it passes all the tests to be approved throughout the planning process.
This minor development will have disproportionate positive impact on the area because despite being a minor alteration to an existing building (which will not have any negative impact on any neighbouring properties) it will:
1 Allow the restoration of this much needed commercial building. Without this minor building alteration a sustainable restoration of this building is unfeasible.
2 All the alleyways used to access the rear of the building will be restored, kept clean and secure once again. These alleyways are currently unused, in disrepair and subject to fly tipping.
3 This minor building alteration will deploy private investment in the area
4 The building will become sustainable for normal business occupation.
5The occupying businesses will be capable to expand and hire locally
6 The type of businesses occupying this building after the completion of this minor development will be very likely to invest in employees skill development, apprenticeships, attract talent from other areas of the country and employ people living locally.
7 The area look and feel in the immediate vicinity will improve dramatically.
8 The local demand for housing will be boosted by the presence of highly skilled employees working at the premises. Therefore encouraging other private capital investment into the renovation of boarded up uninhabitable houses (as stated in the local planning policy)
9 The presence of highly skilled employees will in turn boost the housing demand encouraging more private investment into the regeneration of the area.
10 Further investment will be encouraged into commercial buildings given the outlook betterment of the area.
11 The area will be reinvigorated by the fact that people will once again, after several years of area degeneration, may decide again to make this area a long term place to live of their choice.
The extension and mostly of the main building not visible from any main road.
We have demonstrated how our design represents a drastic immporvement compared ro the mnimalistic estisting design. however any possible argument that the design is not an clear imporvement is easily difeated. It is important to emphasise the positioning of theis mminor developemnt. It is not fasing any main road and hardly visible from any main road. Also since the top height of th ebuilding is not increased it is not any mor evisible than it may hvae been previously Therefore although an obhjective improvement of the design has been made any oobjection in connection with the way the building will look with this new imporved extension is eadily defeated because
1 the design is a drastic imporvement to the existing configuration.
2 the material used is the ssame as the existing
3 its location is as such that it is hardly visible form any main road, therefore minimally intrisive.
4 the top height of the ectension is remain unchanged.
Although the overall look of the building will improve dramatically as a result of our development. It is important atto realize the the building is not visible form any main road. This is characteristic of the type of development that is subject to permitted Development rights in Dwellginhouses dfffor example. The permitted development right in dwellinghouse allow the household to add extensions (wining limits) and dormers which extend the scope of the part of the roof which is not facing thr main road . The reason for allowing these tyuupes of permitted development rights toshoudeholders, it became there is little if no impact at all on the seefect that the development visually does to the back of the properties which is not easily visible form the main roads. Hence the relaxation in planning law of any part of developments that are not easily visible form the main roadds.
This is the case with our developent.
Our development is minor
placed in a part of land where it is not easily visible from any main orads.
Drawback of rejecting planning approval for this minor building alteration.
Resistance to this minor building alteration is not expected by the council because as amply demonstrated this minor development meets all the criteria for approval. This development is a minor building alteration that complies with all planning policies, both national and local as amply demonstrated in this document.
However in case the council would attempt to reject this minor development proposal, this will be a majour contributing factor in keeping the are in the present deprived state. This area is in need of investment, especially through private capital.
This minor building alteration will disproportionately improves the outlook of the area. Therefore rejecting the approval will be seen by the public as a failure of the public sector to simply facilitate a minor development that has disproportionate positive consequences to the area and no negative impact. This would grow a sentiment of distrust in the competency of the council to resolve the entrenched deprivation of the area. This is especially true when part of the solution to the issues of this deprived area could be resolved by private investment.
The council is expected to facilitate private capital investment in an area which desperately needs it. Especially when this is deployed in a minor building alteration that will have disproportionate positive impact in the area while meeting all the criteria for approval. In case private capital deployment is not going to be facilitated by the council this will be negatively viewed by the residents and the public.
In case the planning department will take a stand against this minor building alteration, the building unsustainability will continue for longer than required. The building’s full rehabilitation is dependent on the approval of this minor development, this is because the building restoration utilising the the current extension design is not “sustainable” and is not feasible with private capital.
In the current configuration the building will remain incapable of offering full sustainable accommodation to any local business in the long term. As it has occurred until recent years and it is unlikely that most businesses will be able to occupy the building in the long term unless the extension design is improved.
Keeping the current design, the building will be unsuitable, as it is today, to accommodate the viable installation of renewable energy sources. Therefore the building will be incapable of contributing to the government’s “sustainable” goals.
We examined and proved extensively how this minor development meets all the criteria for approval therefore in the unlikely case this minor development application would be refused, we believe there would be very high chances of approval at appeal. In case of approval at appeal the public would be confronted again with the bureaucratic stranglehold on the area, which will only delay the inevitable investment required to improve the area’s conditions.
Advantages of granting planning permission.
Notwithstanding that this minor development meets the ALL the criteria for full approval as amply demonstrated in this document, the following are true:
1 Our minor development will deliver a better looking and pleasant design than what the present design offers. As amply demonstrated the proposed design blends really well with the area and the building is concealed by the surrounding houses. This will improve the area outlook in general and boost economic development locally.
2 Our minor development helps regenerate the area using private capital. At present this area is widely considered deprived/underdeveloped. As we have seen this area has uninhabitable boarded up houses and has several majour challenges.
3 Our minor development will increase local highly skilled employment both in the short term and long term.
4 Our minor development will deliver a more durable and improved “sustainable” building construction and design.
5 The inherent sustainability of our design will require much lower maintenance therefore the occupying businesses can allocate their resources into business development and the development of the local job market.
6 This minor development will allow the provision for sustainable energy production on the building, both solar and wind. The flat new roof, which matches the height of the current roofs ridges, will be capable to accommodate the installation of renewable energy sources.This provision is hardly viable keeping the present design.
7 While our development is minor, it does have a disproportionate positive impact on the entire area as amply demonstrated in this document.
8 As part of the works we will incorporate full thermal insulation of the extension.
The back unused and not maintained alleyway shared with the porperties in Harold Street.
This alleyway has not been maintained for several years since one of the back entrances to the entrances to the building have been blocked up for security reasons. This minor development will make the maintenance of the alleyway necessary for the occupier/s of the building since these entrances will be safe and required again. Also this will improve the safety and monitoring of the alleyway with CCTV cameras and make the sorrounding houses and building much safer. For example the arson of 68 Harold Street would have been much less likely to happen if this alleyway were monitred and maintained. This another example of the many benefits brought by this minor development.
Sustainability of this proposed minor development (minor building alterattion).
According ro the “International Institute for Sustainable Development” the definition of Sustainable development is :
“A development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”
See https://www.iisd.org/mission-and-goals/sustainable-development
This is the definition adopted “word by word” in the National Planning Framework.
Therefore our proposed minor building alteration (minor development) meets this definition because:
It makes the installation of renewable energy sources possible . Hence increase the ability of “future generations to meet their own needs” by promoting a cleaner environment.
Additionally the need for lower maintenance reduces the inherent carbon footprint making this development a further substantial improvement compared to the present alternative (without the approval of our minor building alteration). Therefore the improvement of the building performance constitutes the accomplishment of the “sustainable” objective per se.
Because the new design will resolve the present issues of high maintenance, low security, vandalism and theft the lower running costs of the improved building will lead to the businesses occupying these building to have freed up resources, Those resources can be invested in apprenticeships, high skilled employment and business development in the area. This, therefore by definition, increase the ability “of future generations to meet their own needs”.
This minor building alteration will improve the overall outlook of the area hence “meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”.
This minor building alteration will bring to life a design witch is an improvement compared to the existing alternative and it will blend in a better fashion with the area. Therefore it “meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”
As a result of this minor development we will be thermally insulating the whole extension. This is a feasible investment because it will not add significant extra costs at the building stage and this will be integral part of the government requirement for sustainable development. At present the extension and the main building does not have any thermal insulation. We are under no legal obligation to incorporate any thermal insulation within any part of the building. However if planning permission is granted we will voluntarily integrate full thermal insulation to the extension.
To summarise our minor development ensure high levels of sustainability due to
1 Low maintenance
2 Making this extension suitable for the installation of renewable energy devices.
3 High energy efficiency. Lower heating requirements due to the new thermal insulation. Lower carbon emissions.
4 Increased inherent security
5 Better overall design and construction
Therefore this minor building alteration meets the definition of sustainable development as the definition adopted in the national planning policy. While at the same time not oly preserving the rights of the neighbouring properties but also meeting all other planning policies both local and national.
Adressing stated, local and possible planning considerations or objections.
Unlocking the potential of green energy generation.
Our minor development unlocks the possibility which is not currently achievable of the green generation of electricity and heat. This is because the current roof configuration renders the installation of green energy sources a unviable investment.
The Proposed use is suitable for the area
This application is not in connection with the use of the building. However given the local planning policy (as discussed at length) this use is perfectly in line with the stated local planning policy.
The appearance and size of a this alteration is in keeping with its neighbours and the surrounding area
The part of the building that our minor development is targeting is the rear of the building. The only part of the building easily visible from any main road is the front of the main building. This part of the building (the front) is not going to be affected by our minor development. The rest of the building is not visible from any main road. It is only visible from the back of the properties that surrounds it. A small potion is visible from the car park.
Said that, notwithstanding the fact that the building is concealed by the surrounding houses the design is considerable an improvement and perfectly in character with the surrounding area and the existing building. This is because the same or similar bricks will be used for the development.
The appearance of our minor development blends in with the surrounding properties.
This external alterations to the existing building is in character
The part of the building that will be altered is mostly concealed from public view. Therefore whether in character or not should be a major concern from a planning perspective. However even if it would be a majour concern , which is should not be, this alteration will be carried out using the same or similar external bricks as the original construction therefore it is completely in character.
Potential increase in noise and disturbance, for example from the comings and goings of extra traffic
The minor development is a minor alteration in the building envelope only. No change of use is made under this application.
For these reason there there is not going to be any increase in noise , disturbance or any increase in trafic.
Public footpaths remain unaffected
This minor development consists in a minor alteration only in the building envelope does not affect any public footpaths or road.
Visual effect upon the landscape, i.e. loss of trees and
This minor development consists in a minor alteration only in the building envelope and it is concealed from view from any public road. It clearly does not not have any impact on any landscape, trees or hedgerows.