Matter to address in the planning application are below.
https://urbanistarchitecture.co.uk/dealing-with-planning-objections/
Material planning considerations
Material planning considerations are matters that should be taken into account by a case officer while making a decision about a planning application.
These can include:
Overlooking/loss of privacy
Impact on neighbouring amenity
Loss of light or overshadowing
Design (bulk and massing, appearance and materials)
Layout and density of building
Highway safety
Traffic generation
Parking (vehicle and cycle)
Effect on the character of the area
Effect on listed building and conservation area
Disability access
Emergency access
Ecology
Issues that can be considered include:
- Whether a proposed use is suitable for the area
- Whether the appearance and size of a new building/structure is in keeping with its neighbours and the surrounding area
- Whether external alterations to an existing building are in character
- Whether adjoining residents will suffer any overshadowing, overlooking or loss of privacy
- Whether there will be any increase in noise and disturbance, for example from the comings and goings of extra traffic
- Whether new public buildings have satisfactory access for the disabled
- Whether there is adequate parking or the development would be dangerous for road users and pedestrians
- Whether a public footpath is affected
- Whether there is any visual effect upon the landscape, i.e. loss of trees and hedgerows
- Whether the proposal conflicts with this council’s planning policies
Issues that cannot be considered include:
- Loss of view
- Loss of property value
- Boundary or other disputes between neighbours, e.g. private rights of way, covenants
- Loss of trade from competing business
- The alleged character or behaviour of an applicant
- The individual circumstances of the applicant
- Moral objections
- The belief that an applicant intends to profit from a development
- Other consents/licences that may be required
This planning proposal is to change the existing damaged extension from double pitched rood to flat roof, while not increasing the top height of the extension. the top height of the new flat roof will be the same as the top ridges of the existing double pitched roof. Under these planning applications there will not be any increase in top height of the building.
The new roof of the extension is going to be flat and placed at the same height of the previous top ridges therefore keeping the top height of the extension unchanged. This is very similar from an architectural point of view and planning perspective as adding large flat roof dormer windows.
This planning application seeks to increase number of windows in the ground floor, first floor and introduce dormer windows on the roof of the main building. Also, we propose to increase the size of some of the existing windows as shown in the drawings.
No change of use is proposed in this planning application, only alterations in the external envelope while not increasing the height of the existing structure.
This application allows the investment into this building to be a viable financial proposition to restore this building to its use and potential. At present this building faces several challenges due to the damage at the back extension and the lack of appropriate natural light inside the main building in some places. Also it hnas been identified the potential to repair the main roof and while this is done new dormer windows can be installed without raising the height of the building.
Also as it is clear from any inspecion this building is located internally and not easilyh visible for any of the mian roads (rutland street, Harold St or castle street.) Thereofre any change in its envelope has little of no impact on the way area looks.
One of the main result of the development following this planning permission is to improve the overall state of the area. The whole area is in distress and is considered not desirable due to the current poor state of the whole area. Therefore, the whole area requires significant investment, and we are willing to invest provided that we will be able to work on a commercially viable project which this planning permission would ensure. The granting of this planning application will allow the building to be brought to a good standard and full use, and hence beneficial to the area in general. Without granting planning permission for our proposed slight change in external envelope to the partly collapsed extensions and the new windows to the main building, we will have no incentive to expend private capital in brining this building to full use and improving the area.
In the unlikely case the council insists on not granting planning permission in full as per our application, it has to be borne in mind that the building also benefits from of class ZA PD rights and this is will bring a even a much greated change of the building. This is because class ZA allows for the bullding to be constructed up to 18 m in maximium height which is much higher than the current height of the building.
This planning application does not seek to increse the maximum height of the building, the height of the bulding will remian unchanged both of the main building and the extension. Whereas class ZA allow the construction of a building up to 18m and 1000 square meters of residential development. This planning application is opf much lighter scope than the Za permitted development classes
In the area many buildings and houses have fallen in disrepair, The area has been the target of some degree of anti-social behaviour, and it does require investment. This development is an integral part of the investment needed in the area, and it will improve the area by attracting more residential tenants and more businesses. By allowing the planning application for the building as we request, this make our renovation and improvement project economically viable.
The two-storey extension had one of the side wall collapsing outward in September 2023 due to an internal explosion. this caused the side wall facing the properties in caste street to collapse outward. This in turn have one of its roofs to collapse and subsequently the other adjecent roof started collasping on its own in October 2023. The extension therefore is the main part of the building which requires redevelopment.
The reconstruction of the extension is financially viable by changing the roof configuration and instead of having a two double pitched roofs side by side the best alternative is to keet the overall height of the extension in line with the top part of the exisitng eaves and installing a flat roof. This will keep the top height of the extension the same as previously while imporving the look o fthe building and increasing the floor area and usabilityu of the building.
It is important to underhand that in our proposal we will not increase the height of the extension we will only change the roof configuration and have a flat roof installed inl line with the top part of the previous top roof ridges. However under Za PD right we can increase the height up to 18m., and the planning premission will be granted after summission of prior approval appliocation.
Therefore the top height og the new extension will be the same as it is today. The heingt of the building will remain the same and this is a major factor to keep the building in line with its existing top height which it make it in line with is exiting height.Since the height of the extension is not increased there are also no concirns as right of light to any other houses which areat a distance anyway
The height of the extension will remain unchanged, we will concert the roof from two double pitched to flat roof following the line of the exising top ridge, in this way there will no be concerns of right of light of the building occupying extra sky space.
Effectively it is as if the planning permission would be sought to install a flat roof dormer window on both sides of the two double pitched roof, and ussialluy doermer windows plaiing applications are considered favourably (alsor adopted as permitted development in residential dwelling ) as they have no effect on the rights of any neighhbouras and the characterifstingc of a building.
Also as we know the permited development right allow any roof dormer extension as long as the dormer is for exiding the height of the top ridge of the roof and it can be of any shape including flat roof. This is relevant to this application because the law allows this pyoe of permitted development on the read part of the house since it does not have any significant impact ofn the neighbours and the character of the area. Although we do not hold PD rights for the change of the roof configuation the essential characterisitcs are very similar to the PD rights of the domestic dewlling.
Rights of siwinwos aalready acquiredt thoght existing windows of the extension.
It is important to note that historically the extenion had windows openings oin both sides these heve been recently briked up. The reason dfor bricking them up was the requirement for added security to the builfin. The presence of windows anf the extension facilituyated break ins and this increased the cost of secutity. The briking up of the windows increased the building cecurity while, decreasing the running costs of keeping the building secure.
Attach pictures of the briked up windows.
Therefore, the windows on bothj sides of the extension were existing . We will be only adding windows to the first floor and the side facing trhe playground.
As the windows facing the playground these do not casue any concern of privacy as the playground is a public space used by chgilder for playing sprts and they are not supposed to
Internal location of the premises.
The planning application is for the building that is located internally and not easily visible from any main road. This alone allows a great degree of flexibility in supporting our application.
Therefore although all the porposal under our planning applications do fit within the charactedr of the area , this is located internally and therefore not visible from any main road.
Overlooking/loss of privacy.
NO MATERIAL LOSS OF PRIVACY is caused by the development. This is becasie already exising development caused a loss of privacy already
Overlooking and loss of privacy have been a valid reason for planning objection. However it is clear from several court rulings that where there is no material harm or material loss of privacy caused by a development the objection is not a material objection. this happens when there is already no privacy from prior development and therefore the further development does clear ly not cauyse any material loss of privacy . This is because there was already lack of privacy fronm well extsblished developments. Because of this in those cases the courts have ruled that further development wich has viw in the the rear porperties which already have no privacy from exiting developmenbts do not cause a material harm in terms of loss of privacy. Therefore if it is clear that a development does not ccause any loss of privacy which was previously available the development does not cause any material harm and therefore allowed.
Loss of privacy and overlooking can be valid grounds to object, but there has to be material harm resulting from it.
If the next door property is already two storey, there will already be a degree of overlooking of your rear garden. Would the additions make that overlooking materially worse?
It has to borne in mind that@:
1 There are already windows ovelooring all backbgardens and back of the property.
2 Extra windows at higer height are not gaining extra viwe into the back gardens or the back windows of the sorrounding properties.
3. As seen above there is not loss in privacy from our porposal, however uder Classs ZA permitted development rights we are allowed to add windows up to a top height of 18 meters. In such case there is no any possibility of objecting to a windows which will be more than ten meters higher than what we are porposing here.
4 rear dormer windows are permitted development rights from neightoouring porperties wich does result in the same viw into rear back gardens. also permitted development right Calss Za that allow s windowws uot o 18 metres high. Additionally there are alreadyh exiting oenings on the the rear extension
in colclusion no loss of privacy has resulted from the introduction of any new windows.
For as much privacy has to bre presenved it is not posssible to have any development in a city centre location with enture privacy aathis is only expected in less dense rural areas. Thin the case seen there is alrey no privacy in back gardensa and the arddition of our development does not produce any further loss of provacy. also it is clear govbenment policy at national level to prioritise development in cental areas in the cuty using prermiited developmewwnt rights wivh does not all ow for provisions against lsoo od privacy.
https://www.atkinshope.co.uk/site/library/legalnews/overlooking_is_not_private_nuisance_court_of_appeal_ruling.html
Flat roof on extension
1 The flat roof does not increase the height of the original building.
2 a similar two storey commercial construction is located only 200 metres away. Additionally this flat roof construction is not blending in with the character of the area
3 The flat roof conversion allws an const effective repair of the extension which is economically viable , therefore this allow a viable pirvate capital accocation into this bilding which will in turn benefit the area.
What Class ZA permitted development allows.
it is important to understand that these planning application permissions are far less invasive than what we are allowed under permitted development rights.
Under Class ZA Permitted development rights we are allowed to demolish the site and rebuild a new residential building with two extra two storeys on top of the two exiting storeys making a new 4 storey building.
Under Class ZA not oly we will be able to erect a new 4 storey residential building but we have rights to include window openings thatb are large enough to allow natural light in all habitable rroms. It is noteowrthy that the openings are allowed in all directions with no restricitons. Threrefore even if there are obejections from any neightbours under class MA we are allowed the insroduction of windows in all directions and ud to the top 4rth storey. In contrast under this planning application we are only increasing the window openings up to the top roof on the main building (doermer windows) and not windows would be placed in a 3rth floor because we are not rewuiring to increasing the height of the building to a 4 stroy building in this application .
Under these applications we are not planning to increase the top height of the building. Therefore this is far less intrusive or not intrusive all compared to what permitted development allows us to do.
Additionally under Permitted Developemtn class ZA the are allowwed a full commercial to residential convesrsion up to 1000 spare metres of total residential area. Whereas une rthis planning apoplication we are not requesting any commercial to residentail conversion.
Please note that under a rough back of the envelope a coinversion under class ZA would be a viable project however we would rather be granted our planning permission request wich is far lees intrusive than what Permitted development right allows us and do not need to go through the route of exrecising our permitted development rights and instead bring the nbuilding to its full potential under a much less invasive scheme that Permitted Developmet rights allows us anyway.
In case our full prorposal ( comprising of trhee separate independent planning applications) are not approved in full we are unlikely to be able to fund a viable privated funded regeneration project for this commercial unit.
This means that the building will reamin in the current state of disrepir for the foreseeable future. instead by granting full approval the building will retain its character, keep its current maximum height, while allowing the redevelopement of the building and hence inporving the area using private capital. At the same time there is not impact on the character of the area also not only because the building is not going to undergo a significant change, but also because of its positioning as it is not visible form the any of the main roads.
,
Therefore any objection to any of our three our propoosals will result in either:
1 a prolonged state of disrepair of the entire building. Thiswill render difficult the redevelopment of the area as this building represent a integral asset to the residential area. This building left in its current state would be a contributing factpr to keeping the area in a depressed state for an undue prolonged period of time.
2 would we want to have a new 4 storey building instead of a minor change in the envelope of teh building while retain its current use and have a better building retining also the current height of the building both in terms of the extension and the main building?.
Allowing all the three planning proposals
1 will not impact disfavourably the chjaractedr of the area.
Will allow the repair of the damaged exback extension. With the current double pitched roof a reapir ins not finacially viable, and the bck extension will remain in its current state for the foreseable future. Please note comnpulsory demolition will not be possible as the strucuture that is still standing is structurally sound and no court order will be granted for compulsory demolition. Any compulsoryuu demolition pordeeding will be asaily opposed and dismissed by the courts showing the evidence provided by our strucutural team hoe the remaining strucure is of solid contruction and unlikelly to pose risk of collapse in the coming several years.
2 will increase job opportunities in the area. Therefore encouraging other private capital to flow into the area due to increasse local commercial demand
Windows under permitted development rights
In case there would be objections on any of our planning application in connection with the introduction of new windows and doors, it has to be borne in mind that the permitted development rights allows us to introduce new windows and external doors. In particular, windows would be introduced to the forth floor under permitted development rights. in contrast, our application seeks only new opening for windows up to the upper dormer windows.