Update from the Planning Office

Email sent to our architect last week…

I refer to the plans submitted by e-mail and subsequently by hand on 15th June 2011 concerning the above.

I brought your proposed design to the team meeting today.   Generally the feedback is that we are more than happy to accept a contemporary design and  welcome designs that demonstrate architectural flair and innovation.  There was no adverse concerns over the proposed height of the proposed dwelling. However, it was contended that the overall conceptual design could be improved by incorporating more contemporary elements. It may be that the acceptability of the proposed design is dependant on the design statement and the supporting information that is presently awaited. If the correct materials are proposed for the finish of the dwelling, this will enhance the design. However, the planning service would be open to any further design suggestions that you may have explored and would welcome variations on the proposed design that make the dwelling appear more contemporary.

It should be noted that the presence of the horizontal timber cladding along the upper sections of the dwelling has a slight 1970′s feel and therefore it may be an idea to modify this element in some way. The submission of coloured drawings and details of materials in any subsequent submission would assist with the assessment of the design.

I trust the above is useful. Should you wish to discuss, please do not hesitate to contact me.

 

Yay!  It looks like we’re going to be allowed to have a two storey house!

And just in today…

I have had a chance to review your design justification and the vision statement from the applicant’s and the content of both is noted and provides a good basis for justifying the proposed design elements. However, the following points should be explored further:
I note in your design statement, your comments on the shape of the dwelling refers to the following: “plan tends to square in it’s footprint which affords a more efficient external
wall surface area to building volume ratio as well as responding better to the client’s brief”.

In what way does the square footprint lend itself to a more efficient external wall surface? The impact that the overall concept of the square footprint has on the external appearance of the dwelling should be explored and this should be detailed further in the justification.

Justification for the proposed roof shape has not been fully provided other than a “gentle butterfly” roof that would be a green roof. This is quite a significant defining element of the overall design and needs to be justified.

With regard to the proposed windows, it was noted during our meeting that the windows do appear random and in the justification, it is stated:

The positions have been considered to take into account the client brief, orientation, views and overall balance /proportion within a building elevation.

I think that the window sizes and proportions need to be analysed more in this regard (especially in relation to the particular sizes of openings). Perhaps each elevation could be detailed separately and the defining element s relating to the overall appearance of the dwelling detailed for each one.

The external appearance of the dwellinghouse is the major determining factor in the acceptability of a project by the planning service and this should be borne in mind when providing any justification. The clients needs is not a determining factor in assessing the design of any proposal.

At the recent team meeting, it was discussed that the design could be even more creative and innovative than the present submission. This could be undertaken through the use of steel or glass in some way to the external elevations. As stated in my previous response, I indicated that the timber paneling at the top of the building could be modified in some way to appear more contemporary and again this is something that the Planning Service would welcome.
You will appreciate that the design of the dwelling is an issue where conflict of opinion can arise and therefore it is essential that relevant detail is provided in the suppo rting design statement to address any matters that have been raised. I cannot stress enough that the Planning Service fully support innovation in design. It may be that tweaking of minor detailing of the present one (through use of alternative materials) alongside further detailed justification will have a positive bearing on the consideration of the current proposal.

I hope the above is useful. If you want to discuss any matters, please do not hesitate to contact me.

I have to say that my favourite statement in the above is:

“The clients’ needs is [sic] not a determining factor in assessing the design of any proposal.”

*sigh*

And I know, I know, you haven’t see the Elevations, yet.  Those are on my laptop…which is at the flat.  Once I have the laptop back, I’ll be able to upload the elevations.  Promise.  Although I have to warn you: a very honest relative of mine confirmed that the house looks like — and I quote — a low-income apartment building built during the ’70s in a Northern Ontario industrial town.   Still, after what the planners indicated, above, this won’t be a problem for much longer.

 

15 Weeks

I promised my middle sister that I would upload a baby-belly picture as soon as I had one.  Well…it looks like I have the beginnings of one.

This is me with my stomach sucked in as far as it will go.

Until I show you in this next picture that it is not baby you are seeing, but everything that baby has babies have displaced.

That's what's keeping me warm this summer, folks.

Also, CROFT UPDATE:

The planners had their meeting and have not instantly rejected the design.  They discussed the materials (stawbale, render, metal roof, timber cladding in certain areas).  That’s all we’ve been told.  We haven’t been told what the outcome of the discussion was, but it does seem like a good thing that they are going to discuss other aspects next meeting.  Keep your fingers crossed and thumbs pressed.

 

Planning Meeting

We’ve just come back from our meeting with the planning office, after having sent in the latest floor plan and elevations.   Much to my surprise, the comments were generally positive.  I figured we’d be given a flat no for such a contemporary design.  We are to send her some new information by Wednesday of next week (e.g., information on why we chose the materials we have, why the windows are placed as they are, why having a two storey house won’t be intrusive, etc.), and on the Thursday she will take everything to her colleagues during their weekly group meeting and discuss the house.  She has been up-front in saying that whether or not we are allowed to go with the latest design is purely up to general consensus of the group.  Keep your fingers crossed for us!

 

Meep Meep Meep Meep Meep Meep Meep Meep Meep Meep Meep Meep Meeeeeeeeeep Meep-Meep

That’s right.   Beethoven’s Ode to Joy sung by Beaker. (This video is appropriate on so many levels in terms of self-build.)

Why?

Because we have permission to take down the old croft buildings!!

Dear Sir,

I refer to your e-mail and enclosures received on 20th May relating to the above proposal. I have now had a chance to discuss the principle with my colleagues and line manager.

The detailed structural survey specifically states that “the extent of the  dampness, the structural cracks and misalignment of the walls noted all lead me to consider that this building is structurally unsound” – “I do not  consider upgrading the existing building to current standards is a viable  option given the site constraints.” Taking account of the above combined  with the physical condition of the building and the fact that the character  of the existing dwelling has been altered considerably with the  incorporation of non-traditional window openings, I can advise that in this  case, the Planning Service shall accept the principle of development  complies with the criteria as detailed in policy HOU/6 of the X  Local Plan.

The new house shall require to be located on the site of the existing house, unless demonstrated that an alternative position within the  curtilage and directly adjacent to the existing house site is more suitable  in terms of policy Gen/2. The design of the replacement shall require to be formally submitted…Should you wish to discuss any matter relating to the proposed design of the dwellinghouse or to any issue  relating to the proposed development, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Glory-be and hallelujah!

 

Update

Sorry I’ve been away for so long, folks.  It wasn’t expected, it was just that I was doing things other than sitting in front of my laptop.

Anyhoo, I thought it was about time I fulfilled my promise to update y’all on my meeting with our architect and the planner.  If you remember from this post, we were sent a confusing letter from our planning officer and we felt we needed help deciphering it.

A bit to my surprise, the meeting went well and the person assigned to our case seems reasonable. We first talked about knocking down the current buildings.  In a nutshell, her response was — and I’m paraphrasing here — “The council has strict rules about destroying original buildings, but I’ve been out to see the place and, as long as the structural engineering sends us a very detailed report outlining what is wrong with each wall and uses the word ‘unsound’, we won’t try to block you.”  The bottom line is she has to toe the party line.

We then went on to talk about the architect’s plans as they stand right now.  Essentially:

• the proposed house is too much a mix of traditional and contemporary and should be one thing or the other;
• she wants to see more glazing and she wants it to be more adventurous  [Note from editor: "yes!!" and 'glazing' is British for 'windows'];
• she wants to see more timber cladding in the design than what is currently there; [unexpected by us, but not necessarily unwanted]
• it would be preferable if the design were contemporary;
• we could possibly have two stories if we went contemporary; we definitely couldn’t if we went traditional; however, they’d rather we went out instead of up;
• it’s great that we’ve opted for an original design rather than a kit house from the local timber-frame merchant;
• the current design is not far off from what would be approved;
• make the pantry deeper/larger;
• she was relieved we had chosen to go for a colour other than mildew-grey for our render [which was a relief to us, let me tell you, 'coz looking around our area I figured we'd have to fight for that one];
• the house doesn’t have to conform to the old footprint, but the new footprint has to overlap some or most of the old;
• when we finally do submit the plans, include a design statement so that they see we’ve thought about what it is we’re asking for.

The next step is to lure the structural engineer back here.  He’s been doing the I might be able to show up on X-day but I can’t commit routine for the past couple of weeks.  (Perhaps we can lure him here with the promise of cookies?)  Once he does come back and write the report, we can then get moving on the design, submit, and keep our fingers crossed.

 

“Has a character worthy of retaining.”

You will remember from this post, that the planners feel that the buildings have “a character worth retaining.”

Well, sure, it has character…but ‘depressing’ wasn’t quite the character trait I was looking for in a house.  Neither was damp, dark, cramped and cold.  We were hoping to obtain character traits such as bright, roomy, and low energy/heat loss.  Silly us.

 

Letter from the planner after her visit

What we expected, but not what we wanted.  Some movement may be possible, but there are some vague statements that really do need further explanation…

Dear Sir or Madam,

Principle of Development

As previously stated in my e-mail, the Planning Service are of the opinion that the existing dwellinghouse is a traditional vernacular building that has a character worthy of retaining. However, policy allows for the replacement of such a building “if it is demonstrated by the developer that it is not structurally sound for residential use and not capable of retention.” It is the opinion of the planning service that this has not been demonstrated.

Design of the replacement dwellinghouse

It is the case that in the design of the replacement house, particular attention is given to the position, size, scale and design. The proposed replacement dwelling should follow the footprint of the existing dwellinghouse. I note on the drawings that the proposed footprint runs perpendicular to the existing.

In general, the design should follow either contemporary or traditional and preferably not contain elements of both. The proposed dwelling displays proportions of a traditional steading but is predominantly contemporary in the external appearance. The external elevations could be improved through the incorporation of additional glazing. The proposed windows have traditional glazing bars that are not reflective of the character of other elements on the building.

The stepped roof levels of the proposed dwelling make the building appear quite fussy. If a stepped roof is to be incorporated, only one change in level should be proposed. The design of the proposed pantry extension off the north east elevation should be amended in order for it to be considered favourably. Coloured elevational drawings may assist the presentation of the design. In general, the contemporary design of the building is welcomed and should be emphasised further.

In summary, the Planning Service requires further information to demonstrate that the existing dwellinghouse is not structurally stable. Assuming that this matter can be demonstrated by further investigations, the design of the proposed dwelling requires to be revised. I look forward to your submission concerning the above requirements.

Yours faithfully…