|
A week before the meeting the Planning Officers report is made public.
I was delighted to read that our proposal was 'Recommended Approval'
with some conditions attached. One of these conditions caused me
to hyperventilate! This was an Engineering report for the new access
to the site.
When we had our first meeting on site with the Planning Officer
we discussed the difficult access, which could be substantially
improved if we were allowed to create a second entrance to the south.
He thought we did not need approval for the additional entrance
as we were on an unregistered road. A fortnight later a letter arrived
from the Assistant Chief Planning Officer, which confirmed this
position.
We had therefore incorporated the new entrance into our plans because
of the letter of confirmation. THIS WAS A MISTAKE. What followed
was like a scene from 'Yes Minister.'
The Engineering report said we could open up the second entrance
during construction but then had to close the original entrance
2 months after we moved in. All this would achieve is a moving of
the access / egress problem to another entrance. And why had this
been ruled on at all given the letter of approval? - because it
was now considered by the Planning Department that we were putting
in for permission for this new entrance as it formed part of our
application!
I pointed out the letter confirming we could create a second entrance
but to no avail. We were going around in circles.
Either we had to withdraw the plans and resubmit showing no southern
entrance, incurring further delay, or pray for a deferral. I speculated
there would be a deferral so that the members could visit the site
and understand the merits of the proposal.
The applicant is allowed to attend the planning meeting - but forbidden
to speak. At the meeting a member of the Planning Committee banged
on about the huge 'flat roof' the property had. So closely had the
member inspected the plans that the inverted roof had been missed
and the shallow angled roof to keep height down had also not been
spotted. And you wonder why some planning committees get bad reputations.
After this member had bellowed for a bit I decided to code-name
him "Mr Bellicose". The Committee agreed to defer my application
to the next meeting so that among other things the trees could be
inspected. I saw this as an opportunity to send all members a letter
to explain the rationale behind the design. In retrospect I should
have sent one before the first meeting.
The deferral also gave us the opportunity to 'withdraw' the request
for the second entrance - and at a later date use the letter that
was already 'in the bank' to create the entrance without the Engineering
Department ruling applying.
|
Dear
......................
Re 2001
When embarking on a project to build a home for your family
it is perhaps better not to be aware of all the challenges
you may encounter else you may never start. With the deferral
at last weeks meeting an opportunity occurs to explain the
design rationale of the proposal to you, preferably on site.
At ********** our first challenge was securing the site. The
next, along with several others, was a complete design change
as we lived with the site. Acting in haste to put a building
on the plot would have been a mistake. So now, more than a
year after the purchase, a highly considered application is
before you.
The site has many advantages for building a 'one-off' design.
It is a large plot, enclosed by mature trees, which is important
when designing a heavily glazed house. There is no building
style or line as is clearly stated in the Case Officers report.
The site is in GB5 development. Combine these key points with
paragraph 3.31. Page. 31. Chilterns Conference Buildings Design
Guide and one can clearly see that an opportunity exists to
create a unique building;
The 'One Off' Design
3.31 "This guide is intended to conserve the Chilterns
Landscape by promoting the building traditions of the Chilterns.
However this does not mean there is no place for innovative
architecture. By their very nature such designs are likely
to be 'one- offs' and only built in exceptional circumstances,
where it can be shown that they enhance the landscape and
immediate setting rather than detract from local character."
All our neighbours (8) with the exception of one family, who
did not feel the need, have been consulted and involved with
the design. Letters of support have been received for which
I believe the reasons are as follows:-
Our neighbours have been communicated with at length and are
wholly aware of how we arrived at the design and materials.
All neighbours have had the opportunity of discussing any
concerns.
The
proposal is 'low impact.' *
It is a single dwelling.
The proposal is sympathetic with the site geometry and topography.
*A
key challenge that faced our design was topography. *****
(a 1970's style with a monopitch gable roof adjoined by an
extensive flat roof garage), the house to the south is built
on substantially lower ground and the house to the north (******
******) is an extended Chilterns cottage. Separating our proposed
house into two parts enables it to relate to both the site
topography/geometry and the adjacent properties. This relationship
is further enhanced by a shallow angled roof, which is compatible
with contemporary architecture and is low impact. The inverted
roof on the southern pavilion also means there is much less
bulk visible to the southerly neighbour.
To put the design achievements into perspective (figures approximate)
the overall footprint of the property compared to the existing
bungalow is + 26%, the accommodation + 122% but the ridge
height has only increased by circa 3 feet.
The
use of glass in a particular way will blur the boundary between
the house and the garden. Our design brief accented our wish
to live in a contemporary house, sympathetic to the site and
full of light.
It is interesting to note that at local level the Parish has
supported our application and we have neighbours' support.
This seems to have come about as a result of the presentations
I have given, which offered our neighbours a clear understanding
of how the unusual design evolved and the thought processes
that went into the scheme. I hope you and your colleagues
will accept my offer to meet me on site either individually
or together and I look forward to hearing from you.
Yours Sincerely,
Tom Perry
|
This
garnered no response other than 2 courteous letters of acknowledgement.
At the next planning meeting (3 weeks later) my application was
first on. Our Planning Officer turned up - and we were off!
Almost all the Planning Committee moved to the plans that were pinned
on the board. A mumble drifted through the room. Mr Bellicose appeared
to be speaking to everyone. Finally they returned to their seats
and the Chairman asked 'has anyone got anything to say on this one?'
With batteries recharged for the occasion, first on was Mr Bellicose.
Click went the microphone.
I took notes - this is a précis:-
Hideous
- there are not enough words available to express my objection
to this building.
The building is inappropriate, we are in an AONB.
It's awful.
It hurts my eye
It's the sort of thing you see in Marbella, or Eldorado and that's
where it should be.
Detrimental to the surrounding properties.
I
was not immediately aware of where Eldorado was but was quickly
informed it was the name of a failed TV soap located in southern
Spain. He then railed on about another planning application further
down the road in Open Green Belt being restricted and it seemed
almost as though he wanted the boundary moved there and then in
order to stop my application. Eventually he ran out of insults and
wind. I considered this stream of abuse and thought to myself -
"It's just a planning application!"
Well now as most of us know the architecture in southern Spain is
almost exclusively mock Moorish Hacienda and the Eldorado set was
true to its locale. So observant was the Committee Member that he
not only missed the minor detail of the roof but he didn't possess
the visual abilities to see the difference between Moorish and Mies.
It's a bit worrying really.
Two other members were negative.
I was just starting to wonder if there was any cavalry anywhere
on the horizon when it arrived. A progressive thinking member who
waved newspaper articles around explaining that 'change' was on
its way and how pleasing it was to see a considered application
instead of the usual 'Tudorbethan, Vicwardian, Chiltern vernacular
stream………..' Have I heard these words before?
One or two other voices of support were heard but quite frankly
when it came to the vote I had no idea what to expect!
11 - 3 in our favour!
It
felt like another England - Germany football match
I
suspect there are reactionary elements on most committees. Every
time I mentioned our Council and contemporary architecture to anyone
locally the sound of whistling air over teeth was very prevalent.
It was like standing next to leaking gas bottles. But in reality
the result was enlightened and as our newspaper-waving supporter
on the committee said, "Change is occurring!"
And she is right -- I really do hope Planning Committees adopt
the refreshing position of mine.
|
|
