Reply to THIS thread
Start a NEW Talkback Thread
Talkback Home

Planning Permission Irregularities - Chris (23rd Aug 2007 - 13:09:54) Two months ago I visited EHDC planning offices for an informal discussion about some plans that I was contemplating for our 3 bed bungalow. Our intent was to extend the loft with dormer windows to add a couple of extra rooms and a bathroom for use by my son; total cost would be around £45-50000. I was advised by the planning officer that this would not receive planning permission as it goes against rural development policy. The jist of it is that I am attempting to turn a modest bungalow into a more valuable property thus taking this “modest” bungalow out of financial reach of many in the rural community who could afford to buy it if modification did not occur. With calculator in hand the planning officer also established that the living space contributed by the dormers PLUS the existing loft space would take me over the guideline level of extension to existing living space. The planning officer was adamant that rural development/improvement should be sympathetic to local community aspirations and so without protest I accepted the situation and abandoned the plan. Imagine the confusion I experienced when I saw this for sale by Lane Fox Estate Agents of Haslemere: www.lanefox.co.uk/search/... [editor - continued in next post...]

Re: Planning Permission Irregularities - Chris (23rd Aug 2007 - 13:26:30) The site currently houses a modest 2 bedroom bungalow which, unmodified, is probably within the financial means of many local people. But planning permission has been granted for it to be knocked down to make way for a 5 bed, two story house to be built in rural Liphook (with 1 acre paddock). Total investment is £500,000 to acquire the site, the same, at most, to build the house which will then probably make more than £1.5m on the open market. Result £500,000 profit. This replacement house will contribute to an increase in average house prices in that area and will put it further out of reach for many. I live within walking distance of Conford and fail to see how my plans violate planning policy and this doesn’t. There is obviously a procedure that I am naively unaware of that allows a prospective developer to exploit an opportunity for profit which existing residents with less ambitious plans cannot.

Re: Planning Permission Irregularities - Niall (23rd Aug 2007 - 16:39:20) Chris, I'm sorry to hear about your plight, and as we have recently extended our property in Hewshott Lane I will try to cast some light on 'the rules'. In principal, I believe a property can be added to, via either 'permitted development' (this is why some small extensions don't have planning permission), or with planning permission up to '50% of the footprint' of the property as it existed in the 'baseline year', which is currently 1974. This is the principle that applies to allow people to add on extra bedrooms etc for expanding familes, but not go mad and replace a cottage with a 'fottballer's wife's' house. The Council is quite strict on the 50% rule (despite potential developers claiming "everyone ignores it") and your architect will need to provide drawings and calculations, which the Building Inspector will check against on his frequest site visits. So far so good; unfortunately though wiley developers are very good at navigating these rules, and using any of the raft of planning policies (from Govt to council level) to argue for extra development. You only need to look at the profit margins available (ie £0.5m/property) to see why the countryside is briming with developers trying out every loophole to get planning permission. Don't get me wrong, we need new houses, but 'in keeping' with the existing stock, with the infrastructure to support them and preferably not in the middle of an unspoilt scenic view; which this one looks a bit like - I assume it has got permission as well? It's not for me to say, but I'm not sure you have received 'best advice' yet, as what you describe seems very reasonable, depending on how it is done, of course. You might want to speak with Daryl Phillips who is Head of Planning at EHDC and can be very helpful, or possibly some members of the Parish Council who are up to speed on the planning rules, alternatively a planning consultant could help, but this will add to your budget, and is probably not necessary just yet. Good luck though, the situation you describe does appear, on the face of it, fairly iniquitous.

Re: Planning Permission Irregularities - Chris (24th Aug 2007 - 06:31:43) Niall, Thanks for the advice. I understand from Gina Spencer, Information Officer for Bramshott & Liphook Parish Council, that the Parish Council did object to this Conford development in 2003 but that this was overriden by EHDC (EHDC reference is F.28739/3/FUL/SM) after some modification was made to the plan early in 2004. I have also written to Mary Bird at EHDC for an explanation but I will try to contact Daryl Phillips. Of course I accept that my own plans do violate the 50% rule (just) and will probably have to admit defeat but I'm not going to give up just yet.

Re: Planning Permission Irregularities - Barbara Easton (24th Aug 2007 - 10:18:08) Hello Niall thanks for posting but I belive(so I have been told) that it is the footprint of the house or plans which existed in 1948. I have queried this recently with my own house, as the 50% or less was strictly adhered to, and was told that it is to do with keeping small dwellings affordable in the countryside eg if a house is now 5-6 bedrooms it is not "affordable " so an extension is not going to now put it beyond reach financially as it was already beyond reach at 5-6 bedrooms. I believe the planningrules will shortly be dramatically changed anyway, as EHDC planning website has changed, so all the comments etc have been removed, so it seems to me!

Re: Planning Permission Irregularities - Chris (24th Aug 2007 - 11:32:58) Barbara, What is intriguing though is that planning permission was finally granted in Jan 2004 by EHDC when the guidelines you have described would have been firmly entrenched. The new house will easily cover more than the exiting footprint plus 50%. Do you know if they plan to relax the rules regarding improvements to existing properties?

Re: Planning Permission Irregularities - barbara (24th Aug 2007 - 12:09:32) Dont know yet but at present it does seem unfair- I do not know what size the house was originally you are referring to, but they may have had outbuildings etc which were included in the former plans and then demolished. Perhaps a new architect could help you come up with a solution?

Re: Planning Permission Irregularities - Niall (28th Aug 2007 - 06:42:05) Barbara, I can't remember the exact dates now (I'm in a taxi on the way to Heathrow!), but I know that the baseline year changed, and I think 1948 would be the original year. The reasons you describe for the rule are as I understand them.

Reply to THIS thread
Talkback Home