Second planning application

Our second planning application has now been submitted. It's exactly the same as the first, but is accompanied by the following explanatory text:

In reference to our planning application submitted today, I have the following additional comments on the specific building line sought:

1. Maintenance of building line, symmetry, site-specific precedent
The proposed extension is designed to maintain the building line of the group of similar houses (three pairs of semi-detached houses all with the same building line), and the building line of the individual house which currently has a single storey extension flush with the front of the original house;
The extension was designed to extend sympathetically the existing roofline of the pair of semi-detached houses;
The extension was designed to introduce a new visual symmetry to the individual house, having regard to the context of the group of similar houses and to the neighbouring property to the south.

The established building line on the individual plot – that of the single storey extension in poor repair – is currently flush with the front of the original house, and the new proposed extension is intended as a replacement and enhancement of the existing extension. A previous planning permission granted for replacement with a single storey extension also allowed maintenance of the current building line.

2. Structural issues
In addition to the overall appearance of the final structure, we have a number of entirely pragmatic reasons to seek maintenance of the established building line. First is that we wish to extend the roofline directly across the extension: this will increase the utility of the loft-space, and ensure that the most straightforward structural solution can be implemented. Any deviation from the building line will require one of two options: either (a) alteration to the roofline, with the introduction of additional hipping and gulleys, or (b) maintaining the current roofline with a consequential significant overhang to the front of the house and reduction of the upstairs accommodation.

Option (a) would require introduction of additional hips and gulleys to the roof, which, in addition to being visually unappealing and injurious to the integration of the extension with the existing roofline, will increase the maintenance requirements and increase, if only marginally, the possibility of failure at several points on the roof, as well as requiring more complex, visually intrusive, and high maintenance guttering arrangements to assure suitable run-off.

Option (b) would reduce the available upstairs space as the building line at the back would remain flush with the current house, and thus unnecessarily cramp the new accommodation. It would also require significant structural reinforcement to support the overhang – again increasing the maintenance requirements and increasing the possibility of failure.

We believe that either option for deviating from the building line would introduce an unnecessary degree of risk to the roof structure, and involve higher costs, and will have implications for the internal configuration.

3. Internal configuration
Because of the limitations imposed by the existing layout and structure, the placement of openings from the existing house to the proposed extension cannot be amended significantly. This means that any set-back from the established building line, without undertaking a total reconfiguration of the existing and proposed internal accommodation, would reduce the sizes of the rooms to the front of the proposed extension to a size which is inconsistent with the overall dimensions of the house and would seriously reduce the utility of those rooms and the overall flexibility of the accommodation. The only obvious alternative to avoid cramping the rooms to the front would require the removal of the proposed utility room and en-suite bathroom, which would very seriously compromise the quality, comfort and value of the house to us.

Conclusion
Given the site precedent, proposed roof structure, and internal accommodation constraints, we are particularly keen to maintain the building line as established, flush with the front of the house. We hope you will give this favourable consideration, and will be happy to provide any further information you may require.

And that pretty much says it all.

The illustrated kitchen

We have a quote from a second kitchen place, which is higher than the first, but we prefer their layout and general attitude, so they're now the favourite. They also gave us drawings. Here's the plan:

That green bar on the top side of the island, opposite the hob, is the dishwasher.

The main units look like this:

One big advantage over the design from the other place is that the cooker is over on the left. The last guy insisted on it being at the right-hand end. I don't remember why. It's better here, further from the dining space which is off to the right. The non-integrated fridge and freezer are at opposite ends of the kitchen because there isn't room for them to sit side-by-side.

From further back:

The island doesn't have much storage space: just that shallow cupboard on the left and the space under the sink. Sitting space is maximised because the far side will be used for food preparation and the space beside the dishwasher will allow chef to sit while chopping, while the near side will be facing the TV off to the right and will function as a breakfast bar. When we last spoke to the designer there was talk of a leg supporting the island worktop at the end, but that seems not to be necessary. Which is good.

The only major problem I foresee is that once this is installed it will take us ages colouring it in. Where's my brown felt-tip..?

What are we doing?

After extensive consideration and consultation we have been advised that the best way forward is to resubmit our planning application exactly as before, and append an explanation as to why one of the conditions in the previous permission makes the project untenable. Having gone over the options we have absolutely ruled out building the extension according to the Council conditions, mainly due to the engineering difficulties with the roof and the reduction in room sizes necessitated by the repositioning of the door openings.

Our new application will be submitted on Thursday of this week, meaning we will be expecting a planning decision some time after 10th August.

If we are unsuccessful again, and no suitable alternative can be found, we will apply to have the extension knocked down, have a planning-exempt extension built on to the kitchen at the rear, renovate the whole lot, and sell on at the earliest opportunity.

But hopefully it won't come to that.