Comments and  results

• Peter & Roseanne Bailey (the then owners of Westhill House) apply for planning permission to extend Stable Courtyard.  The plans are prepared by Michael Peach in May 1994.  Interestingly for our local readers the slope is not shown on the drawings - it is not uncommon then?
• The plans show a complex multi-roofed house of quite complex design and surfaces of brick, render, timber and boarding.
• On the ground floor there is a Sitting Room, Dining Room, Kitchen, Study, Cloakroom, stairs to first floor and across the south elevation is a Conservatory and terrace area
• There is a glazed link to the ground floor stable of Stable Bungalow.
• At first floor level there are 3 Bedrooms (2 ensuite) on the south with a fourth to the north. There is a large first floor landing which has a glazed link across to Stable Bungalow and north to the road via a walkway. 
• The extension is some 4200 sq ft and extends a considerable way south.
• A raised terrace is a feature of this approved house design. 

• No objections were received, however Lt Col Thwaites of Bay Tree Cottage did write to say       "Taken in isolation I have no objection to the plan as it stands ....but would ask that two matters be taken into account.....1) the line of trees along the lane to remain intact......2) further development of the site should be resisted"
• When the plans were approved no such restrictions were made!
• The officers comments were           "Although this is a large extension, its impact on the   surrounding are will not, in the officers opinion, have a significant impact on the AONB. Th design of the extension is considered appropriate.  The proposal will involve the loss of 1 tree and 3 shrubs but that is not considered significant"   

• The plans were received by Malvern Hills District Council on 1 June 1994

• Approval and listed building consent was given on  4 August 1994

• There were no objections to the proposed extension!

1994

• Peter & Roseanne Bailey  apply for planning permission to convert the ground floor stables and stable flat over to guest suites in conjunction with the approved Stable Bungalow extension (MH94/0659).
• Perhaps the most interesting feature for our neighbours are the 2 windows in the south elevation.

• The plans were received by Malvern Hills District Council on 22 November 1994

• Approval was given on  24 January 1995

• We know of no objections to the proposed plans!

• Peter & Roseanne Bailey  appoint John Goodwin to sell a building plot with detailed planning consent for "a spacious and interesting 5 bedroom 4 bathrooms and 3 reception rooms together with 2 independent guest suites".   
• Graham & Sue Wood see the site for the first time in late September 1995.
• In October John Goodwin arranges to have all the right people together on site for us to seriously talk. After extensive surveys etc Graham & Sue decide to put in an offer.

• On 6 December we make an offer

• February sees us making a revised offer based on new Vat information.
• At the end of March we are back in discussion with our final offer being accepted.
• Transfer is completed during July.
• In September we have various works - additional heating and decoration etc undertaken to make the property more lettable whilst we decide what we want to do on the building site.
• We spend many weekends at the neighbouring  B&B at Hill Farm as we have these works done.
• After some investigation we award the design work to the Architects Four Square Design of Lambourn Berkshire who are members of the Association of Self Build Architects, ASBA.  Their work is well respected and in sympathy with local styles and materials.
• All the partners of Four Square Design visit our site and discuss our requirements. Our brief is to design a less complex house of about 3500 sq ft which blends harmoniously in the existing buildings.
• After receiving their initial ideas we like the concept sketches of Howard Waters who then goes on to produce the final design to be submitted for planning approval.
• In early December we meet on site with the Planners from Malvern Hills District Council. They immediately note that the style of the extension is that of C F Voisey, a very well respected and known Arts and Crafts Movement architect form the early 1900's. His work is part of the study program of all architects during their training. Infact there are are several examples of Voisey's work in the Malvern area so our house is well in keeping with local styles!

• On 19 July 1995 we own the building site

• As the original sketches develop we show them to Roseanne and Peter Bailey as required by our purchase conditions.  After gaining their approval we decide to talk to the local people in the Westhill area and show them our plans.  In particular we meet  with our immediate neighbours David and Lorraine Williams. We travel down from Maidenhead to meet with them and show them our proposed designs. We have no immediate reactions so we leave them with copies of our proposals.  We ask them to let us know if there is anything they are unhappy about.  It could be that we may like their suggestions and will incorporate them into our actual planning application.
• Having had no comments from any of the people we have shown our plans to,  we formally apply for planning approval.
• The Saturday before the Monday Planning Committee meeting we meet with the Williams's for lunch at the Farmers Arms at Wellington Heath.  We have a pleasant lunch and talk about our keenness to move to Ledbury.  We ask if there are any problems and they comment that they do not  have any.
• In the late afternoon on the Monday just as the Malvern Hills Planning Committee is about to sit we hear from Duncan Mathewson at Four Square Design.   Apparently our request for our planning application to be titled as a separate dwelling is no longer acceptable. It appears someone locally has been in touch with the Planners!  We are forced to accept a change of title.  During the Planning Committee meeting it appears that the Williams's have been in correspondence with the Planning Department.  They have some concerns  about privacy and request certain measures.  In addition just before the Committee meets we are told that they inform the Planners that they do not believe due investigation has been made.
• At the Planning Committee (which we do not attend as we were not expecting any difficulties having talked with local residents) it is agreed that subject to satisfying our neighbours objections the application may be passed under delegated powers
• The Planners, after meeting with the Williams and considering their comments, pass our plans unchanged from those submitted.

• MHDC pass our plans on 7 Oct 1997. 

• They are unchanged from those submitted on 19 May 1997

• As the planning approval is now for an extension rather than a dwelling and the fact that we have a no separate occupancy clause in our planning approval we have a VAT problem that requires addressing.  We have two options 1) to request for the separate occupancy clause to be removed or 2) to actually make our approved plans an actual extension, ie one can walk from the original  to the new  building without effectively going outside.  Given a potential problem with the first option we task our Architects to come up with plan for the second!
• Howard Waters provides us with an alternative of having a glazed link between the two buildings.  Armed with this we make an appointment to meet with MHDC Planning Dept.    We immediately state our problem.  MHDC is reluctant to remove to the separate occupancy condition but is more than willing to accept a glazed link between the two building - it is passed under delegated powers.  This amendment does now define the relative height of the slab level and of course the relative height of the building!     This may change the relative roof lines, slab level, associations of the original planning approval! !  
• With all the planning approvals in place Four Square Design work from the approved planning sketches to full working drawings.
• Meanwhile we confirm the construct method of our house as timber frame and seek tenders.  We are impressed with the potential of Masonite I beams and eventually confirm their use and also that Oregon Timber Frames will supply the house.

• We submit an amended planning application on 2 Sep 1998

• The glazed link is approved under delegated powers on 18 Sep 1998

• We advise the Planning Dept of the slab level of our extension as 17.315m (relative to a 20m datum in the lane as required by our planning conditions. It is approved.
• We start to  plan the building of our extension for just after Easter.
• After a few problems our building works are underway.
• We place our Maidenhead house on the market and move into 1 Stable Courtyard.
• All goes very well and then in September we have an enforcement officer arrive on site with Michelle Gallego. It appears that a local complainant thinks that our house is higher than in the original approved plans. This is a surprise to us as the working drawings were taken from the approved planning drawings and the timber frame drawings are exactly in line with the timber frame manufacturer.  The house is measured and we double check the dimension - we are within inches of the height when it is scaled from the approved planning drawings. Considering the house construction is far from complete and the soil to the south elevation not yet replaced it is not perhaps surprising that the house looks high.  The fact that the grey 'foundation blocks' are still in evidence should indicate that the works are not complete.
• Not surprisingly as any architect/planner/builder knows when one moves from planning sketches to working drawings to actual construction a few minor changes occur.   Normally these do not give any cause for concern and certainly do not worry a council planning department.
• For the record the 1997 dpm/roof ridge dimension is 8.4m and the actual as built, again dpm/roof ridge, according to both the approved minor amendment drawings and actual measurement is 8.65m.  There are 110 brick layers + the sofit boards (equivalent to 4 bricks) @ a gauge of 10 layers equalling 760mm, ie 114*0.76 = 8.65m. This difference of 250mm against the approved 8400mm is 3%!!!  This as any architect/planner /builder knows is well within accepted tolerance.  The overall length on the 97 approved planning drawings is 24.8m compared to an as built dimension of 25.4m, ie a difference of 0.6m.  This is 2.4% longer! Again within accepted tolerances.  This is caused simply by building to actual brick lengths!
• We ask our architects to mark up a set of drawing with these minor amendments. Naturally some may appear in more than one view, but are only mentioned once. The full list is as follows: 

North Elevation

• all windows are changed to rectangular to match those on the south elevation.
• two Velux windows have been introduced in the north roof.
• the front door is marginally different.
• the hallway triangular window now has a triangular pointed leaded roof to match other leadwork.
• the glazed link roof line is different to facilitate building.

South Elevation

• A small window on the first floor south elevation for the internal stairs has been added.
• the second floor window has a minor dimension change.
• the hallway window now has glazing bars in the top similar with those in the window above.
• bed 2 and the west first floor living room window are no longer full length.
• bed 3 and the east first floor living room window adjacent to the French doors are no longer full length.
• the roof dormer windows are wider apart to prevent water problems. 
• the conservatory roof windows are larger to facilitate the roof beams.
• the south gable rendering is changed in shape to suit the actual brickwork.
• the dining room window has changed from 4 to 5 lights.
• minor differences to the guttering line have occurred as the building progressed from planning sketches to an actual building.
• there are now 2 steps down on to  the paved areas.
• the roof finials are different - the architects original choice are no longer made!

         The following illustration or spot the difference comparison illustrates the exceptionally minor             variations - how many can you spot?

East Elevation

• the utility and hallway patio door is different.
• the bin store lintel has been raised (a builders error!)
• a slope has been incorporated to the new patio level for wheel chairs.

West Elevation

• a small first floor hallway window has been added.
• the conservatory windows have minor dimensional changes.

Ground Floor Plan

• the bed 1 north/south dimension is now marginally larger to facilitate ease of building - again a progression form planning sketches to actual building.

• In February we receive a letter for the Chief Planning Officer telling us that although one corner of the floor slab may be at the correct height the other three may not be correct.   As the house is built on a level slab this is a little odd!   Later it is agreed that this is wrong!
• We meet with the Chief Planning Officer and his team.  It is a very constructive and helpful meeting. They concur with us about many of the comments about our house.  The agree with us that the house is built at the right level, to the right height and in the right place exactly as per our original planning approval.
• Normally differences as minor as these would not be of concern, however, given the letters from our local complainants the Chief Planning Officer would like to process these minor amendments through the Planning Committee.  We agree so that everyone can comment and the matter can be closed.
• The Planning Department report states:        

• Planning approval was given on 26 May.  It was an long debate often talking about irrelevant matters such as whether the 1994 planning approval should have been given

• The matter before them was to debate the minor amendments

• No comments about the actual minor amendments as far as we are aware were made by any complaint

• There was no discussion on these points

• Eventually by  12 votes to 3 approval was given

• when the vote is taken it is a majority by something like 12 to 2

• As the balustrade is being temporally fitted, Kevin Bishop (Planning Officer - and very familiar with our house!) calls by.  He sees the balustrade and confirms that he has no problems. In due course a confirming letter arrives.
• In August we start to draw up the plans for the replacement of the gates to Stable Courtyard.  They are rotten and becoming dangerous.  We will have to seek formal planning approval.  What will the neighbours do now..................?