MATTHEW BELL BSc Architectural Studies

Appeal, MFC

06/01/11 – 12/01/11

As MFC was refused planning permission and after speaking with

the architects here at Modece, I have gone about making a plan of

action of how to get a building erected within this year.

My course of action is

Appeal original design

Re-submission of dumbed down design

Build original design to lower height under Permitted

Development

The Appeal:

Being my first experience of an Appeal, I went all out on

research to make sure I understood exactly what I was trying to

achieve. There are a lot of documentation online, both in general

forums and on government and local council sites. I scavenged

through policies to back up my arguments and find reasons why

the refusal was unfair.

After studying the refusal reason and getting further details

from the planning officer who had dealt with it, the argument was

narrowed down to a couple of points.

The proposal is

too high

too large

not subservient enough to host dwelling

I decided the best way to fight this was to prove my points

visually. The original elevations do not do the building justice

in terms of its reaction to context, so I produced a series of

diagrams and perspectives to prove that the building was in

fact well suited to its context and subservient to the host

dwelling.

Thoughts on the Appeal Process:

I have found the appeal process quite enjoyable. It gives an

opportunity to argue the case for your proposal much like we

would do in a crit at uni, albeit in a word processed form. I can see

how having to gain planning permission helps protect 3rd party

interests and the heritage of the site however I do also question

the extent of their control over design issues. In Suffolk, as

described by the architects in our office, we have a couple of the

most strict and least visionary planning departments you could

imagine. There seems to be a large amount of personal and

subjective reasoning’s backed up loosely by general policies like

CN01 and CR01.

It is odd to think that someone with relatively little training

can decide the fate of parts of your career on a whim. The

planning officer dealing with my proposal did seem to judge the

building fairly from the documents provided, and did give a

comprehensive reason as to why he refused planning. But I

question his ability to understand the design architecturally as a

building looks very different in 3d than an elevation, from which

judgement was given.

My appeal basically revolves around describing the project

to a general member of the public, showing in basic steps how it

fulfils all criteria. Should this not be a skill of a planning officer?

In the future I will complete the planning proposal in much

greater depth and spend more time in proving the building’s

appropriateness to its site, as you cannot guarantee it will be

understood from architectural drawings.