Leaderboard

The word "reasonably" doesn't appear in the Class E PD legislation, and adding it changes the meaning of the sentence. It is not required to demonstrate that the Uses of the planned buildings are "reasonably required for purposes incidental to the enjoyment of the dwellinghouse", they just have to be for a Use incidental to the enjoyment of the dwellinghouse. For Class E it is also not required that the buildings are "Subordinate" to the main dwelling house, the size is controlled by other means. Ref. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2015/596/schedule/2/part/1/crossheading/class-e-buildings-etc-incidental-to-the-enjoyment-of-a-dwellinghouse Sorry, can't help with the Statements of Case examples, but on the face of it, it looks like you have an easy win at Appeal.

I don’t, I would repair it as near original as possible and carry on using it like the previous owners, only if someone complains will the LPA get involved then you can say it was repaired and continual use.

@phykell has already mentioned this is another thread where the council's legal team have mentioned it, but Emin v Secretary of State for the Environment (1989) is regularly mentioned in relation to this. From an example appeal... "12. Both parties refer to the case of Emin which confirmed that that regard should be had not only to the use to which the Class E building would be put, but also to the nature and scale of that use in the context of whether it was a purpose incidental to the enjoyment of the dwellinghouse. The physical size of the building in comparison to the dwellinghouse might be part of that assessment but is not by itself conclusive." This is the part I think they are relying on, but in relation to a garage and swimming pool, I think they'd lose at appeal. A three-bay garage isn't huge by today's standards, and unless it's an Olympic size swimming pool, they'd be hard pressed to argue that the use isn't incidental because of its size.

@phykell What’s wrong in submitting a Householder application? That’ll be a lot quicker than going through the Appeal process.

@Temp It’s literally this and the OP’s proposal does not comply with part iii.

Got there in the end. A break from rendering to let the hands heal from lime burns (d'oh) is in order before the final coat inside. Plenty of other stuff to do though. It's going to be great to take the hessian down in a week or so, although I've got one awkward set of neighbours who have already telegraphed that they're going to hate it (and hate everything already done; and hate that I replaced a rotten pergola with a huge viney beast straddling it with a modest building). They've been out measuring, bless 'em, but it's definitely <2.5M. Fortunately, the other neighbours range from indifferent to fascinated. I offered some evergreen screening as an option to block their view of the side a while back; trying to work out what's most cost-effective (and would be happy in pots) there. 2.5M tall trees, even bamboo, doesn't come cheap 😬

Have you told them your budget?......when we were first meeting with architects on site to decide who to go with we made our criteria clear......we wanted to be hands on throughout; we wanted them to work from our initial layout; and crucially we wanted to be able to buid in budget.......otherwise there is always the danger of falling for something you really shouldn't be trying to afford.... remember not all archiects " do money" and sometimes they draw stuff that can't sensibly be built

@Dave Jones said it best: their hate is free. It's a displacement behaviour - they've FekAll to lose have they? It's a gratis Insult Opportunity. Stuff 'em. Sleep well.

Mine is loose while bleeding the system, then I tightened. Then for the next month or so, i released every so often to let any caught air escape, afterwards re tightened.

I think it is a little unprofessional to share the whole proposal without explicit permission. You could briefly describe the scope so the other architect can check you’re not mistakenly comparing apples & oranges. I accidentally copied a proposal from one SI specialist to another when emailing an SE. I was really embarrassed and apologised to both.

loose.

It’s a lot of money to to add details Lots of design ideas online I’m not sure what your budget is But we are sub 1000m2 for the second time Keep fees down is a good start Most of your design will be made workable by others Have a look at a typical Architects working drawing Foundations to be done by others Floors to be done by others Roof and steels to be done by others Modern design You will pay the Architect to add large runs of glass Be he or she won’t do the practical side of it Yes you’ve guessed it By others

It’s your design that matters Not there portfolio Most of the detailed drawings will be done by others Roof floors steels etc 15k is a lot to spend on design

These numbers don't stack up! Single digit percentage premium on price for a far superior, longer lasting product. As per my earlier comment, if a house has 3, professionally fitted bathrooms and a professionally fitted kitchen to a medium spec, the client will spend more on these than the shell. All four will probably be changed within 15 years. You need a shell that will last that long. You can build a shell for less, agreed, and ICF doesn't suit everyone, but saying it is at least double the cost for negligible performance gain is poppycock.

Let the council do the legwork and get them to quote chapter and verse if they think there is an issue. 🤷‍♂️

I feel a little more cautious than some here. If the land isn’t actually residential curtilage then using it for garden-ish activities and workshop sounds not so legal. If you’ve been doing that for 7 years without challenge you may be able to claim it’s now residential. But, if not, you might not want to alert the LPA.

Is the connection to the NVR wired or wireless to the router? Can you login to the NVR? Do as @Pocster suggests to check it is on the router and to get the IP I'd be checking the following, depending if they are required by the app Port forwarding UPNP DDNS

Pretty sure the geotextile membrane's heavier duty than weed fabric, it needs to keep soil etc out for the lifetime of the soakaway. No fill (if you go for rubble instead of crates you need approx x3 the size of soakaway. What you're looking for is a silt trap before the soakaway (that site's got quite a bit more useful info too, including for a percolation test to establish size if you've not done one)

yes. you have an easement or a prescriptive right you don't own the land. technically you need to serve notice on the owners. its only an issue if someone wants to put a spanner in the works

my house isnt as grand as most on here, the roof is basically a mono-pitch on the back of the house which goes from maybe 2.6m above the doors up to 3m, over 2m something like that. Its easily reachable with a ladder. Also i have a 50mm gap as i doubled up the battens now, seemed the easiest option. The drivers are 25mm and the LEDS themselves are 30mm so with a 50mm gap behind the 12.5mm plasterboard i'll see how i go.

As others have said Vijay, I really wouldn't let this worry you. It doesn't sound as if you are doing anything wrong and it really is not your concern if a neighbour has issues. It's a shame because we all want to get on with our neighbours but at the end of the day what is more important is your own peace of mind.

Small-scale self-build and custom build development of no more than 9 dwellings and on a site which has an area no larger than 0.5 hectares is exempt from BNG. Larger scale outline applications should be dealt with in the same way as phased development. See the BNG PPG for more information. From Biodiversity Net Gain FAQs - Frequently Asked Questions

What on earth does ...subordinate to the main dewelling house ... , and .... genuinely subordinate .... mean ? If, as @IanR above hints, subordination does not refer to size, then where is subordination defined - or explained? Except - I suspect - in the mind of the LPA Officer. I smell an easy Appeal win too.

its a building site, neighbour hate comes free.

Came across this case in Chester and Cheshire West. Many paralells and a statement of case which may help. https://pa.cheshirewestandchester.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=RU12LMTEFUY00

If I'm reading it correctly, the issue is more one of dominance. So it's the "genuinely subordinate" element that is probably more of an issue rather than the "incidental enjoyment". After all, both garages and swimming pools are listed as examples in Class E so I think they'd struggle to argue the "incidental enjoyment" argument... Can you create two buildings? A three-bay garage and a swimming pool block? Combining them into one building might cause issues if in size it then becomes difficult to distinguish it from the main dwellinghouse.

How big is the "dwellinghouse" in comparison if they feel the outbuilding will not be "genuinely subordinate" as is required under PD rights?

You’ll find examples i.e. actual cases (probably) on your LPA’s portal (there are on mine). Both appellant’s and LPA’s cases. May take a while to find similar circumstances to yours as (at least my) LPAs search facilities aren’t the greatest. Not sure why you’ll want to write one though if you’re using a planning consultant - as that’ll be their main skill.

Not necessarily as you’ve now removed an element of the original building. PD wouldn’t allow demolition in that situation.

Apologies you are correct it will not be permitted development. The side of the garage is considered a side elevation, so it becomes a side extension. The bottom Page 19 seems to be a bit misleading, suggesting that if the extension was only 6m deep instead of 9m it would be permitted development, but it wouldn't. You would definitely get planning permission though, because if the bit of garage sticking out was demolished, you could then extend across the whole width of the rear under PD. Slightly bizarre.

If it touches the garage it would be considered both a side and rear extension. The most problematic PD rule is is the one that precludes side extensions being more than half the original width of the house and garage. It looks like yours would be about 2/3rds of the width. I think you will need Planning Permission for that reason.

I might be wrong but I thought an LDC had to be granted or refused on objective/factual grounds rather than subjective grounds. Eg It either meets Permitted Development rules or it doesn't. What reasons were given for refusal?

See if you can find examples of approved outbuildings via a Householder application and refer to the Officers Report for inspiration.

An 8m glulam beam should be no problem, but you will need a structural engineer, mainly to verify any upgrade to the walls that are carrying it - for example you may need a wall / piers that are wider that the 'standard' 100mm. I've done it myself with a 6m clear span onto 140mm blockwork.

Yes, it's only the exhaust that's concerned. As long as the duct is adequately supported to at least the manufacturer's specified intervals, and well insulated, you're fine.

I was always worried about complaints and so blanked as much as I could with black painted ply where the hedges were thin. Developers do this (or with branding) on a lot of sites in London for screening rather than Heras. if they were really worried, they would refer it to Health and Safety, so double check you comply, perhaps?

I am no structural engineer but my guess is the three bolt scheme is much better because the extra bolt is taking a chunk of the load and preventing a straight fracture across the two straight up and down bolts - the only thing I really know about structures is that 'triangles' are everything.

NIMBYism, as others have said my worry is your stress levels, not the actual complaint, give your answers, wait for a reply then deal (slowly) with them.

It was a rhetorical question 😁 But answer your Qs: Yes it's been planned. HWC Buffer tank for UFH UFH manifold for lower floor The electrical CU's A comms cabinet The MVHR (already there on the right) H & C manifolds ( to those pipes on the left)

Render direct onto insulation direct onto timber frame is not accepted practice - see Building Regs and any good guidance on the design of TF. I believe this is a result of failures observed in the USA and Canada that took many years to become apparent. Should be a rainscreen system using render board with ventilated cavity behind. Not sure I’d want polystyrene in this system however due to fire risk.

there is nothing dangerous about my site. It is secure and insured. The council said "Please note that should you fail to comply with this request, we will consider what further action is appropriate to address the breach. This could include the service of a formal enforcement Notice pursuant to sections 215-219 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended), which would legally require you to undertake the works set out above." I have replied to them asking for them to meet me on site to show me the issues they need resloved

Possibly . Port forwarding if required may be different . You need to find the cameras ip address first then go to its web server url Easiest way is go to routers ip address and find the list of connected devices . It’s possible new router has a different subnet range which would make the camera not visible …..

Ok, fair enough, but don't buy a second-hand car from him or anything that looks vaguely like glass , especially if the glass has footprints on it.

Welcome from another Norfolk member

Yep, top bolt will fail first I'll bet. Ask the next chubster family that rocks up to try a "good" bench with the offer of free doughnuts. Maybe set up a wildlife camera to look at the bolts...

@Don33e since our last communications I’ve been upgrade on this site to “ deity moderator “ . So anything you need I can get .

Big love to all my supporters! Up the Brizzle !

Welcome. If @Pocster recommended you then we can only assume you are a female hostage victim and your release fee was to build something over many decades.