AliG

My parents moved to a flat which had a very small number of kitchen cupboards. They ended up throwing away half of what had been in their old kitchen and it all fitted. In their new place they have far more cupboards which enables them to keep empty boxes and so on that they will never need. This whole trend for pantries that you see on social media. I don't have anywhere near that much food in the kitchen and if I did stuff would just end up constantly going off before it got used. Kitchen companies must be sponsoring influencers to persuade people to buy far more kitchen than they need. Never ending videos of look at my kitchen. They always look like they have way more cupboards than necessary.

I think that looks so much better. Four stools in 2.5 m should be fine. It might just be a trick of the 3d render. You only had three on the island so I would stick with three unless you need four. If you never need four I’d maybe lose 1-200mm off the peninsula

That was fast! I wouldn't have a chair with its back to the door. I would have a flat end to the island and there should be room for four chairs in a line if you want four, make the peninsula 2.4m from the jutting out wall, so the length of the worktop shown. TBF it would work space wise, I just think it looks untidy and it is in the way of the flow between both sides of the room and through the door. The trouble is that people will not always push the chair back under and it will stick out a lot when someone sits there. It looks fine when it is pushed under in the picture. Do you have cupboards facing the chairs for a specific reason, they have been in every design? I would make the peninsula 900mm wide and lose the cupboards facing the living area. They will be a real pain to use with chairs in front of them and you'd have to duck under the worktop. If there is no hob there, 1200m width in unnecessary. It might be an idea to decide where the furniture goes in the sitting area to make sure it works with whatever kitchen design you end up with.

Yes with the worktop just 900mm wide. I do think people push to have an island no matter what, especially when they have a large room as you do. You just have to be careful you’re not packing too much in. They use space quite inefficiently. I didn’t push for a peninsula as it requires a bigger redesign. But if you want to you might want to play around with it. You could incorporate a peninsula from where the wine rack is shown. It could be over 2m long with the hob on the kitchen side and stools on the living area side and would leave a lot more space as you come into the room. But it would require redesigning the oven/fridge area

TBF it probably works for a couple, he had three kids so ended up having to run both drawers all the time.

I'm a big fan of two dishwashers, that is what we have. My mate had that Fisher and Paykel one and hated it. Costs about the same as two full size dishwashers. I think he said you had to put a tablet in each drawer.

I really do think the chairs and front of the island are too close to the door. When you swing the door open it is only 50cm from the back of the chairs. If someone was sitting there you couldn't get into the sitting area. I would take that 1200mm cupboard out from under the island making it 1050mm wide I think. Looks like the 600m wide cupboard is 460mm deep. I'd even go to 900mm wide with a 300mm deep cupboard. This also means that the 600mm cupboard under the island will be flush with the edge and not tucked back under the worktop which will be very awkward.

That looks much better. Can you post the plan view please

Are this two little pieces of wall structural? I suspect so, otherwise I would have the door swing the other way so you can access the sitting area more easily.

One of the better kitchen layouts I have seen on here. I think losing the tall corner cupboards is correct. Because of the very short window I think you need to keep the cupboards above the sink otherwise it just looks wrong that the window isn't taller. You could put a tambour unit in the left hand corner for toaster etc. That would fill the odd space at the end of the run. The only big issue I see is that you really are a bit short of space on the right hadn't side of the island. It looks like only 70cm, the cupboard doors will swing 60cm into the space. People will get stuck, then all you need is for people to not push chairs in at the island and you will have a right old log jam over there. It will be very difficult to get past someone sitting at the island as their stool will stick out 30-40cm. I think the mirror image design helps this as it removes a couple of units behind the island. The mirror image also helps as you will be looking at the door from the hob and not have your back to people coming in. The tall units also look more impressive as people enter the kitchen. It also has less cupboard and worktop which will save a couple of grand. I would seriously consider losing the cupboard under the island in front of the stools and making it 90cm wide. The cupboards will be almost impossible to get to with stool in front and under a large overhang. You are currently perilously close to the island being too large for the kitchen. If you make the spaces around it too narrow, it will make the room feel cramped. I also say this all the time on kitchen designs. Open up the space nearest to the door. In the original design, if someone comes in to the kitchen they could be presented with an open fridge, someone using the hob and a bunch of kitchen units right in front of them, I assume the door cannot move to the right so you are stuck with this, it is more a general design recommendation. Moving the hob and fridge around to the other side helps with this as would narrowing the island. The busy area of the kitchen should be away from the door. Basically this without the odd corner unit and I could take or leave the wine rack. A larder cupboard might be better there so you don't have to go round the island to get ingredients.

SW guidance on surface water drainage. They want you to show that option 1- Use the water and then option 2 - Soakaway don't work before you can go to option 3 drain to a watercourse. Option 1 is usually a non starter as no one needs tat much water, so you can just state that. You will need to do a percolation test to see if option 2 is feasible. TBF what they really don't want is a connection to the sewer network, they may not be too fussed between option 2 and option 3 but I don't have any experience of this They could just dogmatically stick to the policy. https://www.scottishwater.co.uk/-/media/ScottishWater/Document-Hub/Business-and-Developers/Connecting-to-our-network/All-connections-information/190718SurfaceWaterGuidanceDoc8ppA4PagesHiRes.pdf

I would apply to SP Networks and Scottish Water for connections ASAP as you might find some nasty surprises. Assuming it is not in the middle of nowhere, electricity should be a fairly standard cost. Drainage can be an issue, you need a percolation test when you have the ground test as they do not like rainwater going to the combined sewer, they will want it going into some kind of percolation system. You may not need an SE as this service may be provided by the timber frame company. Planning drawings should be enough for them to give you an estimate. I would probably look to have the timber frame company supply and erect the frame. Windows tend to be the most expensive item with the longest lead time although some companies will supply them as part of the frame package.

It is just unfortunate that the architect did not show it like this on the plans. From the plans it looks like ti will be an unheated room as the wall thickness is the same as the garage. You are perfectly within your rights to say that you used it for yoga and meditation many hours a day and nowhere did it say on the plans that it would be an unheated room so it was in your opinion a habitable room, but they may or may not accept this. I cannot find much reference to gyms from a planning perspective. I just think that in the normal scheme of things because it appears that it is right next to a fence already they won't consider putting a house on the other side of the fence an imposition. But it is always worth a try. I know it feels bad to you at the moment, but the amount of light among through the window should not really change. I think so, thus you have a situation where they are principal windows on your house and the side elevation the bungalow so it should be that they are 12m away. Unfortunately from what I can see they might push back that the principal windows for the bedrooms are the ones on the front and rear elevations that were there originally. You cannot use the dressing room wall to help you as that was not on the original approved plans, however, even with those plans that window was in a corner next to a wardrobe and you could therefore argue that the side window at that point became the principal window. You can argue it impacts your outlook from upstairs and you will be overlooking the bungalow but it all be hard going as those rooms have windows on two aspects.

TBH it is not clear from what I have looked at. I think probably not as a habitable room is considered a room that you use for living, sleeping or eating and a gym would not come under that. Studies are also considered habitable rooms and they have to be a room you would expect to spend an extended period in. Gyms would be a grey area. Also the rules are not that black and white and one habitable room at the side may not be enough to stop the building of a house close by anyway. My architect's view is usually that ground floor is not relevant as it can be mitigated by fences and planning only cares about upper floors. You are also not helped by your architect showing the gym as having the same wall depth as the garage. This suggested that it was not an insulated habitable room, irrespective of what was built. It is a shame as I suspect that you would have got permission for a study at the time with there not being anything to the side, but the actual room applied for appears to be an unheated gym within a garage. It suggests that the architect thought you wouldn't get permission for a habitual room so didn't apply for one. The planning acceptance says that it has to be built exactly as on the ground and first floor plan, see below. It also says that you need to do this to adhere to policy DM10 which includes consideration of neighbouring amenity. Interestingly they did not mention the ground floor window as affecting neighbouring amenity which suggest they don't think it is a habitable room, or think it is irrelevant as there is a fence there. However, that does not mean to say they were correct, nor is it clear if building according to the floorplan includes room usage or just the position of walls and windows. Unfortunately planning just isn't that prescriptive. The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out otherwise than in complete accordance with the submitted application details, as follows: Site Location Plan and Block Plan Drawing No. Lee-002 and Proposed Ground Floor Plan Drawing No. Lee-010 Revision B received by the local planning authority on 28 April 2017 and Proposed First Floor Plan Drawing No. Lee-011 Revision C and Proposed Elevations Drawing No. Lee-020 Revision C received by the local planning authority on 7 June 2017. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance and impact of the development to accord with Policies DM1 and DM10 of the adopted Site Allocations and Development Management Policies Development Plan Document (2016). Impact upon neighbouring residential amenity 8.6. Policy DM10 of the adopted SADMP requires that development would not have a significant adverse effect on the privacy and amenity of nearby residents and occupiers of adjacent buildings. 8.7. By virtue of the position of the application dwelling between a club, a public house, a community centre and a church the proposed scheme would not have any significant adverse impacts on the privacy or amenity of the occupiers of any neighbouring residential properties. The proposed first floor side elevation windows in the existing dwelling would face only the adjacent club beer garden and parking areas. 8.8. The proposal would therefore be in accordance with Policy DM10 of the adopted SADMP. This is a popular misunderstand. Building control has nothing to do with planning. They can sign off a house as correctly built only for it to be knocked down due to being built in the wrong place. They never would check to see if it contravened planning. Again having building control approval is not relevant. You would not normally need planing for an internal wall, but as they said you have to build exactly to the plans then they could argue that in this case you do. The reason for this is that building that wall changes the side window from a secondary window to a primary window which affects your neighbours. In normal circumstances it would never come up and nobody would care. I don't think 5 years would make a difference. The statute of limitations for a breach of planning conditions is 10 years. Theoretically yes as it was a condition of your planning approval, in practice no one would have cared if this had not become a contentious issue. Overall because of the fact that you applied for what looks like an unheated gym within a garage, and there is a fence 1m from the gym window anyway, I think arguing about the gym is a waste of time. By far the best argument is that you overlook the proposed house from your upstairs side windows and they are not 12m from them.

Sorry I misread this line "it is a bungalow" as talking about your house, but I now see you were talking about the new houses. You also at no point in this thread mentioned anything other than the ground floor or the fact you had extended the upper floor of the house which is quite pertinent. Anyway, sorry for the misunderstanding.

I had to go and have a look at how it was built as I hadn’t taken much interest previously The sides have an extra 100mm fillet to make them deeper. I can see a slight gap between it and the normal depth carcass but don’t know how they were joined together. There are then simply two 100mm strips across the back at the centre which suggests the fillets must be quite securely attached. The shelf forming the cupboard above the dryer is rigid. If you sit the washing machine on the base won’t this shelf end up very near to the top? The sides sit around 5mm off the floor so there is some room to adjust them. I Googled raised washing machine and found lots of articles and videos where people have done it. For a situation like yours people made a wooden box the size of the space under the bottom of the carcass and then slid the carcass over it. You could place another strip of carcass material on the back of the box to make a flat platform. You would screw the base of the carcass into the wooden box. They also put the dryer on the shelf as dryers are light and don’t shake. This would provide extra rigidity. One thing to note from another thread in the forum. Somebody had their washer break and become unstable then fall off the front of a raised platform. They need to be secured to stop this happening.

OK, I am going to try to help here. I know you are frustrated and these things are quite upsetting. You have posted three threads about this with slightly different variations on the theme. It is best to keep everything to one thread so that people can help you. Firstly - Right to light - The extension was only approved in 2017, so there is no right to light. The window is what matters, not the aspect. However, you have confused me and I suspect other people by consistently calling your house a bungalow. It seems that it is a two storey house and always has been. You also built a two storey extension This could make a big difference. Often councils will say just build a fence at ground floor level. This is why you had to apply for planning permission that includes the gym/study. The approval does say that the layout has to be exactly as shown on your plans. See this thread which has plans for your house. I found the planning application for the houses next door from the info in the various posts. I am not going to link to it, but I suggest that you post it as it is the best way for people to see what is going on and help you. Originally they proposed houses with habitable windows facing you which would not have been approved, but they have now revised this. The house proposed closest to yours has no habitable room windows facing you, they are only bathroom/utility room windows. So in normal circumstances this elevation of the new house can be 1m from the boundary which is what they propose. According to the plans, there is already a 1.8m fence between the plots. If this is the case then that fence would only be 1m from your window, if not I would pull them up for the error in the application although there is nothing stopping them building such a fence. The proposed bungalow is 5.3m high, but this is at the peak of the house, which is 5.5m away. The eaves that will be 2m away are 2.5m high. This means that the bungalow will create little more overshadowing than the current fence does. If you derew a 45 degree line from the window to the top of the fence it would be higher than the new house. Your best bet for a planning objection is that you do have upper floor bedroom windows facing the proposed house. The rule usually is that in a principal window to gable situation then the minimum distance is 12m. The question is do you have principal windows on the side of your house, as said side or back does not matter it is principal windows. However, there are two issues. One is that you have built 1m from the boundary, so there is a strong argument that it is your own fault, and if you can build 1m away someone else can. The other argument is that the two bedrooms upstairs have front and rear facing windows and these new side windows are secondary. Looking at the plans, you might be able to argue that the side window in bedroom 2 is the main window. Also there is no issue of you being overlooked by the bungalow, the issue would actually be are you overlooking them and as they have no habitable rooms the answer is probably no. So your best argument against planning for the bungalows may be you overlook them, not they overlook you. I really think there is nothing you can do about the study window. It is not appreciably worse off with a house there than it was with the fence there. If the fence is 1m away, then a house 2m away will be considered to make little difference. It will neither be overshadowed nor overlooked. Whether it is a study or a gym makes little difference to this. To put a more positive spin on things, if the bungalows had already been built you would likely not have been allowed to build the upstairs windows. You would still have been allowed to build the study and it would be in the same situation as it is now.

We have our washer and dryer in a similar unit. It simply doesn't have a bottom so the washer and dryer sit on the floor. I assume it is braced at the back and attached to the units at either side. It is also a deeper than normal unit. The normal units next to it then sit off the wall. I think in your case with it being 800mm wide, I would attach a vertical sheet of timber inside the carcass that then extended back to the wall and then attach it to the wall. If you can see this from outside I would then attach an end panel that matches the carcass filing the space between the carcass and the wall. Every time I have had to remove the filter because something got stuck in it the area has got absolutely flooded. TBF it might be easier if it was raised off the ground. My advice would be to consider whether you want them in a unit with doors as I find them a bit of a nuisance and have considered removing them. A heat pump dryer should not be run with the door closed as it draws in air from the front.

Would it not be too late. If your neighbour has already put in a planning application, can you then make an application that makes things difficult for them afterwards. I don't think so, but I may be wrong. If they have not actually applied yet then you can try and get in first. I am to some extent of the mindset though that if you can build 1m from the boundary, why can't they. Otherwise you effectively end up owning some of their land by building close to it. I don't think who got there first is relevant. If people don't want things built close to them then they need to buy the land to stop it. I know this will feel harsh, but I think it is fair. The right to light law requires 20 years of uninterrupted use, which I suspect takes what I am saying above into consideration.

Just posted pics of the renovation if anyone is interested.

Sadly in the summer, my brother's wife died very suddenly and unexpectedly. She had been something of a hoarder and none of the family had been to visit them for some years. They would only come to us. When we went to his flat we found it was a mess. We had professional cleaners in and then I arranged to have it totally refurbished, so that it would be easier for him to look after once he moved back in. He has been staying with my parents for the last few months. We were very worried about his health, but he is doing much better now. The flat actually smelled like someone smoked even though they don't and I think the air quality affected their health. They purchased the flat when they got married 22 years ago and it had not been touched since then. Further they refused to open any vents and properly use extractor fans so they had a big mould problem. We replaced the kitchen and an en suite, replaced all the flooring with hardwood and have had the whole place redecorated. Hardwood was expensive, but will be a lot easier to look after. The previous carpets were stuck to the floor beneath them. When the flat was built the woodwork was painted cream eggshell, it looks awful as it is so similar to the magnolia walls, that you would think someone had emulsion the woodwork. Took three coats to get it white. As well as organising everything, I did the new kitchen design and put up the light fittings. I reckon spending just a few pounds on lights massively elevates a place. The kitchen and en suite floors had to be replaced as they had started to rot due to water leaks. I also luckily discovered a leaking soil pipe just before the new kitchen went in. Just need to order some new furniture now and put up some curtains. Found a small building company to work with who were very good. Very impressed with DIY Kitchens. The original kitchen had bizarrely been installed around 50mm into the room to avoid cutting the pipes into the back of the units with the oven jutting out a further 150mm due to the soil stack. I fixed this in the new design. It was quite a bit of space to lose in a room basically only 3m square. I think the before and after pictures are pretty obvious. The before pictures are after the professional cleaning.

All fixed. You were right @ProDave I think when I originally connected the receiver, I hit the heating and hot water buttons and it fired up the boiler. But when I reconnected the original thermostat, the boiler did not fire up when just the heating was turned on, but it sounded like the heating was on as a pump fired up. At that point I noticed in the instructions reference to " gravity-fed and part pumped" systems. The systems is not gravity fed, but it said that with part pumped systems, switching on the heating operates a pump to divert water to the heating, but the hot water relay switches on the boiler. As I could hear a pump come on when I switched on the heating, I thought this might be the issue. I switched it into this mode and that fixed it.

I don't have a multimeter although I have been thinking of getting one

I think I will get the old thermostat out of the bin just to check. Thanks for the help @ProDave

I have already replaced the programmer with the Hive Receiver. This seems to be working fine. The receiver has manual switches to turn on the heating and hot water. I tested it with the original PRT2 thermostat in place and it worked fine. When I hit the hot water button the light goes green and the boiler fires up. When I hit the heating button it turns green but the boiler does not fire up. Now with the thermostat taken out of the circuit, I thought I could bridge it by connecting the red and yellow wires there, but the boiler is not firing up as I am guessing it is acting like the thermostat is not calling for heat. The wireless thermostat is connected to the Receiver and calling for heat, so I am wondering if it is how I have bridged the old thermostat.