harry_angel

Members
  • Content Count

    57
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

7 Neutral

About harry_angel

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. In case anyone out there is interested - we managed to reclaim our PD rights successfully. A real result. Much teeth-gnashing among the neighbours but hey, the rules are the rules, right? We found the council lob this remove PD rights clause almost as a default setting, which is extraordinary. There's a total pattern to it. It's like preying on the naivety of home owners. Anyway, this is the man we have to think for a formidable application > http://just-planning.co.uk/
  2. @DevilDamo nope I'm in Surrey, so if you have any recommendations for either engineers or builders I'd v interested to hear them. We've had one engineer look at it, but he is on the conservative side (are they all?) and I feel like somewhere out there there's a way of having our cake and eating it. If pushed though I guess I'd have to just lose some space rather than have the ceilings come down, that would be mess on a whole different level as I believe the plaster is that old woven horsehair stuff!
  3. Ok, I understand what cranked steels are now...I think: https://surreysteels.com/product/fabrication/cranked-roof-frame/
  4. @DevilDamo one day we might get to the extension/front part (1952), right now it's all about the main roof (1918). Tbh I'm up for anything which doesn't a) involve the 1st floor ceilings coming down and b) saves space in the loft. What do the cranked steels actually sit on? Can they be installed from above rather than below? Basically it's the ripping out of the ceilings that is the no-go....my other half just won't go for it at all!
  5. @DevilDamo I believe they do have skeilings along the first floor, yes. That appears to be both the SE's point, and the builder who visited over the weekend. You can see the 1st floor bedroom windows in the image below... Any ideas? Like I said, from my POV there are potentially 4 support points presently in play: Rear ext wall front ext wall Old chimney now capped off* Current chimney still present But there's 12.5m to length to span...😬
  6. Cheers guys, sorry I'm a little late in responding. I'm not being notified of any replies, which is weird... @DevilDamo I don't fully understand the situation but the SE's point is that the loft is sitting on the roof/skeilings, and isn't fundamentally supported by the ceiling below. To my understanding over the c. 12.5m x 4m floor area of the whole loft there are only 3 support points: 1) one external wall 2) the original massive chimney we have just taken down to loft floor level and 3) the far external wall. Some support may be available in the form of the original load bearing walls on the ground floor, and at a push the 2nd/remaining chimney breast, but that's it. @joe90 a builder visited on saturday and basically placed 2 bricks one on top of the other to illustrate the space we'd lose by NOT taking down the ceilings below. This rendered the space right on the edge of not worth converting. (Probably still worth it, but you know what I mean) Put frankly, we can't really entertain the idea of pulling down all the ceilings, with all that BS that entails. So I need a different plan. Pic attached of the space as it is now... All help v much appreciated
  7. @PeterW thanks Peter, just called them. Think they're better suited to modern builds (ours is a 1918 property). Looks like a cool solution though...
  8. A lot of people think we shouldn't convert our loft. Their reasons: the head height is 2.35m in the pitch you'd lose a bedroom on the 1st floor to create the staircase the house is a 1918 build where the loft sits on the roof rafters, not the walls below However I take a different view because: I'm in the south-east where sq m is clearly astonishingly expensive The views of open countryside that would be unlocked by the loft would be amazing the space, while not vertically large, would deliver c. 55m2 of extra floor space Supporting the roof should be fine, the floor up there is trickier. Due to the 2.35m existing pitch, going up on top of existing floor is tough. The structural engineer just told me that to take all the bedroom ceilings down, and reinforce the whole thing is a 4 week minimum job. With the bill to match. The bill is less of a factor than the 4 weeks of absolute carnage as ceilings come down, mid COVID. I'm assuming there are just no other options here, but if there are, would absolutely love to hear them....any kind of technological innovation which massively reduces the referred impact of movement? (ps. stating the obvious that this is not a weight thing - there's a 400kg water tank up there now, it's a movement issue which will result in ceilings cracking below...)
  9. @Temp cheers, appreciate the head's up.
  10. @Temp no total plot is 3 acres, and the paddocks are not in current agricultural use and haven't been for some time. So to initiate the sequence you describe it would be a full planning app for some stables or something, would it?
  11. @PeterStarck interesting...that's sortof what I was referring to. The logic runs: the current outbuildings on the plot are "in play" in terms of being able to be replaced, or counting towards the total footprint, so unless one is talking about the dwelling house (which we're not) there's a school of thought that what was originally there should be in play, too. I mean: if I remove one of my current outbuildings tomorrow, yes it would be judicious to apply to the council (for whatever I want to replace it with) BEFORE demolishing it, but nonetheless by removing it I don't think I'm completely eradicating any footprint value held within it. Green belt law in particular seems to be particularly fixated on brand new never-seen-before structures popping up, but more relaxed around replacing what once was...
  12. Thanks @ProDave. I'm not after a dwelling, however. I simply want to put an outbuilding there (gym). Genuinely. If I applied conventionally it would be "no, this isn't within the curtilage of the dwelling house". If I did it under PD I was wondering - as the current, old, crumbling outbuildings count towards the total floor area "in play" - whether ones which used to stand would count, too. The building in question hasn't had any change of use - it's just, gone.
  13. "The curtilage of the dwelling house" is a notoriously tricky thing to define, regarding properties with land. And on this subject, I found an 1870 map of my plot recently (see below) which clearly shows a building of some description smack bang outside what the council would probably deem the curtilage of the dwelling house. The dwelling house in question was actually built in 1918, so doesn't even appear on said map. This new (old) outbuilding then disappears from later maps, as do some other thin buildings which appear to be agricultural buildings (stables or pig pens at a push). My question is: this big outbuilding that I've discovered...can I leverage this in any way? Under PD could I construct a similar sized building exactly where it used to be and if pursued argue: a) I did it under PD (and it's vaguely equidistant from current dwelling house, as other outbuildings are)* b) this structure merely replaces what was originally there (in 1870) Or do outbuildings/what was there pre a certain date simply not count? Love to hear from anyone more learned than I! * vaguely is probably stretching it. Slightly.
  14. @bassanclan would prefer not to share this as a) I don't think it'll unlock the winning idea and b) we don't know who watches these forums! Yup they live in mortal fear of that, don't they? Which is why I'm trying to box them in to a bit of a corner...somehow.