harry_angel

We have an extension built from reclaimed bricks, and wish to retain their appearance while waterproofing them effectively. Does anyone have an opinion on the best clear / transparent masonry paint / cream? https://www.lbsbmonline.co.uk/stormdry-masonry-protection-cream-5l This Stormdry stuff looks reasonable...does anyone have a view?

Wow, £12 per ton sounds good indeed. We have enough land to lose the top soil somewhere on it. It's London Clay so we'd just move it somewhere else. What would go on top of the hardcore though? How deep would you need to dig?

We need to create a new driveway (across our own land) but the distance is daunting in cost terms - Google measures it at approx 141m in total. Now, it only needs to be nice-looking gravel for approx 40m of that, which leaves 100m which could be, frankly: "anything that will support the weight of vehicles". Are there any super-duper technological innovations that have been made to make driveways like this less, well, pricey? The paddocks said access route would pass through are a bog in winter...I guess the hardcore and drainage just are what they are but 140m? That's a LOT of gravel, and a LOT of edging. It really doesn't need to be that smart... until the final 40m. Any insight or advice much appreciated.

Many thanks for the insight, much appreciated @gravelrash

Belated cheers @Big Jimbo Would have responded sooner, but was swamped with putting together the planning app in time....to avoid the enforcement notice....in order to waste as much time as possible. Because apparently that is what I am reduced to: a pro council timewaster!

Hey @Big Jimbo, does that mean that the original loft area - that was unused previously but will now be converted - does not count towards the measurements the Council would look at if questioning the PD nature of the project? Are you saying that it is only what is physically and materially added to the original roof that matters? Maybe I misunderstood this - I thought that all unused space that was then made 'habitable' was part of the conversion calcs (whether it was physically there previously or not) - because you are adding to the volumetric uplift of your house in a useable capacity. So that is wrong?

Hi - looking at PD rules for loft conversion... The Govt doc - "Permitted development rights for householders - Technical Guidance" (https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/830643/190910_Tech_Guide_for_publishing.pdf ) - says you can convert your loft under PD unless "the cubic content of the resulting roof space would exceed the cubic content of the original roof space by more than - (i) 40 cubic metres in the case of a terrace house, or (ii) 50 cubic metres in any other case" My question is: when calculating the volume of the possible roof space (to check if it falls under PD), should you include the measurements for the ENTIRE space, or would the Council really only be concerned with the USEABLE space i.e. any space that has a reasonable height? Ultimately, what counts? (I think the minimum height for useable space is 150cm? According to Govt doc called Technical Housing Standards: Nationally Described Space Standard - "any area with a headroom of less than 1.5m is not counted within the Gross Internal Area unless used solely for storage") Also, if you have a quick and easy way of doing this calculation, that would be great too! Thanks all - your assistance and wisdom, as always, is much appreciated.

Thanks @Bonner very helpful/interesting. And @ProDave If we purchased and demolished the neighbouring property (they are keen) the driveway (it's long) pre plot properly opening up would go: Main road then turn in to 33m of 2-lane 16m of 1-lane plot opens up to full 2 lane Proposed number of dwellings in this case would probably be sub-10, but is maybe less relevant to such an access being deemed acceptable in the first place, as we are in green belt and the other neighbours will go thermo-nuclear about it. What do we think? 10 houses, with an access like this, in the south east of England? Btw would all be tarmac'd properly, the 16m already is.

Cheers @ProDave - so in your view it's not an issue dictated by volume of housing or anything like that. I mean, it's a 3 acre plot in green belt, so mass overdevelopment is never going to happen. But at what point in terms of volume of properties do the planners say: "ok, this is too many properties to be accessing via a partial two-lane entrance?"

Hi all, we are considering purchasing our neighbour's house to create a 2-way entrance to our site. My question: supposing there were 8 - 12 dwellings on the site, would a partial in-out such as this be acceptable? ie one that starts 2-lane but narrows to 1 lane?

Good work @ToughButterCup I have looked in to Martin Goodall on a hiring level. He is - perfectly understandably considering his stature in the curtilage "game" - not cheap.

I reckon that's the road they'll look to take it down. I've tried to beam the message in to their minds that I'm well-resourced and won't simply roll over, the enforcement officer has been out twice and is quite friendly...and I have been friendly and non-hostile back....I mean tbh I don't need the hassle or expenditure any more than they do but, equally, a bit like hay bale man the only thing that could make me take this work down is either an insane bill or a sentence of some description... @ToughButterCup that's the ideal route this proceeds down, sure. But as suggested above: I'm not prepared to deconstruct these works, I am extremely aggrieved at this neighbour informing on us when the works in question are fully 150m(!) from his property and affect him in no meaningful way, and am not prepared to be messed with. If it has to be, this will be a contest. And I'll try and make it a financial one, because that is the only area the LPA cares about. But time = money and I am not dim-witted enough to think that resolving this quietly and without cost to either party is the best route. If I can take that road, I will. But you prep for the worst...

@Big Jimbo lives up to his moniker with surely one of the greatest posts in the history of BH. Could be his Sistine Chapel on here, will anyone ever scale such heights again? Thanks. 3.5 years of stalling and time-wasting sounds spot on to me. Plenty of time to build a hefty war chest and pay well-resourced planning consultants to comb through every local application...ever...and build an argument, while hitting the council in the only area they actually care about, in the process. For clarity your response only focussed on the "local" time-wasting one can do - I appreciate it comes with a huge bill but to take an extreme example, that guy who built the house behind the hay bales took his to the High Court, from this article he stalled for 10 years, minimum, but it was likely more I'd imagine. I wonder what his bill was to take it that far? Anyone have a speculative idea? @Mr Punter predictably, a neighbour complained. Essentially we have unilaterally replaced a smaller hipped gable, with a taller (full) gable. Volumetrically the difference is minor and the room said gable has created has hardly any useable head height. But it is bigger. And taller. You realise how staggeringly ineffective enforcement dpts would be without their not-so-little army of self-subscription spies, furiously twitching their curtains and blasting through gigabytes of broadband data trawling the council's planning website...

Cheers will look, still love to hear from someone who's been through the process because presumably at some point it goes beyond an LPA's jurisdiction/involves the inspectorate...

I've got a possible planning enforcement notice incoming. It involves a loft conversion, PD, prior planning approval secured and is...complex to say the least. Of course, the greyer the planning matter, the better for us Buildhubbers on the one hand....but equally more capacity a case has to develop in to a serious fight, as both sides look to exploit the whole "greyness" of the case to suit their own narrative, or goal. To my Question: the game in this case for me is going to be to STALL the entire process as much as humanly possible. The works are complete so a retrospective application is required, and stalling will give me the crucial time to earn lots of money in my day job which I can then funnel in to the best planning consultants to help me win this battle. Having never been down this road before, how long can one realistically stall the process? I assume it would go: Council enforcement strongly suggest a retrospective planning app for the unauthorised works (1 month lag) We reject said suggestion (1 month lag) An enforcement notice is officially issued (lag ?) Said enforcement notice is disputed by us (1 year lag?) then how would the process unfold to delay as much as possible? Appreciate any insight from people who've been down this road. *note, within reason I'd be prepared to take this dispute as far as possible, thereby costing the council as much as possible in the process....

We didn't I'm afraid, we ended up doing a conventional blockwork build...sorry!

Gonna start quoting this stat at officers repeatedly, for my own amusement. "You really don't want to be in that 20%, Janet..."

Well, PP has already been approved for large veluxes overlooking.... So: the neighbour* can either have obscure-glass, no-opening dormers or he can have transparent, opening veluxes... I know which I'd prefer. *the worst type, fyi

Three dormers currently overlook one neighbour's garden. His dwelling house is fully 23m away. We're pitching them on the idea of 3 dormers being reduced to 1 on that side. That aside, the outbuilding is over 100m from any other property bar our own.

That would be like some kind or nirvana to just sit there tutting disapprovingly as the LPA's officers are torn a new one by some grand chien from central gov.

Sure, but is there any other penalty force in play? I assume central gov keep an eye on how many appeals are coming from each LPA, and how many are lost...

@Bitpipe All v helpful, thanks Btw, what happens to councils when they lose appeals? I vaguely recall someone telling me if they lose too many, they're on the government naughty step, or there's some kind of financial penalty if they lose? We reclaimed our PD rights, that had been ignorantly signed away by our predecessors, and were surprised the council didn't try and force us down the appeals route simply out of spite. But I assume it was because they didn't think it was one they could possibly win...

Thanks @Bitpipe Wow, again, that is extraordinarily loose and unhelpful from central Gov. "There you go LPAs, restrict as you see fit and then retire to Wetherspoon's on a Friday at 4pm to compare notes and circle-j&rk about which poor homeowner you gleefully blocked this week". I will never. Ever. Understand the mentality of those who proactively of their own accord, select that job. Never.

Hi all, can anyone - in brief - explain what the difference is between a planning amendment application (to PP already secured) vs a full-blown new application? We have added some (PD sized) dormers to an outbuilding without PP, I am proposing to remove 2 of the said 5 dormers as a volumetric gesture to the council, which would be submitted as an amendment to the existing PP. Our planning consultant thinks we have a solid shot of getting these dormers across the line via a full app, however... The LPA are trying to edge me down the route of submitting a full planning application, which I am reluctant to do a) because I deem it unnecessary and b) because with a full app this gives them (in my cynical view!) more ways to come at me. Finally, I really can't be bothered with the rigmarole of them flyer-ing all the deranged neighbours again, which is what would happen with a full app. So what is the difference between the two? Where does an Amendment end and a Full App begin?

Cheers guys @DevilDamo and @Temp I think of these 2 scenarios.... ...the latter is much more likely in our case. A number of neighbouring properties have outbuildings, our dwelling house is over 100m from any of them, and even this home office build is c. 20m from the sole detached residence nearby (and, like the dwelling house, 100m from any of the others). There are also no parking restrictions or limitations, so I'm struggling to see what argument bar "you might theoretically at some point in the future look to convert this to a dwelling and we want absolute control over that", an LPA could give. And, on that note, how lawful even is that? "Theories of the future" sounds pretty loose to me, what actual law did the LPA cite in blocking that? I think it's far more likely that they'd grant it in our case, but insist on an S106 (?) and try and future-block any conversion to a dwelling. I guess ultimately so much loops back to the "openness of the green belt" argument, too. Will its openness be negatively affected were this a dwelling and not a home office or gym or granny annexe? Will the structures be the same size? What about parking and the impact on highways? I'm not willing to sign said S106 so I suppose we'd then be in to a case of the 4-year rule...and building up enough evidence via a private rental.