Jump to content

harry_angel

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    201

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by harry_angel

  1. harry_angel
    Thanks @DevilDamo - I guess when the article says this: “You might find your property doesn’t qualify for permitted development rights, and there’s even a chance that your change of use might not be given the go ahead.” The former obviously refers to a property where the PD rights have been removed (not the case for us, we have them), which only leaves their second point about "a chance". Which I guess is part of the nub of my Q - what lawful grounds could they give for objection? I suppose if an enlargement of the existing building were being proposed, that would be grounds for lawful objection, particularly in the green belt. But what else? Re your Q - a shower room on the ground floor was approved under the plans as it went through as a gym/office. And yes it is a self-contained unit separate from the dwelling house. Re BRs it's all being built and signed off at the levels of habitable accom (the BR inspector is aware of our long term hopes for the building). Here's a perhaps stronger article on the subject > https://www.planningresource.co.uk/article/1209098/conversion-garages-outbuildings-ancillary-residential-use-q---dcp-section-104 Although have to confess that having read that I'm none the wiser...all very very grey... ps. and cheers, got it re SPA...
  2. harry_angel
    @DevilDamo cheers. Unless I've misconstrued your post however, this company seems to disagree with you: "See there’s a quirk in planning law where building an annex requires planning permission, but the conversion of an existing outbuilding into an annex does not..." https://resi.co.uk/advice/planning-permission/build-annex-no-planning-permission As ever, everything in planning hinges on the robustness of both the attack and the defence. If this company is right, I'm struggling slightly to see what "robust" defence the council could muster, particularly if the building isn't being enlarged in any way... Can you clarify what you mean by a SPA?
  3. harry_angel
    Ok thanks @Jason L, very helpful.
  4. harry_angel
    I just checked and there isn't a specific (numbered) condition in there expressly specifying it be used ONLY in that manner, however the title of the whole application includes the phrase "to be used as a home gym and office..." What do you think @Jason L?
  5. harry_angel
    Hi all, we have an outbuilding that was approved to be rebuilt as a "Home Office and Gym". We are genuinely going to be using it as such for a while, but the reality is that we will then in due course apply for a change of use Cert of Lawfulness under PD for it to be classed as a Granny Annexe. I spoke to one planning consultant who said: "be careful that you actually execute the purpose the building was approved to be, before going for different planning opportunities". He said don't just try and swap it immediately for a granny annexe as they could argue you never used it as it was intended. His recommendation was to gather tons of evidence of it in use as an office, lots of photos etc and then "in due course" put in the app for the Cert of Lawfulness. I pressed him on how long "in due course" meant in reality and he slightly shrugged and said "6 months". But was very convincing. But has anybody gone through this process? How tough - if at all - were the council on requesting evidence of the building's use as originally intended? How long is long enough? How much evidence is enough? Thanks for any thoughts
  6. harry_angel
    Planning departments are insanely overstretched and massively underpaid, for the power they wield. Unless you are really taking the mickey (and from the info above, you aren't) then I wouldn't tell anyone about this in a month of Sundays!
  7. harry_angel
    Yes after speaking to a planning officer I am going to just have to suck this cost up. We had a subtext-filled conversation (of the non exciting variety) whereby to my gentle query about whether we would achieve PP for a full dwelling, she said that (as suspected) a planning app to build a new dwelling in green belt (regardless of whether a building of equal size had been granted) would be viewed in an entirely different lane to a change of use app for what is already there. Or, in other words, I have to build the damn thing first in order to significantly increase my chances of getting the real goodies on the other side.
  8. harry_angel
    @Big Jimbo you hit the nail on the head. Tile producing must have some decent profit margins for there to be so many producers!
  9. harry_angel
    Hi can anyone identify these floor tiles? We badly need to match them...have tried various tile matching services and no joy. Tiles are 45cm W / 68cm L. Any thoughts much appreciated.
  10. harry_angel
    I'm not sure tbh, is there an easy way of checking?
  11. harry_angel
    Belated thanks guys. Guess I'll probably just have to suck it up!
  12. harry_angel
    We have one of those maddening, tightrope-like conundrums where there is no easy answer, so this thread I guess would ideally be a poll of sorts. basically we have PP to demolish 2 outbuildings and build a large home office in their place. We also have full PD rights. our planning strategy (over time) HAD been as follows: Home Gym > Change of Use to Granny Annexe (under PD, with Cert of Lawfulness) > Change of Use to Separate Dwelling (PP app) however, we are now staring down the barrel of the c. £25k VAT bill on assembling the "home office" structure, which of course could be avoided if this were constructed as a full separate dwelling from the outset As I see it we have 3 options: stick to the "softly softly or lily pad" planning strategy and simply suck up the £25k VAT bill in the spirit of strengthening our planning position over time blow our cover with the council and steam ahead with a full "separate dwelling" app, putting all building works on hold (of course this app may be approved, rejected, approved at appeal or rejected at appeal) persuade our builders to post-date the invoices, start both building and the separate dwelling planning app simultaneously, and then (hopefully) the timing works out whereby we're granted approval and the structure is well on its way to being finished If anybody else has other ideas for a way round this I would love to hear them. And also would love to hear which option you would take. Clearly the problem here is that this isn't £5k, or even £10k....it's £25k. And also we will lose our slot with some very good builders if we delay.
  13. harry_angel
    In the words of Unlucky Alf from The Fast Show: "bugger".
  14. harry_angel
    @Temp Answers to your Qs: the span of the rafters is 2750mm, and the membrane under the titles is not vapour permeable...(this tiny extension bit was built in 1950)
  15. harry_angel
    Thanks will check re rafters and membrane and loop back!
  16. harry_angel
    You mean $1 per cubic centimetre?! Wow. At least if anyone shot at or took a flamethrower to your loft you'd be safe...
  17. harry_angel
    Hi, we have a section of our loft conversion which we are desperate to have signed off by the BR inspector. There are a few obstacles to this however: he may insist on thicker/deeper rafters (they are currently 4 x 2s) even if he doesn't insist on that, he may insist on 6" Celotex insulation If he insists on either of these, it renders the space quasi-unusable (it's right on the borderline right now). So my question is: I think BR doesn't hinge on depth of insulation but rather quality/U rating, is that right? If so is there any super insulation type product out there which won't bring the roof down further (ie. beyond the 4x2s) but nonetheless hit the required rating?
  18. harry_angel
    @Jilly yes, SEs over-engineering is an understatement! I get it, their primary driving factor is to avoid getting sued but still, c'mon.... Good luck with yours, I am just keen to know exactly how the buck-passing would play out, if it came to that...and also how acrimonious said buck-passing would be (ie would we have to lawyer up to get one of them to step up...)
  19. harry_angel
    We are attempting a loft conversion which, speaking freely, has divided opinion among both tradespeople and structural engineers. Some have said: "you're going to need multiple cranked steels up there" (pushing the cost up to prohibitive levels), others have said "it's already stood for 100 years with a 350kg water tank up there forcing down, it'll be fine by doubling up all the joists, strengthening this, securing that etc". Ultimately we've found a structural engineer who'll design it without floor steels but with flitch beams. His ltd company has been in business since 2012. Likewise, we have a well known building regs company willing to sign off on said drawings. Finally, obviously, we have our own buildings insurance. With some of the sceptics' words ringing in my ears, I want to take this to the worst case scenario: we convert this loft, gradually it pushes out the eaves or something, causing damage to load bearing walls and, generally, The House. Can anyone explain what happens next? We see mahoosive cracks appearing in the walls or something bowing dramatically and then we.... - call the structural engineer and his insurance covers the repairs cost? - call the building regs guy and his insurance covers it? - call our own insurance, show them the hard evidence that we engaged professionals BEFORE undertaking these works, and they then cover it? What are the pitfalls? Where are the booby traps? I mean, I badly want this loft space (it's going to be an amazing f/t study), but I'm not completely stupid, I don't want to wreck my house doing it... Any thoughts most welcome.
  20. harry_angel
    Yes, we have an overall cost for the project and a breakdown of all the costs - so if there are changes or additions they will be added to that, since everything is itemised. I've just paid £2k today and said we'll see how progress goes next week. We have genuinely had some delays due to different tradespeople within the team miscommunicating with each other, on more than one occasion, so I feel justified not giving full amount this week. I can tell the pressure is on me to pay next week though! Next time though, I will definitely do as you suggest - payments based on stages completed / signed off by BC. We have a much bigger project coming up, so at least I can apply this lesson to that! Thanks for your help
  21. harry_angel
    Oh yes, we have a fully itemised quote with costs throughout, so we're clear on that part. It's £22k and we will have paid £8k after 2 weeks work, and this is how he has asked for it to continue - at £4k a week. We acknowledge that there are upfront materials costs, and a lot of money goes on the initial building, but it just seems like a lot to have every week without fail 'to pay the guys' and not leave much at the end. We're so used to paying for the bulk of the job at the end when it's finished satisfactorily...
  22. harry_angel
    We're two weeks through a 5/6 week job. 5% feels like not much at all! Not much of an incentive to stick around and finish the job...
  23. harry_angel
    We have started a simple two-storey extension - hallway and bedroom above. Unfortunately we didn't get a payment structure confirmed before the work started (we've learnt our lesson!) - we are now confirming staggered payments with him because the builder is now wanting £4k a week steadily throughout the job until the end, which we're not entirely comfortable with. We would like to hold back a decent percentage at the end because we've been burned before and because we want to make sure the job is finished as we'd like before coughing up most of the money. We have an independent BC person involved in this project so we're getting everything checked off along the way. Regardless, how much would you guys recommend as the max % to retain before final payment? Thanks in advance.
  24. harry_angel
    Haha...and your To-Do List does like the The Great Wall of China Joe, you may get to that task....in 2154. I think based on all of the above I will just go ahead, cheers all. PS. @Temp yes of all the myriad options that is actually the least attractive tbh, it would be like the postman driving right through your front garden...not appealing at all.
  25. harry_angel
    We considered that @ProDave but then thought: "if the drive goes at the top then the paddocks are still...the paddocks. In their entirety. Whereas if we can split them down the middle then basically we weaken their whole position because what was one is now 4 chunks. Also you can then begin landscaping the northern side of the driveway and putting maybe an outbuilding in under PD and again creating grey areas about what is and isn't curtilage and what is and isn't garden". And that's our best long term shot of developing this green belt plot!
×
×
  • Create New...