harry_angel

Oh and no it can't be seen from the road @joe90

2 reasons: 1) I don't want to drive through my current lawn to get to the house (it's difficult to describe, but on all sorts of levels it just wouldn't work) and 2) I'm trying to set some kind of precedent here and split these paddocks/create a grey area of what is and isn't the garden/slowly turn the paddocks in to brownfield. @joe90 they might have a crack but only if they knew more about planning law than us! By us I mean - us on this board. They'd likely just gnash their teeth a bit but assume we're doing it under PD (which they all know we recently reclaimed) and presume they are powerless to stop it. Also it would still be a good 25m from the border and maybe as much as 75m from their actual dwelling houses so in all fairness it won't affect them. I guess ultimately this comes down to financial risk and the likely cost of both doing it....and potentially in an extreme scenario....undoing it.

@joe90 it does seem like a v similar scenario. As you can see, the current access comes off the road, between houses and and then opens up with the paddocks on the left. The (current) driveway carries on straight and then ends about 60m from the dwelling house, and you have to follow a curving footpath (not shown) all the way to the front door (which is on the east side!) What a mess. Anyway, you can see via the green line what the proposed driveway extension would be. I calculated said extension would be about 130m in length. Thanks for the input @Temp and @PeterW and @Ferdinand So would you all... create the driveway as shown but using old hardcore blocks and gravel on top or something technically non tarmac-y then apply for Cert of Lawfulness citing prior council comment and, frankly, our need to be able to walk to our dwelling house from the car without our legs falling off! if approved, great, if denied then what? maybe a retrospective planning app or just leave it for 4 years and then re-apply for the cert? Please tell me what you would do. Like I said I have a lot of hardcore from a prior demolition so I'd just be paying for gravel, edging and labour.

The paddocks are about 2 acres, the quote-unquote "curtilage" (in the council's almost inevitable view) would be 1 acre. The house is basically back to front: you enter at the back, and then the driveway stops, leaving you to lug all your sh*t 60m round a (in winter) absolutely sodden pathway that nobody has ever properly dealt with, till you finally reach the front door. Yup, you guessed it, the Amazon drivers and the postie luuuurrrve us.... (as they schlep parcels 60m on foot in the rain!)

I like where your head's at Peter! (twirls villainous moustache, gazes in to fireplace): "Horses...yes....must get horses...lots of them...shelters...yes..." So PD limitations only apply to hard-standing driveways, is that correct?

We recently reclaimed PD rights and are looking to extend our terrible existing access driveway (so that we don't have to walk 60m just to get to our front door!). We'd look to extend the current gravel driveway over our own land, by cutting through the paddocks we own and then looping round to the front door. Qs/observations: the council are unlikely to view the paddocks as part of the curtilage of the dwelling house this means said paddocks are exempt from PD rights, I believe however, we have a huge amount of hardcore from a recent demolition if we simply lay said hardcore in a shallow trench, gravel it and run it through the paddocks is that lawful? Because the driveway doesn't contain any concrete and is not therefore "hard-standing" or is it simpler than that, and we can simply create said driveway extension, hard-standing - as it's on our land Here are two bits of conflicting advice from the council commenting on previous apps/pre apps: “the revised change to the existing driveway is within the site, and as such is considered acceptable…” (from officer report approving previous subtle alteration to driveway) “The above notwithstanding, whilst it is not entirely clear from your submitted drawings, it would appear as though the proposed new line of the access would go through part of the existing paddock area. From a quick look at the plans, although it is clearly within your ownership, I would be surprised if this paddock would be considered as legitimately forming part of the curtilage of your dwelling and, on this basis, the formation of a hardstanding/drive would almost certainly, in my opinion, require express planning permission from the Council as the paddock land would not benefit from permitted development rights. However, I should repeat this is only an informal view and does not represent a legal determination as to the need (or otherwise) for planning permission. “ (from pre app advice) Very much welcome any thoughts, would love not to have to do yet another council app.

Thanks @Roundtuit, do you have a feeling on how big this should be? Or is that all in the calcs?

Thanks @Roundtuit, so do you mean one universal column which runs the height of the house and is pinned to the foundations and the other load-bearing walls? How big do you think this would need to be? This definitely feels less intrusive than 5 steels and 2 spreaders! (and therefore much cheaper) Thanks. Any other "out there" ideas much appreciated, because we are desperate to convert the space but simply don't have the budget for a 50k renovation of it

@Roundtuit that is happening tomorrow! New hot water system, tank out of the loft, all of it. The problem remains, supporting the floor...

Looping back on this. Slightly losing my mind over the fact that, as I droned on about above, a 350kg+ water tank can sit up in this loft, unsupported by anything other than the joists themselves and one (note, one purlin), for c. 100 years, forcing its weight down within a c. 2m2 space, without any issue at all.... Yet... We've had one quote to support the loft floor as displayed below and it's come in at £50k. This just feels absolutely batsh*t to me. Can anyone with a better understanding of this suggest an alt solution? As I see it we are only missing 1 supporting element as the current support incorporates: 1) far left supporting wall 2) old, massive chimney that's been taken down to loft floor level and 3) far right supporting wall. Ergo we are missing a support for the middle of the far right room, yet fortunately the house's other chimney (as shown below) occupies this precise position, and could be used somehow... I've got a success fee for anyone who can suggest a totally legit alternative that IS going to cost fair money but isn't going to cost preposterous money!

Thanks - I won't give exact amounts because it might be different per case, but we definitely think he was value for money given the outcome!

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/

Cheers @DevilDamo will DM you

@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!

Ok, I understand what cranked steels are now...I think: https://surreysteels.com/product/fabrication/cranked-roof-frame/

@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!

@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...?

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

@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...

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...)

@Temp cheers, appreciate the head's up.

@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?

@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...

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.

"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.