kandgmitchell

Oh yes, fully agree, the two departments may even be in different buildings and in effect there is often little interaction. However, the OP is not a professional and from the outside as a member of the public they could be excused in thinking that if one officer suggests something it would be acceptable to all parts of the organisation. It is that approach which is likely to have the best result and although the planners will be unable to ignore the rules it is likely they will be more flexible in how to address this. Again speak to your councillor - that's what they are there for....

If you're fitting them yourself you'll need a building regulation application. Both Part L Thermal and Part F Ventilation allow a bit of leeway for houses in conservation areas but if you're replacing like for like in style and can achieve the minimum 1.4 U value you'll probably not going to need to plead "conservation area". Part F says this: Existing windows without background ventilators 3.15 Replacing the windows is likely to increase the airtightness of the dwelling. If ventilation is not provided via a mechanical ventilation with heat recovery system, then increasing the airtightness of the building may reduce beneficial ventilation in the building. In these circumstances, it is necessary to ensure that the ventilation provision in the dwelling is no worse than it was before the work was carried out. This may be demonstrated in any of the following ways. a. Incorporating background ventilators in the replacement windows equivalent to the following. i. Habitable rooms – minimum 8000mm2 equivalent area. ii. Kitchen – minimum 8000mm2 equivalent area. iii. Bathroom (with or without a toilet) – minimum 4000mm2 equivalent area. b. If the dwelling will have continuous mechanical extract ventilation, installing background ventilators in any replacement windows which are not in wet rooms, with a minimum equivalent area of 4000mm2 in each habitable room. c. Other ventilation provisions, if it can be demonstrated to a building control body that they comply with the requirements of paragraph 3.2. NOTE: If it is not technically feasible to adopt the minimum equivalent areas set out in paragraph 3.15, the background ventilators should have equivalent areas as close to the minimum value as is feasible. I'm not sure that pleading "conservation area" for the purposes of Part F is going to get you a lot of leeway to omit background ventilation altogether (and should you?). This is going to be down to the opinion of the BCO on the day I'm afraid, based on what you present to them. Can't see you'll need PP for replacing windows which look much like they were before since they would not materially affect the exterior appearance of the building and thus this is not development (s55 T&C Planning Act)

Well the larch cladding will need to be no worse than ClassB-s3 d2 and the whole wall construction should have a fire resistance of 30 minutes (which with the cement board at 12mm if I recall correctly you will probably get).

Unfortunately changing to a building notice rather than full plans for building control purposes doesn't remove the obligation to follow the scheme given planning approval. However, there will be a level of embarassment here as one arm of the Council has inadvertently caused you to fall out with another. First of all you need to respond to the letter with a full explanation of why you changed the design and who suggested it. I would copy in the head of building control as well. I would also be tempted to ask your local councillor for help as it seems the Council itself, by it's own officers giving the wrong advice has put you in this situation. Hopefully a sensible solution can be found which could be just rectifying the matter by submitting a revised planning application showing the work as executed and getting that approved. The interest of your councillor in making sure such a sensible approach is recognised by the officers would be very useful. Let us know how you get on.

Firstly, was the BCO from the local authority or private? Secondly you say you have an enforcement notice from the planning department. Is it actually a formal legal notice of enforcement action or is it a letter saying they are minded to take enforcement action because it is not in accordance with the approved scheme?

When you have this kind of comment on an application I always like to send the planning officer an email "explaining the misconceptions" in the comments "for the sake of clarity". If nothing else there is then an answer on the application file which can be read by the planner's team leader and any councillor that may be interested and thinking of getting involved......

I'm with @DevilDamo on this. The "Prior Approval" arrangements were baked in so as to allow some extensions to be 8m deep on detached houses not in conservation areas, AONB's etc. However, your existing two storey rear extension is at the limit of 3 metres allowed. You can't add a further 5m to that extension at ground floor level as "the enlarged part" (i.e the total extension beyond the original rear wall) would be regarded as including the first extension. Thus the combined new and first extension would be more than 3m deep and anything containing two storeys cannot not be further out than 3m in order to be classed as permitted development. Is there potential for a single storey extension on the non-extended side? Could that help with a bit of internal reorganisation?

Sorry.. it was so tempting. Let's say it was about big nasty aliens and the heroic efforts of a few brave americans saving the world

Nanny state stuff again - could get worse after July 4th....................

But it does matter - a lot! It was this forum that saved us £4500 in SDLT as our solicitor had filled in the forms for us and told us it would be £4500. One assumes they know what they are about. I then read a post on here which set me thinking and doing more research. Because our plot was originally agricultural, the tax bands were different and the actual SDLT was zero. After filling in the appropriate forms ourselves, HMRC refunded the lot plus interest.

I'd second that, I really can't see that the level of risk warrants that sort of precaution. I'd worry about charging an electric bike in the hallway but a fridge? Just get the project signed off without the fridge and then get on with the life you want afterwards.

So does the land actually appear in the Brownfield register held by the LA? If not who told you it was brownfield (previously developed) land?

Well I hope someone pops up. Ideally you need someone local and ideally with a relationship with the LA if you are using their BCO's. The regs vary for commercial stuff - sometimes easier, sometimes harder than for domestic building. You'll also need some decent plans for the fire officer consultation done by whoever does your BC work.

A first floor extension on a commercial property... You are going to need someone who knows what they are doing to get that approved. Find an architectural technician or an ex. bco who now submits plans. Ask your builder if he knows anyone - they usually have a few contacts. You aren't going to be able to do this yourself without substantial technical knowledge.

Ditto, all your interactions should be in written format. I presume you have had a letter from the planning department and not just a verbal request from an enforcement officer. If you used the LA for building control I'm amazed that they have let this go this far. Threats of enforcement action should never be made lightly by a Council (normally the planners would have run the scenario past their legal department) so you need to be professional in response and stop this nonsense in it's tracks. Put your position in writing and insist on a response likewise in writing.

And always remember the Town and Country Planning Act Section 55 says: The following operations or uses of land shall not be taken for the purposes of this Act to involve development of the land— (a)the carrying out for the maintenance, improvement or other alteration of any building of works which— (i)affect only the interior of the building, or (ii)do not materially affect the external appearance of the building, So internal works to strengthen/repair a barn would not be classed as "development" and if it's not development then the planners are not involved not matter what the building is used for.

If the original house front door remains then a porch is exempt BRegs up to 30m2 (subject to having safety glazing in the correct locations). If the door has been removed then it's a hall extension. Built getting on for 10 years ago? No direct action for contravention after 12 months so Sept 2015 ish, now long gone. They can still obtain an injunction to prevent a contravention persisting but for a 10 year porch? No way, I've only heard of that being used once. It's not going to happen here. The Council never ties PP to BRegs, whoever carries out the work should know the law and go through the process, they didn't, but assuming its sound, doesn't leak and isn't damp nothing has been lost except the paperwork. By all means buy an indemnity but it seems a bit of a waste of money. By the time you come to sell, that porch will be even older and even less interest to the authorities than it is now.

You can't enlarge a dwellinghouse in a conservation area by altering or adding to it's roof by using permitted development. You'll need planning permission whatever face it's on. Not to say it wouldn't be approved if sympathetically done.

Well no the caravan wasn't insulated enough but you get what you get - 25mm polystyrene between a metal skin and vinyl coated hardboard. For a 12 month stay it's not worth overcladding the outside (ruining any resale) and it's small enough inside already. So yes you have to suck up the extra cost of using electric heaters. As for a 4x4m shed - luxury! SWHMBO has put up with a 6' x 4' with washing machine and tumble dryer and a small freezer balanced across them. This is a building plot not a sports field. What with a sloping site needing to take a 100m2 footprint house plus scaffold space, a 36' x 12' static, two 20' containers with our stuff in them not to mention two cars which can't be left on the single width track outside; add materials and contractors vans.... As for mud - don't have any! Wish! We did have stone laid but hey as soon as a machine gets digging during wet weather I defy anyone to say their site stayed clean. Just taking the machine from excavation to low loader spreads mud across the access let alone moving around the site. All that lovely stone laid under the sun disappears under a coating of glutinous brown clay that sticks to everything. It's then you find out why you kept all those offcuts of carpet in the loft of the previous house - told you they'd be useful! Throwaway door mats - the latest thing. I wouldn't say these are negative views, just saying as it is. If you can't manage a bit of discomfort (or even the occasional "why the f... did we start this" screaming match) then self building is probably not your thing. Go buy a nice house already done for you. With a clean driveway.

From the Planing Inspectorates own statistics. From 2019 there have never been more than 30% successful appeals overall and for the written representations approach (for most domestic stuff) success rate hovers between 25% and 28%. You'd be better off with a public enquiry where success rate was 66% in Jan-March 2023 but that may be a bit much for a shed!

The issue seems to be that by using goats to control the weeds the land may somehow lose it's brownfield status and become classed as agricultural (or any of the other uses excluded from the brownfield definition). I am assuming that the land is on the Council's brownfield register and they are meant to update it every year (but probably in the same way as they are meant to maintain the roads). I can't see that using a small number of goats/pigs as environmentally sound land maintenance is going to make the Council think this is now a viable agricultural unit or a playing field, or domestic garden etc etc and should be removed from the register.

With the new house being in the open countryside it may be the planners want to keep "domestic clutter" such as sheds etc close to the house so as to reduce the impact on openness. In AONB, National Parks etc there is a general rule that PD outbuildings cannot be more than 20m from the house if the total floor area exceeds 10m2 for a similar reason. The condition on your approval removing PD rights would have a reason attached to it - that may give you a lead on the planners thoughts. It's a difficult one. Do you move the shed position and get on with things or take the refusal and appeal with all the delay that entails and no guarantee of success - Inspectors do agree with Councils quite a lot you know (roughly 70% of the time). I'd go back to the planners and get a clearer understanding of where they are coming from and look to get a compromise - additional planting to shield the shed, a change in colour, offer to let them condition that in any approval. If they are not willing to play ball, it'll come down to how soon you want that shed I'm afraid.

Cost was an issue for us as well. The static was £7500 inc delivery with a deal to buy it back at £3750 within 12 months . We may just make that so "rent" would be £300 odd a month. The furniture is in a 20ft container on site avoiding the £90/week the removal company wanted to store it. I accept there are on costs to a self build that cannot be avoided but I'd rather keep as much money back to fund the odd extravagance my dear wife insists will set the finished job off.....

Two of us and we've been in a static on site for 9 months now. I won't say it's been easy but we got into a routine with some electric heaters on timers and others on remote switches so we could warm up the bedroom without getting out of bed. Only one day of frozen water but that was really my fault as our excavations had exposed our temporary water supply and I hadn't dealt with it. The advantages - on site all the time so it became more like home. It allowed us to do some landscaping/hedging/tree planting and lots of thinking about how we should lay out the exterior whilst sitting in the sun. We could control deliveries and sub-contractors easier as we were there - no commute. We have two cats so we could get then used to the site and settle them in. Cheaper than renting in some town centre with no parking and we'll sell on the static when we're done. Disadvantages - the mud. Make sure you have plenty of hardstanding laid because walking from car to caravan and back was a nightmare during this really wet winter! Also my wife moans about having the washing machine in a shed behind the caravan. Why any woman should complain about having their own laundry room I don't know. Finally, being on site gets you embedded into the community. We now know loads of faces because people stop and ask you how you are getting on. You find out all the gossip and some useful contacts, we had two offers of a house sit in the village over Christmas whilst the owners were away. I'd be on site. Would I do it again ? No but with the end in sight now I'm glad we did.

So what is the lawful current use of the surrounding land?