kandgmitchell

So what will be your reasons for amending or removing the condition?

No doubt the purpose of the original condition was to ensure there was sufficient parking on site. As part of the application I would add a blockplan showing that even without the garage being available there was still adequate parking within the site. Ideally I would look up the relevant car parking standard for your size of house (i.e number of spaces for bedroom number) and show how you still satisfy that standard once the garage is discounted.

Not quite as easy as it looks. You have trussed rafters which are lightweight factory made frames which distribute loads within themselves and are further strengthened by being part of an overall structure braced with horizontal and diagonal members. You cannot simply cut away the inconvenient bits. The principle you show may be possible but it will need to be designed by a structural engineer to ensure it doesn't all come apart at the seams......

I don't think this sort of thing really worries buyers that much. Lots of houses have unauthorised things done to them over the years and they still sell. As the years pass, a buyers view of the situation will change. There is zero chance of the authority taking action (see above), the building hasn't suffered damage and so a buyer will be quite relaxed about the situation and will take a view. There'll be other matters they will be more interested in - location, size, appearance, schools etc etc. I really can't see this being an issue after so many years. Don't let it put you off if you like the house, and avoid regularisation; it'll be a pain for no real gain.

Depends a bit on the the planning permission. You may have obtained a valuable addition to the house which may enhance it's value at a later date. As for now if you just use it for family purposes then so be it. No-one comes and checks what it is actually used for after completion. As for council tax the local authority merely sends out the demands. It is the Valuation Office Agency that determines your house's banding for the council to use. As far as I can see it is a case of referring yourself to them for re-banding. Looking at their website unless that annexe is entirely self contained (which I doubt the planning gives approval for) I don't think you have to worry.

So, just to clarify. This is a loft conversion within a traditional pitched roof dwelling. When you say "flat glass roof lights" where would would these be fitted, horizontally on dormer roofs or are we talking "velux" style rooflights in the slopes? Again I presume the proposed 3m wide doors fold inwards with a glass balustrade externally. That balustrade will need structural design for a 3m width. A little clarification will allow others to comment further.

Really? The works were done over 20 years ago. If nothing has happened to the structure over that period is it likely to happen now? When you sell your buyer will be looking back over nearly 30 years and will have the same decision to make i.e there is no piece of paper relating to works done which have had no physical impact on the property. Like others above I'd not worry about getting this regularised. If you like the house and it's in a good location then it'll sell again.

Cheers for the advice - will do.

Work on my insulated raft starts on the 8th. So that's 150mm xps with a 250mm slab (more insulation on top). Through this slab are a number of drain connections and various ducts for power, ASHP etc. These have to be located accurately for the timber frame to be placed. I need to form 200mm x 200mm square ducts for the ducts (if you follow). I'll make up some 19mm ply boxes to form permanent shuttering in the slab to do that. This is what the frame suppliers require. Now the query: Do I just shutter the concrete depth or both concrete and insulation? The latter has the advantage of being able to secure the shuttered duct accurately as it will be held by the thickness of the insulation and cannot be displaced by the concrete. However, that leaves ply in contact with the sub-base stone and basically a 200mm x 200mm hole through the dpm under the slab (although there'll be another ontop of the slab). It also allows some flexibility in moving the duct/drain a little if needed. I could then fill the whole thing with expanded foam before the screed and UFH goes in. The former however cuts down on a cold spot plus the dpm can be tightly wrapped around the drain/duct. But you have to get a not very flexible duct positioned just right through the insulation first time and 50mm electric duct is a bu...er to control. You then have to make sure the concrete doesn't move the timber box, so that's some form of pegging. Thoughts?

Well it was for ladder rescue, not necessarily by the fire brigade. Siting at max 1.7m up the roof slope would almost certainly involve some access onto the roof slope to reach a ladder set against the original house eaves. I was perhaps over stating the "toes in the gutter" for dramatic effect, but I would still not like to be getting out that way rather than rely on a protected stairway!

Had the same thing with an application for an LDC for an extension on a warden's house on a scout camp site. I had shown a covered area with a floor and open sides as requested so that canoes and other gear could be dried under cover. The council refused the LDC citing that it was a veranda. From what I can remember I put walls up resubmitted and got approval. The scouts then didn't bother with the walls. Madness.

I used a cheap scissor type pipe cutter for my mdpe that I had bought when I was putting in some interior plastic heating pipe. It worked fine - just needed a bit more effort.

Just be aware these things can bite you and very hard. I recall a case in 2002 of a small baptist chapel getting permission to be converted to a dwelling. It was the usual rural chapel kind of thing - corrugated sheeting on a timber frame. A fair amount of upgrading had been agreed with the planners but essentially it was a conversion. However, the owner went too far, taking down the frame (because he said it was rotten) and re-building the walls in blockwork along with a new roof. The Council served an enforcement notice saying that this was now a new building not a conversion. Being in the green belt it was not appropriate development. The owner went to appeal and lost. The Inspector stated that the original planning chapter had been closed by the extent of the works and what was now there had to be viewed as something different. The owner wasn't allowed to re-instate the original building and had to completely demolish all the new work. He was however allowed to retain the original concrete floor slab. To date that concrete slab still sits on an empty overgrown plot.

Yup, extra expense to consider at this stage as presumably you wouldn't want to throw the doors you fit to a 2 storey house away when you convert the loft. I'd say fit them now as it means the means of escape windows on the first floor aren't strictly needed as you'll have a protected stairway (but still nice to have). The days of allowing means of escape via windows from the second floor have gone. Can you imagine hanging by your fingertips, laying on the roof tiles with feet in the gutter waiting for a fire engine to come and get you out of the smoke with flames licking around your toes ....Just think of your kids or your granny!

Could you use two of these to insert some blue MDPE between them and then put a standard blue mdpe T piece in to your blue? https://store.jdpipes.co.uk/plasson-plass4-universal-coupling/

Make sure that you have at least 2.0m headroom where the new stairs arrive on the second floor for an area = width of stairs x width of stairs

I spent ages building a brickwork BBQ - made an arch former and incorporated a lovely arch feature in the base. Used a really old, thick concrete paving slab as the top, where the charcoal sat. Built a brickwork perimeter off that where the grills could slot in. The first time I used it the slab cracked completely through front to back and shifted the perimeter brickwork. Ho hum!

Well I feel sorry for the poor sod who'll end up being the only one left paying for everyone's electricity use.......

I agree, we've basically been working with a system set up by the 1936 Public Health Act and tweaked a bit by the 1984 Building Act where an applicant was only "giving notice of an intention to build" . A council (as it was then) could refuse an application but that didn't stop work going ahead if the applicant wanted as long as work on site complied. That was all well when things were simple and building methods were traditional. Now we have really complex regulations about saving energy, electric vehicles, gigabyte infrastructure and goodness knows what else. You can't check that on site standing in the rain and mud.

Not really surprised by the LA reaction, it's hard enough getting a response about a current application let alone on one that's only speculation. As above, first stop is the Council's local plan, look for that on their planning pages within their website. It will set out their policies assessing planning applications. Look for commercial development in the countryside, diversification, protection of natural resources etc. Try to think along the lines of "would this proposed use satisfy this policy?" Usually I'd be trying to show that it does, you need to do the reverse. Think impact of car parking, noise and disturbance within the woodland, impact on your own amenity etc. If possible align these concerns with the appropriate policy. If the proposal can be shown to contravene sufficient local plan policies it will fail.

But if the developer is the builder, should building control be liable for the error that builder makes on their own project. "The author of their own misfortune" really. That's not to excuse building control for not picking this up at an earlier stage (but maybe they did?). I've worked on both sides of the fence, local authority and private building control as well as designing and submitting to them. You would be amazed at the lack of detail often submitted for approval - just the planning drawings if you are lucky, it then becomes like drawing teeth to get sufficient detail to check the scheme properly whilst all the time the builder is rushing ahead and the client is blissfully unaware. Then, when finally you get the info you need, it's your fault that things have to change on site - the cry of "why didn't you pick this up earlier" comes from both the builder and client. It's a thankless task at times.....

This area around Cambridge is a real hot spot. Completely new towns are being built, estates of a 1000 houses are going through the planning system. We drove through the village where we used to live last weekend after visiting friends. Just outside, running along a road between the A11 and A505 was hundreds of metres of herras fencing. Behind it the Wellcome Trust are extending their Genome Campus along with 1,500 homes, 150,000m2 of commercial, a school, hotel etc etc. Not far down the M11 they've put a whole new junction in merely to serve the proposed housing developments to the north of Harlow. The pace of development in that area is amazing. No wonder Building Control is stretched - how can all of this be checked, there simply aren't the resources, multiply that across the country you can see why things get missed.

They have had to go back to planning committee to get the demolition process added to the reserved matters approvals for the method statements for construction (as presumably they only allowed for building them, not knocking them down). The proposed method statement includes for demolishing the structure whilst salvaging as much as possible for re-use. It also mentions grubbing out the foundations with all brickwork/concrete being crushed on site and re-used to fill voids and for piling mats. The attached plan (presented to committee so in the public domain) shows the plots to be taken down but interestingly refers to adjacent piled houses remaining. It therefore seems to be a situation where some were piled and are ok but some had traditional foundations and are not. There are no specific details probably because someone's PI insurance is going to get a very big hit. plan.pdf

Mmmm, "eco-tourism holiday let". Is it wise to open up a potential can of worms for uninformed councillors to latch onto and take the discussion up a completely different path? Suddenly it becomes about extra traffic, noise from holiday parties, even fireworks etc etc. They are like sheep, when one starts the others follow and suddenly you find they've forgotten what they are supposed to be considering. If the holiday let is a clear part of the planning application then I'd mention the annexe in passing as simply an opportunity to exhibit the methods used in the build. If the holiday let hasn't been mentioned before then I wouldn't raise it at all. A wise old planner told me that there two things that should never be seen by the public - making sausages and committees making planning decisions......

80m2 x 50mm = 4m3 x £138 +vat = £662 - that's about 100 London pints