the_r_sole

This is an infuriating thread! there's no need to drip feed the information like this! We still have no idea of how the site was actually set out, what information and measurements were used for that, who provided that information, who provided the information for the decrofting and why is it different to the red planning line? Any time I've decrofted sites, it's used absolutely identical information! No indication of whether the site has ever been surveyed etc... I'm doing an bannatyne ?

It's a strange one for me, I've never had a client ask for an unheated toilet in their new house to either achieve a higher epc rating or to save a small percentage of the cost of a door, but each to their own I guess.

It doesn't have to be stylish but it still needs to be an external door, most of what you are paying for is the insulation/security side of things anyway. I find it strange to be building a badly performing area into a new house, but you'll have to construct it in such a way as the floor screed can't run through - I don't think a £750 saving on a door would ever encourage me to have a cold toilet! ? I think it's counter intuitive to say you've got a great epc rating on the house, but there's areas of it that are unheated so they don't count

absolutely amazing! I wish the previous meeting was recorded too... The missed out all of the people asking if they could be heard or if their video was on etc!

but you also have a void between the rafters so you're ending up with loads of void - it kinda looks like a detail produced by someone who doesn't like warm roofs! incidentally, the technical standards in scotland encourage the use of warm flat roofs over cold roofs due the condensation risks!

It's strange that the guide says warm roofs are risky if they are designed or installed incorrectly - surely that goes with any type of construction?! The condensation risk should be zero if all the insulation is on the outside? and the point in an unventilated warm roof is so that it doesn't need ventilation? the warm roof pictured has got more ventilation than the ventilated roof!

you'd just have to move the door doing the thermal separation into the house, so no big saving on having the door in a different location. Not sure why you'd want to not heat the toilet either, is this a conversion project?

jeezo! 610 per square meter! I think my loft conversion is going to come in way more than that!!

exactly - it goes back to how it was set out and what information was used for that, I've had numerous arguments with solicitors in the past about them wanting OS drawings which aren't actually correct to be used as deed plans...

Do you need another living area given you have one not very far away at all? The other thing you could look at is whether you could have overlapping areas, so maybe have a long run of units and storage all the way along from the current dining to the yard and then have a big table working as your dining and extra worktop space when you need it (rather than a built in island) I'd say try and make it feel like a decent sized kitchen which you can sit in, rather than a kitchen, a dining area and a sitting area all jammed in...

very interesting figures @ProDave really shows what's needed to get anywhere near the fabled 1k per m2 figure

How did it get set out incorrectly? (I once saw a farm buiilding 20m out of place ?) Was a title deed produced and agreed by all side and then pegged out on the site with gps locations etc? When we are working with bare sites we always have the redline produced by a topo surveryor once it's been pegged out to make sure it's accurate. But what reference points have been used for setting this one out? Have you still taken the same area of ground agreed in the sale or is it the land plus an extra 4m? And/or could you just lose 4m on the opposite side? it doesn't sound like the building position is hampering any farm operation or in the way at all so it sounds like it should be negotiable to either redefine the plot with the same area as agreed or to negotiate for an extra 4m strip...

It's just all too tight, I would lose the door to the wc and have that accessed from the hall, and just run the kitchen along the full width of the back wall - kitchen islands work well in big spaces, you'll be falling over that all day - the pinch point is where you have 778mm right where you come into the room, what width is the door, and presumably it's an existing one? could you not move the laundry cabinet and have a door which opens into the dining/lounge at the end of the corridor and get a u shaped kitchen in? It would be good to know what the existing layout is and what you are trying to achieve with the alterations!

Thats not a good plan, too much kitchen, too little room to move around it, the pinch point of opening the door onto that island is not good, ditch the island entirely imo

what window and door spec have you got? If they're are big areas of glass bringing the uvalue down on those would give you a good boost on sap heating system is somewhere else to look, walls give you an incremental increase but how far is it failing?

Good for him - I'd imagine it's much more lucrative to get on the telly than putting in the hours doing the boring bit, an enviable position - generally if you do the study and not the practical side, it's likely you haven't done the contractual side of things, or potentially a lot of the practical building stuff either. Being a member of the RIBA gentlemen's club isn't a prerequisite of using the title either - they have zero relevance to me up here at least.... it's always amazing what people think you need to do or not to use the title

You're in luck then because neither is Charlie Luxton! ?

Are you in a conservation area or anything? Does the council condition just say "natural slate"? And do they want a sample?

It does kind of depend what the engineer has been employed to do - was the engineer employed to show compliance with the building regulations or were they employed to provide construction details? I'd expect the SE to do steelwork connection drawings but not really at Building Regs stage - in the same way as I don't do construction drawings for a building regs application either, I would do a construction set after tender stage and only give critical details at regs/tender stage On most projects we'd also have the fabricators produce drawings of what they are fabricating to be checked before fabrication

Although, it's a very different type/style of house - and this is the point, if you just cherry pick addons without considering the design as a whole you'll end up with a house which doesn't look quite right...

see, you've answered your own question, just because there's houses with a gable feature and some other ones with arches, they're very different styles of house, just jamming features in makes your elevation look clumsy. You could happily lose the arch and make your design more compatible with the local area - you really need someone with a design eye to look at the elevation, using the kit manufacturer to design is resulting in an efficient timber kit at the compromise of lots or areas imo

tbh - I don't think it adds much/anything to the composition of the elevation, it's interesting that you say it's a common local feature, yet all the examples posted don't have the feature, so is it a feature on buildings which don't have the gable protruding at the front? The position and detail of the arch is very jarring, from the plan I can see why it's placed there but from the elevation it's not helping anything I know others are saying to take a refusal and then appeal it but I'd say spend an hour or two revising the elevation to get your permission, then you'll have a house to build and a better looking one at that

The first thing you should consider, is that the planning officer - no matter what stage of their career they are at - have a legitimate issue with your design. The job now is to address their concerns. It makes sense that the design is put together by the builders rather than someone who is designing it to look pretty. My thought would be to make the protrucing gable the width of the Living room on the ground floor and put a lean to over roof over the entrance as a single storey thing - it might need a bit of tweaking for bedroom 2 but it would be much better for it. I'm not going to comment on the rest of the plan but I think you'd struggle to convince a planner that the house elevations are only a function of the site features

Would be helpful if you could post the plan to help the discussion but is your entrance recessed? If you look at the examples you've posted, the eaves height of the protruding gables is either matching the main house or slightly above it, never below it - that's making your elevation look wrong. Then the width of it is too much of the length of that elevation, and the openings on all the others are for the most part symmetrical whereas yours has a completely random placement if openings, it may be that the plan is generating the elevations but I think more care could be taking in making it look right. Have you not got a designer on board to look at the aesthetics?

The proportions of your elevation is a bit all over the place, look at the examples in the photos and you can see that they are better set out and look different to your proposals...