Sensus

Members
  • Content Count

    649
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    11

Sensus last won the day on November 9

Sensus had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

188 Excellent

1 Follower

About Sensus

  • Rank
    Regular Member

Personal Information

  • About Me
    Director of a Chartered Architects and Planning Consultancy practice, specialising in residential design & development.

    www.sensusarchitecture.co.uk

    www.facebook.com/sensusarchitecture/
  • Location
    Norfolk, South Wales and the South West

Recent Profile Visitors

1,101 profile views
  1. It falls within a specific section of the GPDO, which is there to encourage renewables, so yes, it's a matter that cooling uses rather than conserves energy, thus is contrary to the intention of that part of the GPDO. Part 14, Class G is limited in all sorts of ways, though, and as usual, it's easy to get fixated with they idea that doing something under Permitted Development rights is somehow your only option. For the sake of a £few hundred, in the long term it's almost always better to do it right, rather than contriving devious, convoluted or compromised plans to dodge through under PD.
  2. Quite apart from anything else, here, you very probably have no domestic (Schedule 2, Part 1) Permitted Development rights at all, because your 'house' will be now be classified as a 'flat'. An air source heat pump actually falls under a different class of PD rights (Schedule 2, Part 14, Class G) and so they are in fact permissable on flats as well as houses, but as others have pointed out, they are restricted to installations used solely for heating purposes (though it has to be said that your average Planning Officer probably wouldn't know the difference, even after they RTFM). The rules also prevent you from mounting one on a pitched roof, on a flat roof within 1m. of the edge of the roof, or on a wall above ground floor level, however.
  3. Because it's not permitted development, is the short (but not quite so short) answer. If you want chapter and verse (or rather schedule and article), refer to Schedule 2, Part 1 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development)(England) Order 2015: "Class B - Additions etc. to the roof of a dwellinghouse ...Development is not permitted by Class B if...any part of the dwellinghouse would, as a result of the works, extend beyond the plane of any existing roof slope which forms the principal elevation of the dwellinghouse and fronts a highway" (my bold)
  4. Yes it can be held to do so, if the LPA are so inclined. Part of the Caravan Act definition is that it must be 'designed or adapted for human habitation', and I have seen it held that 'habitation' means occupation as a self-contained unit of accommodation, not as ancillary or incidental accommodation to a primary dwelling. ... but then you get in to the Catch-22 situation that if you occupy it as a primary dwelling, it becomes a planning unit in its own right, and requires specific Planning permission for the use of the land. You can store a caravan within the curtilage of a domestic dwelling, because it classifies as a 'chattel' (not a ';garden outbuilding'), but if you try to use it as accommodation within that curtilage, it can trigger all sorts of other issues, if the LPA chooses to make a deal out of it. Like I said - the whole 'caravan act' loophole isn't all it's cracked up to be.
  5. It's 'gross internal area'; defined as: " the aggregate area of every floor in a building or extension, calculated by reference to the finished internal faces of the walls enclosing the area, or if at any point there is no such wall, by reference to the outermost edge of the floor" In other words, you measure to the inside face of the external walls, but ignore any internal dividing walls. Be careful of the 'caravan' solution. I've made a lot of money over the years, digging people out of the shit who thought they were being clever and getting one over the authorities by trying to claim the 'caravan' exemption.. There are a very large number of 'ifs' and 'buts' attached to it. I can tell you, for example, that neither a 'shed' nor an 'art studio' use would comply, for a start, just in terms of intended use.
  6. Is the document saying that your property has been locally listed, is that what you're telling us? Local listing is not as 'serious' as a formal listing, but it does mean that impact on the historic character of the property can become a 'material issue' that the local Planning Authority is allowed to take into account when assessing any Planning application on the property. It will make any proposal of the sort you describe a little more sensitive, but beyond that it's difficult to comment... such an application will be quite sensitive, even without a local listing, but it's difficult to say from the minimal information you've given us, whether the local listing would be enough to tip the balance to refuse what might otherwise have been approved.
  7. Since all the big boys have tried and (so far) failed at micro-CHP, it would be a brave move indeed to spend that sort of money with someone you'd never heard of before?
  8. Ah, that's new and useful information... yes, simple answer there would be to get hold of the 'Officer's Report' for the approval (the application is probably be too old to be available online, but you can get hold of a copy of this at your LPA offices), which should document the Officer's considerations in that regard.
  9. Honestly, it's simply not doable under Planning law. See my comment above about the need for Planning Conditions to be enforceable (and reasonable, and precise, among the other tests). You simply couldn't impose a Planning condition stating that "in order to make the access acceptable, all vehicles using the property must be fitted with appropriate technology to allow them to overcome the sub-standard visibility splay". Not only would it be unlawful in Planning terms, it would be looked upon as utterly risible by any Planning Inspector.
  10. Ah, the French doors aren't centred on the gables anyway, then? That would wind up my OCD something chronic, if I'm honest, but in that case you could flip the bedroom arrangement, have a secondary high-level window in the North elevation of the bedroom for ventilation and - if my OCD had a say in it - a secondary window in the West elevation of the lounge to visually balance the bedroom French doors on the gable.
  11. My 'standard' solution to the problem of ventilation (your Architect is quite right that it's not the best idea to have nothing but French/bifold doors, as most people aren't happy leaving them open on a warm summer night) is to have a high level secondary window somewhere else. The obvious place on your plan, OP, is on the external wall where the wardrobes are at present, but I appreciate that relocating those might have unacceptable knock-on effects (you can't simply flip the arrangement to put them on the opposite wall as that would look odd with the position of the French doors, which appear to be centred on the gable above). It might help if you put up the elevations as well. Edited to add: Ironically, it wouldn't have bothered me in ProDave's case, as most burglars (and other vermin) can't fly, so I'd have been happy enough with french doors behind a Juliet balcony at first floor level. Each to their own, though.
  12. Problem is, Planning won't accept such measures. The practical solution is simply to drive with adequate care, but they won't accept that, either...
  13. The same figures are used here (England), only the 1.05m. height is the assumed eye level of a car driver, and you need to be able to project a visibility line down from that to 600mm. above the carriageway, to allow for small children. See figure 7.17 on page 91 of Manual For Streets.
  14. Is that straight out onto the carriageway of the road, or is there a pedestrian pavement first? Impossible to tell from that photo, but particularly if there's already traffic calming measures in place, it's sometimes possible to add safety features at the access point, within the extent of Highways controlled land, using what is known as a 'Section 278 agreement'. But you definitely need the assistance of a Highways consultant, to assess the viability (and if necessary do the detailed design) of that sort of thing.