Deejay

On further review of our approved plans and looking on Google Earth at approved “outbuildings” in other people’s gardens in our Conservation Area (everyone seems to want to have an annex of some sort), I am surprised that our approval has been so generous, particularly with regard to roof height (5.4 m to ridge). On that basis and returning to the approved plans (which already look like a bungalow) we could: Try for variation of condition and resubmit site plan with a red line change to outline the plot. If/when this is approved start the physical build but try for a further minor amendment by changing the double garage to single and using the other single garage space for accommodation - not sure they would allow this as the application is basically for a double garage with space added on lengthwise for dependent relative accommodation. (We could always change this at a later date I suppose). If that is approved then complete the project which now has its own defined plot, and apply for change of use to a separate dwelling, not necessarily immediately but sometime in the near future. Split the title deed – not sure whether this should be done before or after the Change of Use application. We would miss out on the VAT reclaim. Not sure where this would leave us as regards CIL in that if Planning agreed change of use, would CIL say this in effect has been a self build and you should have claimed exemption, but as you didn’t and you can’t claim retrospectively, then you have to pay it. That would be a major blow. Can anyone see a glaring problem with any of the above or even better suggest a better way of doing this. I would check things out with the CIL officer in due course but at the moment I'm trying to establish all options.

This is interesting. If we just red line the plot, apply, get approval for new dwelling and then start the build having filled in the initial CIL forms, the LA will want to put the charge on the title deeds as stated in the rules in my previous post. The only title deeds we will have if we have not split the plot are the ones on the original bungalow and we don't want CIL involved with our original bungalow because we may wish to demolish it in the future and if we already have a charge on our title deeds we will have used up our CIL exemption allowance . In your case if you know 100% that you will never demolish your original property, then it won't matter. I hope you can understand that garble! The application for the annex was approved but we managed to keep the m2 below 100 m2 so CIL not triggered. We could have built the annex without involving CIL and then, say in a few years, decide to demolish original bungalow and would have been able to apply for CIL exemption on its replacement. I laboured all of this at length with the CIL officer in 2021 before we applied for annex, who was brilliant and he advised me the way to go. So in our case, in order to get 2 CIL exemptions, the plot will need to have its own title deeds before we fill in any CIL forms. I can't ever see us being in a position to demolish our existing bungalow but at least it leaves the door ajar. Thank you for being so helpful. You have really helped me focus.

Definitely have no plans to sell ever as we love it here although shared private road which comes with issues. Original application double garage with extension for granny annex - my son and I currently live in the original bungalow which is jointly owned by us and my younger son who lives elsewhere. The plan was that when I pass on my older son could move to the annex and my younger move into the bungalow to "keep an eye on him". Costs became prohibitive so shelved. Reconsidered when change of gov in July - had not even considered separate dwelling before. This would make it more financially viable as we will be able to reclaim VAT and the sizes are the same but single garage instead of double - second garage space becomes increase in accommodation. CIL not a problem and no worries re land charge as 3 years not a problem. I do think though that after getting planning permission we shall need to split the title before applying for CIL exemption. Everything will then be separate from existing bungalow which will be able to have its own self build exemption should it be needed. The best way forward would seem to be to submit a completely new application which could/would attract objections. We had only one last time, but with change in property owners around us I would anticipate more. However, new legislation might make this less prohibitive. Will have to wait and see on that one. This seems the best way to go unless anyone has any alternative ideas to suggest. Today considered whether Change of Use application might work if we built annex as approved first. But then no VAT reclaim which would be a big loss to us. Thank you for helping.

OK so from further research I can now see we shall have to submit new planning application with plot within red line and remainder within blue line. CIL is sticking point for us but the following is pretty clear - “Private homebuilders can apply for an exemption to their local council at any time, as long as their development has not started or ‘commenced’. This includes demolition and other minor groundworks, the digging of trenches, laying of pipes and changes to the use of the land”. We dug a trench to say we had started current planning and building regs approvals for annex so that we were within Bldg Regs before changes in July 2022. So it would seem we definitely need a new planning application. Private homebuilders who want to claim the exemption must take two steps before commencing their development: – Firstly, they must commit to pay the levy on the home they want to build. This is done by completing an ‘Assumption of Liability’ form. Secondly, they must certify that their project meets the qualifying criteria by submitting a ‘Self Build Exemption Claim Form – Part 1’ to the council. On receipt of the ‘Self Build Exemption Claim Form – Part 1’, the council must notify the private homebuilder in writing as soon as practicable to confirm that the exemption is to be granted. The council will then register the chargeable amount (i.e. the levy that would have been payable if the exemption had not been granted) as a ‘local land charge’ on the property for three years from its completion. Mortgage providers need to be notified of this and approve it. This was what we were trying to avoid on submitting our annex application as we were unsure of our future plans. This seems to indicate that we can wait to see whether we get approval and if we do split the plot from our title deeds before filling in any of the forms, otherwise I assume the charge will go on our home mortgage as the plot is still part of it. So complicated. If the private homebuilder starts the development before they have received notification from the council, the levy charge must be paid in full within the time period specified by the council. Before starting the development, the private homebuilder must submit a ‘Commencement Notice’ to the council. This must state the date on which the development will start. If this is not done the private homebuilder will become liable for the full levy charge. On completion the private homebuilder must submit an ‘Exemption Claim Form – Part 2’ to the council which provides supporting evidence to confirm their project qualifies for relief (this must be done within six months of formal completion of the home). Private homebuilders applying for an exemption have a right to appeal to the Valuation Office Agency against the amount of levy exemption granted. There is no scope to appeal against a council’s refusal to grant an exemption. This has all come back to me now and how important it is to follow the procedure to the letter. So I am assuming from the above that we can submit our application with red line around plot and blue line round the rest, and complete required CIL forms at this time. We need to ensure Hopefully get planning permission and then sort out the split from the title deeds. The thing is NOT TO START ANY WORK until we have submitted a Commencement Notice and the Council have confirmed we are eligible for exemption. Sorry it's so long but thought it might help someone else in the same situation. Thanks for everyone's help.

Never a truer word spoken. We already have a shared access which we own (thank goodness as that was down to the excellent solicitor we had, not us). Three other properties have right of way (two newish builds and one cottage at the entrance which has very limited right of way). The problems always arise when there is a change of ownership with the two cottages at the road entrance. I am always the bad person as I have to stipulate no parking etc. I would never choose anything "shared" ever again if we ever move.

The current red line on the approved plan includes our bungalow that we live in and the area on which the outbuilding is to be built, together with the private access road. So we own all of this. If we separate the "plot" do we show the access road and proposed plot with a red line border and the remaining area containing our bungalow and remainder of garden outlined in blue, even though we own it. This information is really helpful.

Thank you - that is really helpful about the planning requirement. I think we would have to separate the plot before applying, otherwise the original bungalow still standing will get swept into the calculations and we would not be deemed to be building a separate self build. Could we just separate the "plot" with a red line when we apply without having to change anything on the title deeds at this stage. It would be good if we could.

Planning approval granted on 2 Feb 2003 for outbuilding at bottom of garden - double garage with dependent relative small extension - Conservation Area. Only conditions were 3 year start and to be built as plans, and materials (copied at end of this post). Nothing else. Building Regs approval received. Site marginally prepared with one trench dug and confirmation project had commenced from both Planning and Building Control Changes of design in the planning stages ended up with this looking like a bungalow. I refilled the trench myself (we needed to keep it open to say we have started) as it was very near an old wall and the rain since would have brought the wall down. Will need to re-open trench if we resume work. After the commencement the energy crisis, rise in material prices kicked in so put on hold as not financially viable. Plus complications with CIL, no VAT reclaim etc as not self build. Re-think with new planning legislation expected. To become viable we need to change it to a self build. The plans will change a little in that the garage will become single instead of double and living space extended into that space. A self build will be CIL exempt and we can reclaim VAT. Will section site off from main bungalow and new build will have own address. We wonder whether we could just re-apply under request for Variation of Planning Condition to make the small design changes but I'm not sure what impact there would be as regards changing from outbuilding to self build bungalow, and presumably we would have to define the plot as separate to existing bungalow before applying so that we don't get bogged down with CIL complications. We don't want to lose the CIL exemption on the original bungalow in case we decide to demolish it and rebuild. The quote at the end of the post indicates we would have to do a completely new application but I am wondering whether this might change with the new legislation as we would be providing a sustainable extra dwelling. Has anyone had experience of this and if so do you have any advice. Description and Location Demolition of garage and erection of a detached outbuilding to rear at ............ Condition(s) imposed: 01 The development hereby permitted shall be commenced before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. Reason In order to comply with the requirements of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 02 The permission hereby granted shall relate to the area shown outlined in red on the approved site plan and the development shall only take place in accordance with the submitted details and specifications and as shown on the approved plans (as set out below) Site Location Plan, received 09 December 2022 AES-0641 – Site Layout Plan, received 09 December 2022 AES-0641 -Elevations, received 09 December 2022 Reason To define the permission and for the avoidance of doubt. 03 The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building. Reason In order to ensure a satisfactory appearance in the interests of visual amenity and in accordance with Core Strategy Policy CS28. Quote from Officer's Report Finally, a neighbouring resident requested whether or not separate utilities from the main house would be fitted into the building. However, even if the utilities were separate from the main dwelling house this would not allow the outbuilding to be used as a separate dwelling and would not negate the requirement for planning permission. In conclusion, it is considered that the proposed single storey outbuilding is acceptable in terms of neighbouring amenity, highway safety and would not harm the character and appearance of the property or the Conservation Area, subject to the recommended conditions. As such, the proposal complies with relevant adopted Local Plan policies and is recommended that planning permission be granted for the scheme for the aforementioned reasons set out in the report. We are just looking at the options currently and trying to establish whether it's worth pursuing. Any thoughts much appreciated.

The photos I have posted are of plans already submitted which the LA want changing to single storey. The revised plans going in this week have no usable space other than for storage in the attic, no rooflights and no stairs access to the attic. So we hope this will satisfy the Planners on the single storey aspect. This will leave us with a single storey double garage and attached ground floor granny flat. Personally, I think the Planners will still want this changing somehow but I will post back on the outcome. Thank you for your input which has been really helpful.

Yes, it does look huge doesn't it. Do you think it would appear so huge if it was a triple garage because basically that's what it is with one garage extended forward by 2 m for the flat. I agree the design with the extended part makes it look like another dwelling. The revised drawings are going in this week with the roof lowered to 4.95m or lower, rooflights removed, staircase removed. The double garage is for use by the existing bungalow which sits in a more prominent position further up the garden. It is hoped in the (probably distant now) future to replace the existing bungalow with a house which, because it will not have a double/triple garage attached (because we will have already built it) will not be so bulky and obtrusive and will therefore sit much better in the Conservation Area facing the Grade 11 Listed Church. The garage site is much less visible. We have basically split the original plans because at this moment in time the need is for the granny flat and in the future it may become a flat for son A if my other son B decides to replace the existing bungalow with a house for him and his family.

Right, I have photos

Hi I'll try and get my son to photograph the plans (I have been waiting since yesterday) so that you can see what we are working with now. The original submission was more of a "coach house" building with double garage and extra space for gym (or whatever) on ground floor with flat above. It was 6.7 m high and the roof did not impinge on the room sizes. Planningsaid too high as did objections and asked for revision to single storey but no suggestion of acceptable height. We submitted revised drawings with the ridge height down to 5.7 but changed the shape ie long rectangle 7m x 12m but at one end there is a projection of two metres making a 6 m x 7 m double garage and a 6 x 9 m granny flat all on the ground floor. This had a central separate staircase to attic in which we managed to put a gym area (which could be anything) and a shower area. Planning said no, needs to be single storey - still no hint of acceptable height. We now intend to submit revisions with 4.95 roof, remove all rooflights, remove staircase, put WC at back of garage. So nothing in roof. Approx same dimensions as last submission for garage and granny flat on the ground floor, minus the separate staircase to the attic. It's difficult to visualise without plans so I'm off to try again.

Thank you for your reply Charlie K LP. I don't have Photoshop and do my best with limited tech knowledge. We will do as you suggest and try for what we think is next highest try at 4.95 m ridge height as Planning have recently passed a similar garage/sunroom nearby at this height. However, this is not self contained accommodation, is not in a Conservation Area, does not have a Grade 11 Heritage Church nearby, and does not have a public footpath running right next to it. I think if the Planning Officer rejects this then the next submission (if offered) will be our last so we'll have to think carefully about what we submit. Thanks again.

Tried to send over the scanned plans but apparently larger than 5.86 mb. They are just on A4 paper so not sure what else I can do. I have just emailed the architect my revised copy OK (which I had scanned to my PC) so not sure what the problem is.

We had two objections, one from a neighbour (about the height) and one from the Parish Council who quoted local policy and also the local neighbourhood plan which comes into force this month. Not sure whether we would have any chance with an Appeal. I shall think about it though.

Thank you. Yes you are correct. We are in a conservation area and next to a public footpath. Do you have a copy of your design that you could post to give me some idea of how it looks. I don't think my architect who is almost retired is entirely conversant with his software. I have to go with what he tells me as I can't visualise anything with regard to roofspace. For example, he has drawn up a design for a replacement house on the site of our existing bungalow and the roof is 10 m high, even though the two new builds on the same site are only 8 m high or thereabouts - I really don't understand it (we shall probably never build this and have only stayed with him thinking the garage would be easier). He did say he could reduce the garage ridge to 4.6 m but has never said he could go lower. WE are now only looking at storage in the roof. Thank you for your help.

We hope to build a double garage with additional granny self contained accommodation. Initial submission too high for planners at 6.7 m (I agree with them). We revised the plans and reduced height to 5.7 m but still utilising usable space in roof for gym area and storage so included rooflights and separate staircase. Planning officer has come back saying "Our previous concerns remain and though the amended plans are a considerable improvement, we still think it is excessively large. I would suggest amending it further to reducing it to single storey only." I am not sure why they can't be clearer but perhaps are not allowed to commit themselves. I thought we had reduced it to single storey. Anyway the architect is about to email the Planning Officer and suggest a roof height of 4.95 m, remove all rooflights and remove the staircase - so any space available will just be for storage. I think this is quite a big change from the original plans. My questions are 1 Does anyone think there will be a problem sending an email asking these questions - it was my suggestion to save everyone's time but now I'm wondering whether this is inappropriate and the architect should send in revised plans. I don't want to offend the Planning Officer. 2 If the Planning Officer still thinks the building is too high, will he give us another opportunity to try and get it lower or are the opportunities to revise the plans limited. The architect doesn't seem to know the answer to this. 3 I find the Planning Officer's description of excessively large confusing. Large is large in my view, but the architect says he is referring to the height (and the PO does use the words "excessively large"). Thank you for any help.

When we applied for the NMA in 2014 for the house on Plot 1 it was by accident rather than design in that we had never intended building the house ourselves. Lack of buyers of the plot forced us to re-think. I suppose I am now aware of manipulating the situation. If we remove the rooms on the top floor and the staircase we are left with a 3 bedroomed house with views only from the first floor, which the OAP'S on the estate I am sure would not object to - however I think their attention would be drawn to the rooms in the roof. Our immediate neighbour, who bought their plot from us, may object to rooms in the roof, although all overshadowing etc requirements will be met. Others around us may also object as may the Parish Council - some prob thinking they should have objected more profusely the first time around (no objections last time from Parish Council). If I can avoid the application going to Committee then I would prefer this, and I really don't want to face an appeal. The architect is retired and inexpensive and between us we are trying to make the road to approval as smooth as possible, hence my considering the NMA route. If, as you say, Planning only consider what's in front of them, then my removing the top floor rooms shouldn't "be held against me". They gave approval in 2014 for the house on Plot 1 for exactly the same thing so is there any reason to not allow it this time. I would have said Plot 1 was less likely to obtain approval to the NTA because of surrounding properties so we were surprised how smoothly it went through.

Brief history. Approval for 2 detached dwellings 2011 on long narrow site. Plot 2 sold and house built to aproved plan. Unable to sell Plot 1 so reluctantly decided to build ourselves. Enquired about additional 2 bedrooms in roof (we knew very little about anything at that time) and "architect" advised NMA, which we did and it was approved and build went ahead. Jump to 2021. We occupy 1970 bungalow on site. Plan is to demolish bungalow and build house with triple garage with granny flat over. We have already submitted plng enquiry (£360) with plans almost the same as Plot 1 which would mean there would be 3 dwellings, all looking almost the same on the private access road providing uniformity. No objection by Planning to replacement dwelling but with changes ie too bulky, kneelers and copings, natural stone etc. (conservation area). There is a footpath at the bottom of the garden, which also borders the back garden of a bunglow which is part of an estate of bungalows. The footpath leads from the Church to the estate. I feel there may be objections from this particular corner of the estate - all pensioners (like myself) and quite pally - one a councillor. My thinking is we should dispense with the rooms in the roof for the formal application, and if approved, go back with a NMA to add the extra staircase and rooms in the roof with ensuites and veluxes. The garage/granny flat is longer/higher than the garages of the other two properties, and I am assuming that in itself will draw attention. Our plans submitted already for pre-planning showed rooms in the roof. Does anyone see any reason why the NMA would be refused as it would be apparent we had intended doing this all along. I have hopefully attached a copy of the location plan to give an idea of the position of the new house. 22 5 21 Location Plan Annotated.pdf

All I can say I would be extremely unhappy with that work. I had a new shower enclosure fitted 2.5 years and am still dealing with a leak. We removed everything ourselves prior to plumber coming and taped and tanked the two walls with Mapei. The plumber fitted the Rearo shower walling that I had supplied - looks like tile and is wonderful to keep clean. However very thin and not easy to cut. He also put sealing tape around two sides of the the shower tray before fitting. Initial leak started from where enclosure meets wall in bottom corner - leaked into our bungalow hall. I had glass enclosure refitted twice. We still had a leak. Had plumbers out and none of them investigated anywhere else other than the original corner leak. I decided to dig up the floor myself under the tray and found waste trap was leaking. Difficult to get to as very shallow shower tray and trap sitting in dug out in floor. Managed to remove trap from above and reseal and now waiting to see whether problem is solved. After 2 months still appears OK. All the work done by the original plumber (who moved away) was done properly but I don't think he put sealant on the trap (which you don't have to do). Every other plumber who came to look advised ripping out and starting again. It's a lovely shower and easy to clean. In future, I would purchase a deeper shower tray, stone resin, with apron to remove for access. I've learned that ll the fitting basics are far more important than just concentrating on the final look. As you are having this installed through the grant system, can you stop the work and ask for an inspector to come and look at the job before you progress further. Honestly our leak has been a nightmare so I would advise you not to proceed until you have the work to date "signed off". I am also an old lady but am still capable of knowing how things should be done, thanks to the Internet, and you seem well versed in what standard to expect. Don't let them convince you this is OK. You have got to live with it.

The Planning Officer for the pre-planning application said we had to comply with the 25 degree rule and there is a way of measuring this, which I have roughly done. This will restrict our garage height considerably and we have to accept this. However, say one was only building a 2m x 2m square tower for example then the same 25 degree rule would apply but there is nothing to take into account that the "obstruction" causing the light reduction is only 2 m wide. In our case the garage gable end is 6 m wide with an apex roof, and I wondered if anyone knows whether it says anywhere whether this is taken into account. I believe the 45 degree rule is for extensions but I'm not sure whether this, or something similar, would be allowed to be used if the obstruction is of a smaller width.

I'll try and upload the location plan but this will depend on whether my scanner is working so may be some time. I wish I was more proficient with technology! Anyway, thank you for your interest.

I've very roughly worked out how the 25 degree rule will work with our planning application for a replacement dwelling. The dwelling is L shaped with the gable end of the garage with granny flat over being nearest to the boundary wall at the bottom of our neighbour's garden. The garage width is 6 m with an apex roof. Clearly this is not as wide as the house (which is not affected by the 25 degree rule) - does the fact that the garage is only 6 m wide affect how this rule is worked out ie 25 degrees from middle of ground floor window of neighbour's house, measured upwards. I'm assuming with a narrower obstruction ie garage gable end, there will be less loss of sunshine/light - or have I got that wrong. I want to do right by my neighbours and would not want to obstruct their light but am trying to work out what height we are allowed. I should be very grateful if someone could explain this to me.

Crikey - I didn't realise there were all these "specialists" - I thought it was either Architect (very expensive) or architectural technician (less expensive and less advisory as regards design). Architectural technicians tend to have company names that lead you to believe they are architects. I know the art tech we used in 2011 was exactly that ie a technician and the guy I have sent our draft plans to this week is also a technician, although you wouldn't know it if you were just looking them up on the internet and weren't aware of the different "professional" statuses.