Deejay

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.

Thank you for your responses which have been very helpful. The Pre-planning enquiry response included the planning policies that needed to be taken into account and also other planning applications on the Local Authority Planning site were really useful. I am OK with the content and style of the two statements and as far as I can see the information re the Heritage item, which was covered in a statement done by a professional company for a property metres away from us, is the same as the info required for our application, but adapted accordingly eg they are on the south side of the Church, wheareas we are on the northern side. I've emailed the alternative Arch Tech with all our stuff, and asked for a quote. We shall see whether he advises whether we should pay for a professional Heritage Statement. I'll report back on the outcome.

i would appreciate any thoughts on the following. We have submitted our pre planning application and now feel confident enough (after access issue) to start the formal process. The Architectural Technician, who we have previously engaged, has retired and his son has taken over. When I phoned the son he explained he is inundated with work and is booked up until the end of August. I liked working with his dad as he was non intrusive somehow and is well liked by the local Planning people. I did not understand the Planning process at the time (2011) and had a lot of hurdles to overcome, most (if not all) of which I managed myself. I did the Design and Access Statement (plagiarised someone else's - which I am very good at!) and to our utmost surprise we got planning approval for 2 dwellings in a conservation area with a questionable entrance. For our current application, I have already done the Planning and Heritage Statement myself (fortunately a property nearby required a Heritage Statement so again, I have plundered that to suit) and also the D&A Statement (I had the info from our previous application). If I wait and go with the son, I think he will be Ok submitting my efforts re these 2 documents (which are pretty OK I think). Do Planning prefer an expert's name on these statements. If I choose another local Arch Tech who does a lot of work in our village, I am pretty sure he will want to obtain any surveys etc from outside sources which can start running up costs (I am just referring to D&A, and Heritage). The Heritage aspect is a Grade 2 Listed Church which stands approx 42 m from our property and is surrounded by deciduous trees. The conservation area is not particularly attractive with hotch potch developments and not a lot of consideration given to conservation in the past. Would it be false economy to choose someone with less experience but who I already know and like, against an experienced Architectural Tech who knows the area well and has many successes (but put me off in 2011 because of his cashmere coat and Mercedes - I'm easily intimidated!) who will, I am sure, be considerably more expensive but may bring some new perspectives to consider. I did have a lot of input with the applications in 2011 but I do have the time (and the Internet). I just don't want to make a mistake. Any thoughts would be appreciated.

I said I would update on what happened regarding the access road. It seemed to get any further response from the Planning Officer dealing with the pre-planning application was to do another pre-app and pay a further £360 fee. I did not want to start incurring costs for plans etc without clarity on the width of the road so phoned the Architectural Technician to ask whether I should phone Highways myself. Although he is too busy to take on my plans he kindly phoned the chap in Highways and asked him to ring me today (it is impossible to get through to anyone at the Local Authority - they won't give out phone numbers or email addresses). Anyway the Highways Engineer phoned today and although he did not deal with our pre-app enquiry, he confirmed it was a standard reply and that if we are only replacing a dwelling then the existing access is OK. I shall make a note of this conversation for future reference but at least we can now consider getting formal plans done. My next query is re the Heritage Statement which I shall post separately.

Thank you for responding and I am sorry to have hijacked this post. I had already posted earlier this under heading Pre-Planning enquiry - Highways Response. This posting gives more detail about our situation. Would you have time to look at this posting to see whether it helps in any way. I have spent a lot of time trying to find out whether there is any new legislation regarding road widths and can't find anything. The entrance is approx 4 m with the cottage on the right as you enter having a one metre open area (like a bit of pavement) so the building is not right up to the 4 m point of the entrance. It then widens further down. We had construction lorries, cranes, etc using the entrance (which has no splay area) during the 2011 build. I'm grateful for any help you can offer.

Because of the length of the access road, approx 68 m (I think), we had to have a reversing area for emergency vehicles. We had a new road constructed from scratch to a commercial grade. What do you think about the consistency approach?

ToughButtercup - I found it very interesting what you said about consistency. We have currently submitted a pre planning enquiry to demolish our 1970's bungalow and replace it with a new build house. We gained planning permission in 2011 for the construction of 2 new dwellings on the site which has a narrowish entrance. The two houses and bungalow stand in a line to the right of the access road so the bungalow now looks very out of place in this conservation area. In the pre-app response letter from Planning last week, the Highways Officer has said the access road should be 5 metres which is totally impossible as there are old cottages at the entrance. Do you think there is a lack of consistency in approving in 2011 two new dwellings with existing entrance (road does widen further down), but saying it has to be widened for a replacement dwelling. Your thoughts would be appreciated but in any event, I shall investigate what you have said, so thank you.

Has to be detailed planning application in a Conservation Area. Anyway I decided to go back to the Planning Officer about the Highway Engineer's response as this is holding up our submission of a formal planning application. I'll report on what he has to say when he eventually responds, no doubt after several reminders. Thanks again.

We are in a Conservation Area and near a Grade 2 Listed CofE Church so unfortunately only a full application acceptable, which requires Design and Access Statement, Heritage Statement etc etc and associated costs. This is why I am considering trying to sort it out before we submit a formal application but very unsure what to do. The response from the Highways Engineer was embodied in the letter from the Planning Officer dealing with our pre planning application. He gave no explanation at all regarding his comment about the width of the access road. I have looked on line to see if there have been any changes in legislation and can't find anything. At the time of our first application in 2011 to construct two dwellings to replace the Saddlery shop and workshop, we felt that the reduction in traffic to the Saddlery shop was probably what persuaded the Planning Department to relax the entrance requirements. We don't have that to reason with now but I can't see how replacing a 1970's dwelling with a new house which will be built in the same materials and design as the two other houses on site which were completed in 2016, could trigger a need to widen the access road. The access road is approx 85 metres long and has a reversing area for emergency vehicles - as was required in original application in 2011. The access road was constructed from scratch to a commercial standard. I'd really like to know where we stand with the access road width requirements even if only to know it is not set in stone and will be considered within a formal application, but can't decide what to do. Thank you for your comments.

Sorry this is lengthy but only requires a quick skim over to get the gist. Thank you for any input. I am just seeking opinions please. We started pre-planning enquiry process early Dec 20 for demolition of existing dwelling and construction of replacement dwelling. Letter received Feb 2021 from Planning/Conservation Officer, containing Highways response, planning guidelines, and advice on design. This cost around £400. My question is around Highways response. History of site: We purchased dwelling with area of land that had a prefabricated workshop and two stone barns on it in 2010. In conservation area but certainly not an area of outstanding beauty! Narrow entrance to site with 2 old cottages one side and single storey stone building on the other side. The access road entrance does widen out to some extent after the single storey building and this is suitable for passing if required. One of the original stone barns on the site had been used as a saddlery shop prior to our purchase of the site and I believe this is the reason we managed to obtain planning permission for the demolition of the outbuildings and the erection of two dwellings as this would result in a reduction of traffic onto the site. In the Planning Officer’s letter in February 2021 the Highways Engineer has said the access road needs to be widened to 5 metres. Quote: “ The existing vehicular access and shared drive should be increased in width to 5 metres.” In 2010 the Planning Officer wrote in an initial enquiry for the two proposed dwellings which received planning permission in 2011 Quote “ Access width In terms of the proposed access width, as a private shared road (ie not serving more than 5 dwellings) the Council would expect a minimum of 4.5 metres where it is physically possible to achieve this width. Where it is not possible to widen the existing access point due to the presence of existing structures/ buildings I would consider that it would be unreasonable for the Council to insist that this be widened, bearing in mind that the traffic associated with the present saddlery business utilises this point of entry/exit onto M... Road”. NB M... Road is a B rated road The Planning Officer has basically said they have fulfilled their pre-application enquiry requirements and we should put in a formal application and basically see what happens, but it seems foolhardy to spend thousands on professional drawings and specialist reports if a refusal is already on the cards because of the access. I have drafted a letter of response to the Planning Officer asking him to pass the information re the access given to us in 2010 to the Highways Engineer to reconsider his comment. I have said I am happy to speak to the Highways Engineer myself or meet him on site. My questions are (before I send the letter): 1 Do you think that having granted permission for two additional houses in 2011 they can maintain the access is now not wide enough for our proposed replacement house. 2 Also is it unwise to stir things at this point – are we better to just put in the formal application and go with the flow. We shall use the same experienced architectural technician to submit our formal planning application – he gets on well with the Planning Department and is a nice guy, but doesn’t really offer advice. I’m just not sure whether pushing for a more definite response from the Highways Department at this point is a good idea, even though I think we are entitled to it. Any thoughts please.

Hi - I've just finished changing/modifying some plans we had done for a previous self build and am wanting to find software that I can transfer the plans on to. I have all the sizes of the rooms etc - do you think that someone with no experience like myself would be able to use nuvuw and does the £5 monthly charge have an end date or can you just leave when you want. I'm so grateful you have posted about this company as I've been looking for a while and most software seems to be too complicated.

Thank you HWP. I'll look at the Velux exterior blinds. I think Velux also do a Solar Control Glass style (for anyone thinking of fitting Velux windows). Where are the cords in the blinds. We bought ours from Blinds to Go and you pull them down with a small silver handle - like a very tidy roller blind contained within a silver frame. They fit into the glass frame (not inside the glass which you can also buy). They do block out the sun glare but the rooms are still very hot in the roof - probably from rising heat from downstairs. We don't have anything on the large veluxes in the large kitchen/family room (4) and lounge (3) and those two rooms also get very hot . We have blackout vertical blinds on the sliding patio doors in each of those room and they are excellent altho not everyone likes vertical blinds (Tudor Blinds). The film seemed like the most effective solution but I'd not seen the exterior blinds. Thank you for pointing those out.

The house we completed in 2016 has velux windows and sliders - mostly west facing. The second floor (in the roof) has two bedrooms and a shower room - each having velux windows with blackout blinds. However the rooms get unbearingly hot - due to the amount of insulation I think. We are thinking of applying a solar reducing film to all the veluxes in the lounge and kitchen/family room (cut to size by Purfrost). Supposed to reduce the heat by 61%. (NB Film is not as easy to apply to a sloping window) We loved all the glass but the architect (architectural technician) who has been doing this a very long time failed to point out the downside. Like the others have said, it is best to sort this as soon as possible to ensure the house is comfortable. Look at Pilkingtons Glass website - they do a solar control glass which may be more expensive but probably worth looking at. We'll consider this on our next build which we are in the process of doing plans for at the moment. This site is really great and definitely worth listening to others' experiences to enable you to try and make any amendments before its too late or too expensive.

The part we are thinking of demolishing contains three bedrooms - the boiler and meters are at the other end of the bungalow. Therefore it will mean I would think that the electrics and heating would be able to be isolated fairly easily. The bedrooms are positioned almost separately from the rest of the bungalow (it's a reasonably sized property) and the rooms that will remain are of a good size and include a dining room which can be used as a bedroom. My concern would be the hip roof which has a fairly long ridge - I assume a gable end roof would have been easier to shorten. Amazingly we have the plans of the original build which detail the roof construction, which may be useful. If we are granted planning permission and decide to go ahead with the build, then from previous experience I think it helps to be as near to the site as possible (and I am no spring chicken). Last time we had a builder for stage 1 and I did all the materials ordering, soil testing , new services, hiring second stage tradesmen etc etc and being on hand seemed to work. The builder and his men were easy to work with as were the rest of the tradesmen so no complaints there. Unfortunately he has moved away so you never know what might happen this time. Thank you for your input. I was hoping someone on this site might have done this themselves, or perhaps know someone who has. All input is greatly received and very useful.

That's really interesting. I thought we wouldnt be able to move into the house until it was signed off by Building Control which they presumably wouldn't do unless the whole dwelling (inc garage) was completed. If this is the case, it made sense to have two separate applications so that one could be signed off when completed to enable us to move in, and then the other signed off when the garage is completed. I'll phone them tomorrow and see whether anyone can answer the question. It sounds as though you completed your first house in two separate stages, so how did this work for you in terms of starting all over again on the garage. Do you have any thoughts on whether it is possible to part demolish a bungalow with a hip roof. I was hoping someone on this site might have done something similar and could share their experience. Thank you so much for your advice.

Thanks for responding. A static caravan would fit and we might have to consider this. We were wondering if it's possible to demolish part of a single storey building with a hip roof and make it watertight,d and also how we would get round Planning and Building Control. When we built the first house we had a stable and an old prefab demolished (I put the prefab on ebay mainly to try and get it removed and ended up selling it for £200 + taking it down and removing it to be re-erected elsewhere). What remained was a smaller stone stable which we kept up and the builders used it for storage and having their lunch etc so it was very handy. The back of the new house was almost up to the old stable and we didnt demolish it until as late as possible. However, there was plenty of other space on that particular site for storage of materials. We have garden space for storage at the bungalow but that will end up on the far side of the new build which has no access which is why I think we would have to create some storage by removing some of the bungalow. Does this make sense? Just considering different options at the moment.

I love this site. This is my first post and we are still at the thinking stage of our new build. I have been involved with a previous self build on this site. We currently live in a 1970's bungalow which we intend replacing with a new build house and triple garage (l-shaped). We would like to stay in the bungalow during the build as the main part of the new build house will fit on land (garden) immediately to the west of the bungalow - and I mean almost abutting the existing dwelling. Because of the nature off the site we had hoped to demolish part of the bungalow ie the three bedrooms to the rear and live in the remaining part. We shall be submitting a pre-application to our local planning department to get an idea of whether they will allow the new dwelling as we are in a conservation area. We obtained planning permission in 2011 for two other new builds further down the site - and we undertook the build of one of these. My question is - does it seem feasible to part demolish the bungalow (the success of the previous build was mainly due (in my view) to the fact that we lived in the bungalow on the site. Part demolition would leave a reasonable area for storage of materials as the site is quite tight lengthwise. It would mean us building the main house first - moving into it - and then starting again on the link and triple garage (this will provide me with a granny annexe over the garage). So we shall have diggers etc back for foundations and also all the other tradesmen required. Not sure whether this works out better financially or not. Does anyone know how this would pan out with planning and building regs. A friend said they thought we would just have to do two separate applications for building regs. Now I've put it in writing not sure whether its a good idea or not.