Deejay

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.