mr rusty

It depends - not all will want to. In any construction it is essential that the client understands who is carrying the design risk. If you employ a designer and give the builder a set of plans to build to, then it's you carrying the risk. Your builder has no contractual relationship with your designer, so if the design goes wrong because the drawings are incorrect, the builder can wash his hands of liability "your drawings, your design", not my problem", leaving you to take it up with your designer who might say "I don't agree with the builder, nothing wrong with my drawings". It is for this reason that many contracts, certainly in the commercial world, are "design and build". The client produces their specification and technical requirements, but the design and the build is carried out by the builder who directly employs the architects and designers. e.g. from an NEC3 ECC contract (which is the first one that comes to hand on my desk) "The contractor provides the works in accordance with the works information, The contractor designs the parts of the works which the works information states he is to design". From the clients point of view it's a very clean way of working since all the risk is with the builder, but obviously the client has to pay the extra for the risk the builder is taking on.

So you have a Building Control that are being a PITA. As @Redbeard says the alternative AIUI is a building notice - you don't have to submit plans at all. IMHO you could do this by employing a design and build contractor with a specification that clearly identifies that it is the contractors responsibility to comply with regs and achieve a completion certificate. Stage payments will be paid in accordance with satisfactory inspections and sign off. You'll pay more passing the design risk to the contractor, but it could be a solution. I've used D&B on a BN for a tiny extension, but it was a very straightforward project.

Surely the question really should be "exactly where is the boundary". In my own case, for expediency a couple of years ago, I allowed a developer to install a new fence that it could be argued was 1m inside an old boundary line of our property. He replaced a very overgrown sprawling hedge at his cost. Should I ever have been faced with an over zealous planner, I would have produced compelling evidence (including the developers own topographical survey) to show the fence wasn't the legal boundary. Sometimes maybe the boundary is obvious to 100mm, other times, not so much.

There was a similar application went through near us recently on a PiP. It might be a useful reference https://publicaccess.southribble.gov.uk/online-applications/files/784C23FE0A04F5A5B1A4B66E7D5A38A5/pdf/07_2023_00285_PIP-PLANNING_STATEMENT-306231.pdf and the approval https://publicaccess.southribble.gov.uk/online-applications/files/59E8C09E3BD1F3CC3951B3C6C8A7D69E/pdf/07_2023_00285_PIP-DELEGATED_REPORT-313190.pdf

If we really are just talking about a garden shed, rather than an outbuilding, then even though technically not permitted, I would just do it. - What's a shed £1K? That's the limit of your risk, and personally I can't see any LA bothering to enforce against a shed if there was one there before. Of course, there's always a chance of a bad neighbour complaining, but if you get one of those, there are ways of hitting back, like suggesting you'll plant a row of tall trees if they are that bothered about seeing a shed.

Every drawing I have submitted for the few (fairly small beer) planning applications I have put in has had "all dimensions are +/- 100mm" marked on. Never been queried.

I think this might hinge on what the quote/offer said. It could have said one of 3 things :- The price is £X Inc VAT or The price is £X plus VAT or The price is £X and the vat is £Y and the price to pay is £X+Y. If it's the 2nd option I think you are stuffed. If it's either of the other two, maybe not...

IMHO, working in the commercial contracting world, there are 3 key things 1) scope - who is doing what, 2) price what exactly is priced for and 3) liability - if the design goes wrong who is responsible. This decision between designer and builder isn't just about cost, it's also about where liability sits. Think about it. There is an argument that says a design and build contract with the builder having 100% responsibility to get that completion certificate has merit because it prevents the builder and architect playing one off against the other. But I expect a full liability D&B contract will be loaded by the builder with more than £6K for his risk. And, of course, if you don't pin-down design liability to someone else, it all rests with you! Just to extend that thought - in the commercial world it would be quite normal for the client to initially employ the architect for early design work, but then when a D&B builder is selected the architect is "novated" to the contractor. The contractor takes on the initial design, and extends it to completion. The initial architect then becomes employed directly by the contractor. The client has one point of contact - the contractor. I have never heard of this arrangement being used in the domestic world though...

^^this. +2

Safe side of what? The policy providers must be laughing all the way to the bank for these!

Hi @DevilDamo What would happen if you had PD rights removed but didn't start the planned works before the PD work was complete. Could you still get a LDC? for the PD work with unstarted planned work? would the planned works be revoked even if it could still be subsequently started within the 3 years?

The cost of a solicitor to try (an IMHO not succeed) in making this a legal condition of planning is most likely more than the cost of new DGU with frosted glass. It won't happen as the OP expects because if planners started to issue PP on the basis of the presence of 3rd party agreements a whole can of worms would be opened. Planning stands or falls on it's own rules

I'm not so sure you will need planning permission because you are not changing the footprint, usage or aspect of the building, but I'm not completely sure. What you will definitely need, and what may be a challenge is building control. It may be a challenge because that "conservatory" doesn't meet latest standards and I expect that re-roofing will bring the project in to the latest regs - You definitely need some good advice - whether that comes from some of the more knowledgeable people here or an external professional, you will still need someone to draw up some plans for a regs application. You might want to consider just upgrading the polycarb to maybe a 5 ply, much better thermally rated material which would then still give you the light and still improve the useability. This might restrict your regs application to just taking down the wall, and ignore the "conservatory" - depends on your budget.....

If it's a summer house with sofa beds which are very occasionally used, who'd know? who'd care?

As a someone this doesn't affect but have an interest, this looks like a huge tier of additional work and cost which can only reflect in the prices charged for new houses, which will drive up the cost of all housing. I came across this:- So if you are a developer, you have the option to buy another piece of land solely to improve the biodiversity to offset against the development. I hope no land sold for this purpose has any connection whatsoever with the panel determining the planning application.... Cynical? moi?