DevilDamo

@chriz1 Erect something like this either attached to the house (but open at the front and rear) or keep it detached from the house and enclose it.

Why don’t you just apply for the relevant approvals for what you want? It’d be a waste of time to try and find a cheap alternative/loophole for something you don’t need or want.

It is a protected title.

A Chartered Architectural Technologist is a protected title and governed by CIAT. An (architectural) designer would cover all those who take on a design element in architecture and are not necessarily or need to be qualified or chartered.

Just out of interest, what difference would removing the 2 doors make?

An architectural designer is not a (chartered architectural) technologist if that is the cross referencing you were making.

It “should” relate to any part of the structure. I’ve had some accepted which exclude the roof overhangs for example but other LPA’s have been stricter.

As the bottom of the opening will be above 1.7m, it doesn’t need to be fixed shut or obscured. And there should be no reason why the LPA cannot treat it as a NMA. I’d like to see their reasons for thinking otherwise.

That is not the reason.

@NFA Yomz With a loft conversion, you’d have to factor in the additional BR requirements, e.g. fire doors, sprinkler/mist system, etc… One of the Bedrooms would also need to reduce in depth to accommodate the new landing and stair. Assume you have the headroom for a loft conversion too?

How about a first floor rear extension (shown in red). Turn the rear part of the first floor into a Bedroom with a rear window. Provide a Bathroom shown in green with a side window. Slightly reduce the middle Bedroom following the introduction of a corridor. Then you’d need to turn the stair around so the landing is against the party wall side.

Don’t let that put you off. You will always find informal Pre-app responses are caveated that it represents the opinion of that particular officer and not the Council. But Pre-app discussions are recommended for the more complex/detailed/sensitive proposals. I always say applications are refused (guilty) unless you can prove otherwise (innocent).

No such thing in Planning or Building Regulation terms. How are you going to explain this “temporary” building to Planning and Building Control when they carry out their visit and inspections for the main house? This could go massively against you and you don’t want to be on the back foot with the Council from the outset. But ultimately, it’s your choice.

Both. Why are you not going to build to BR’s and/or how can you avoid it?

How so?

But more willing to engage if a draft/proposal has gone through a pre-app process first. I’ve seen a load of cr*p submitted to LPA’s.

The removal of the free go is designed to “encourage applicants to engage in pre-application discussions and support the submission of high-quality applications first time round”.

If you’re concerned about “older” houses not meeting current or modern standards, then you shouldn’t really be viewing older houses.

You asked how is it possible that LPA’s do not engage and I said they don’t have to. I do find it frustrating and unreasonable where even minor amendments are not accepted. I can see why significant changes are not welcomed as that would usually result in some re-consultation, therefore prolonging the determination period and the PO having it on their desk for a lot longer. But with the “free-go” now no longer a thing, LPA’s know that a refusal on what could be minor grounds would in most cases result in a re-submission, new payment and new target dates. The Appeal process also plays to their advantage.

It depends upon the discretion of the LPA and PO. Significant amendments are not usually accepted, but minor amendments. LPA’s have a little more control over that, now the “free go” has been removed.

Neither.

Well, it is true as it has, does and continue to happen. The LPA’s I referred to state their positive and pro-active engagement is by way of offering pre-application advice.

LPA’s don’t “have to” engage with applicants or agents during the formal determination process. I know one or two who do not.

Not at all now. It’s been like that for a lot of LPA’s for a while. There are pro’s and con’s. The Pre-app process can and does iron out the time wasters. One of my LPA’s which need to offer SPA mitigation for new dwellings, they will not even entertain to validate an application prior to receiving Pre-app advice.

Who said that and in what context?