DevilDamo

Is there scope to lower the roof for that element so you’ll have a bulkhead below and therefore flush levels at first floor level? The bulkhead could be made out to be a feature too with a coffer for example.

Not correct under PD. Fences (including heras) is limited to 1m high when adjacent to a highway. It isn’t that dis-similar to when people talk about adding a trellis on top of a 1m fence (adjacent to a highway) or 2m elsehwhere. The trellis forms part of the fence and it being see through is irrelevant.

A warm roof is so much better and easier when dealing with flat roof upstands. Assuming that stud on top is forming some kind of parapet?

You are demolishing part of an existing building. That should not require any kind of Planning approval. The installation of the rooflight within the existing flat roof should also not require any kind of Planning approval. If in doubt, submit a Certificate of Lawfulness/Lawful Development Certificate application (for a proposed use).

Building Control, not Planning.

Well that’s a first and not advice I’d give anybody.

A lot would depend upon the manhole being private or public.

The works should be built in accordance with the approved drawings. There are no standard or allowable tolerances. If the client discuss and agrees such tolerances with the contractor, then that is down to them.

You should think about engaging a professional.

Do you have a proposed floor plan?

The external dimension of your extension can match the external dimension of your neighbours’ extension. If you want more, submit a Section 73/Variation of Condition application.

I’m not sure what difference the elevations would make. It would require Planning and therefore a Householder application regardless.

Nope, it’s when the application is submitted/validated. The only exception to that is during a time of transitioning between new regulations coming in which happened in 2022.

But what if the initial AI has not issued a Part Final Certificate for a particular element? Or does that only apply when you’re wanting to transfer to another AI without them going into liquidation?

If the external returns/corners are big enough, you should not require a goalpost frame but just a beam across the top. The second option will definitely require a goalpost frame but you should also consider how the cavity side walls would meet and integrate with the columns.

The description of the proposal will be different so you would have no choice but to re-submit a Full application. On the new application, be as transparent as you can. LPA’s would normally grant Planning for annexe’s if they are and form part of the main dwelling’s ownership. It would also be conditioned as such.

Option 2 is not an option. Your project will now have to be dealt with the Local Authority Building Control department.

Why does the proposed dwelling need to be that shape? Easier to re-design the dwelling as opposed to trying to request a diversion.

@TommoUK The OP’s hasn’t stated whether they’re attached or detached. However, their proposed extension is more than 4m deep. It therefore requires Prior Approval or Householder approval. It could not be any more straight forward.

A little contradictory there. It is not PD. It would require Prior Approval or Householder approval.

No. You will require Planning. You will not require Building Regulations if it meets the definition of a conservatory… https://www.planningportal.co.uk/permission/common-projects/conservatories/building-regulations Planning and Building Regulations are completely different things.

From a Planning perspective, you will require Prior Approval or Householder approval. If it meets the definition of a conservatory, it would be exempt from Building Regulations.

Planning stays with the property/site and not the person. Not sure where 6 years has come from. It’s now 10 years unless it can be proved it had been completed/in use prior to April of which would be 4 years… https://www.planninggeek.co.uk/planning/applications/certificate-of-lawfulness/

Do you need the long carport? If not, why not push out the side into the space and then convert the garage into a study/games/gym with toilet or shower facilities? What has been designed so far is still a huge waste of space and not well thought about.

Who said it was PD? LPA’s do not confirm that without a Lawful Development Certificate application. The LPA should not take action over 80mm. Their first course of action would be to invite you submit a Planning application, which would be approved. It’ll cost the LPA a lot more money to process an application as opposed to arguing over 80mnn. But you could play it safe and slightly raise the ground levels around the building so you’re back at 2.5m. How have you calculated the areas as 6% is so marginal and I can’t see how the LPA would be able to calculate that to that degree. The floor area relates to Building Regulations, not Planning. Is the 32sq.m the external footprint? If so, what is the internal floor area as that should not exceed 30sq.m in order to be exempt from BR’s.