DevilDamo

The design of that one does look quite a lot different to the one you’ve proposed though. Approx. how long ago was that one approved? Btw, do you “need” such a big porch? It probably isn’t far enough the size of a Bedroom. Seems a lot of wasted space. The existing walls could be re-configured to make that better.

Not completely the same but you get the idea.

The proposals do look very imposing, especially the proposed two storey element in relation to the existing two storey element. It kind of gives off the look of a pair of semi’s. As a general rule of thumb, LPA’s support two storey side extensions which are half the width of the original. It’s all about keeping it sub-ordinate. You want 4m and they’ve asked for 2.5m. Why not meet half way? The roof could be lowered so the front window would be more like a dormer. The room it serves wouldn’t lose out too much. Those alternations alone should be welcomed.

I wouldn’t get too worried about the locals and their opinions. You’re not going to please everybody.

Were the locals up in arms with the first application? If so, what did that look like?

And the image you posted would be in character? With a few minor design tweaks and including a material palette or samples, then fine. I personally find submitted coloured elevations can do more harm than good. Or if you are going down the coloured elevations route, instruct somebody to produce some CGI’s.

Nope, private companies can also do the same.

Building Control could look to serve a Contravention Notice if it’s occupied prior to satisfactory completion/sign off.

How are you providing ventilation to the Study? Am quite surprised BC are happy with the narrow brick returns too. Search for recommendations via local Facebook groups.

That will be quite a narrow door. On the assumption it’s brick, can you not achieve 910mm on the outside? You’d do the same on the inside and then finished reveals with plaster or plasterboard.

Brick external skin with a DPC and an insulated timber frame internally.

Assume you have Planning? Will you also be removing or replacing the original front door… if so, you will also require Building Regulations and the following should be used.

I am quite surprised as to how much they’re concerned about a rear elevation. I am also surprised they’re leaning more towards a flat roof and note that will probably provide you with a reduced internal floor to ceiling height. Btw, you have reduced the width by only 10cm, not 100cm. I personally don’t feel it’s enough. Pre-application is informal and can be a bit wishy washy. It’s very rare for any LPA to state specific dimensions. That is for your architectural designer to look into.

Do you realise the ceiling height in the extension is going to be approx. 2.1m and I assume the existing is approx. 2.4m? And btw, 665mm on the external return is a minimum dimension which you would meet. But the return dimension is also dependant on the overall length of wall, openings, etc… Your engineer should be checking the slight re-configuration. Or to play it safe, reduce the overall width of the French doors with sidelights to 3455mm, which would leave you with the same return as before.

You went into Planning for the re-model and I assume on those approved drawings, it showed the brick as being retained?

Make sure you check and are aware of the Planning implications.

Timber frame on top of a cavity wall in which you could increase the ground floor internal blocks and/or cavity to suit.

@Davecara A Householder Planning application including a location plan, block/site plan, existing and proposed plans and elevations and any other requirements to meet your LPA’s validation list.

Apologies. I’m quite sure I wrote it properly. Will try again… You would require Planning and should not require Building Regulations.

You would require and should not require Building Regulations.

Apart from the major is more favoured as the Council are able to extract a lot of money from it in terms of the application fee, CIL and all other legal contributions. Not dis-similar as to why a Householder application takes the same time to be determined as a Full application. Usually half the fee and half the policies.

I’m going to have to go against the grain here and agree with the LPA. There are validation items and requirements for a reason.

A valid reason is not complying with policies. Just because you don’t agree with the outcome, doesn’t make it invalid.

BC do not, will not and should not be giving such advice. They are inspectors, not designers or specifiers. This is even more so since a change to the regulations in October 2023. Without detailed/BR drawings, how do you know what builders are quoting or including for? If however you’re not going out for quotes and one builder who you like, know and will be appointed then providing they’re competent, you don’t “need” fully drawn and detailed information.

You do not need to meet any requirements. Just fit out the space the best you can.