DevilDamo

Is it… integral, attached or detached? Are there any Planning conditions that restrict its conversion?

PD is PD. There isn’t any lenience one way or another. The OP would just need to apply for Planning and tbh, what are the chances a small porch extension wouldn’t go through?

Yeh, if the OP is willing to reduce it to 3sq.m, then that is a possibility. They’d still need to check the PD situation and rights being intact. Same with the garage conversion.

It projects forward of a principal elevation so would require Planning.

Not being within a CA isn’t the only trigger for these works not requiring Planning. Edit: And as a side note, the porch would exceed the PD requirements anyway so Planning would be required for that element for starters.

Eaves heights are irrelevant. It’s the overall height.

For example and illustrative purposes, houses like this would require Planning for a porch.

3m2.

No, just tell them you will not be proceeding with that element. They should be able to change the description of work so once the extension has been completed, you will receive a Completion Certificate. You will not be able to reclaim any additional fees paid in relation to the garage conversion.

Instruct a surveyor to carry out a topographical/land survey.

Planning and Building Regulations are competely different. Planning comes first and therefore takes precedent over Building Regulations. In 99% of situations, Planning are not interested in internal or structural alterations. Following on from the above, what is the issue and who has advised what needs to be done to rectify it?

There isn’t a minimum. With standard internal doors being 1981mm plus their architraves and external window heads normally being 2.1m above floor level, ideally you want the ceiling to be at least 2.15-2.2m.

There is no such thing. A BN application is just accepted and then works can start. Only FP applications have a formal approval process. As for documenting your progress, others appear to do that via blogs.

You do not require an Architect to produce BR drawings. The engineer should be more than capable of carrying out their own survey and producing either sketches or CAD drawings along with the necessary details and calculations. Don’t bother with a FP application. Just submit a BN application. If your engineer cannot or does not want to do it, it’s very straight forward for you to.

It’d fail on the eaves height so the depth is irrelevant.

When was the “adjacent to a highway” introduced?

What’s the difference between those two examples? Surely it should read “fences within one metre”?

And I was talking about going from the top image to the bottom image (for example).

But if you can achieve the required rooms, spaces and layout with a more traditionally designed and in keeping design then what’s the issue? It’ll also be quite a lot cheaper to construct too.

A latter Appeal decision will always in most cases override a previous LPA decision. The LPA will now (which they are doing) use the Appeal decision and the comments made by the PI in determining any future application. Without knowing what the existing bungalow looks like, I can’t see it being much different to the neighbouring properties. Why not consider a chalet bungalow/1.5 storey dwelling?

It doesn’t matter if it’s a flat or pitched roof. The new eaves cannot exceed the existing.

Yes. The only difference with PA is the increased depth from 3m to 6m or 4m to 8m.

The ceiling height is irrelevant. The height of the eaves should not exceed existing. So if you comply with that, then that’s one requirement met. An extension with a depth more than 4m requires Prior Approval. An extension with a max. depth of 4m is usually PD.

It doesn’t matter. It didn’t need to be an FD anyway.

The Planning and Building Regulation rules differ.