DevilDamo

What is the BCO’s reasoning behind this?

I think it’s setting really does spoilt it. Although I’m not massively against this style and design, it’s just cited in the wrong place. I’m sure once the landscaping has been completed along with any other elevational treatments, it will look better but not great. Completely agree with the bolt on timber clad extensions ? I was trying to find examples of similar designs we were involved with at my previous company. Something ‘quite’ similar is attached but I suppose it does have a little more character.

Like with all policies, they are open to interpretation and LPA’s use them to their advantage as and when it suits them. I don’t think the NPPF reference in this situation carried much (if any) weight in the overall determination of the application. As you will be aware, LPA’s will always look to take a stricter view within the Green Belt, AGLV, AONB, etc...

The first attachment you attached was the Decision Notice for the S73 application (Ref. 20/00735/S73A). The Decision Notice for the first application (Ref. 19/01133/FUL) is here... https://www.southsomerset.gov.uk/civica/Resource/Civica/Handler.ashx/Doc/pagestream?cd=inline&pdf=true&docno=9232702 The only reason I mentioned it was in relation to your Paragraph 79 of the NPPF comment. Even though S73 applications are in their entirety full and replacement applications, in some instances, all or the majority of the conditions and informatives are only included on the original application. Having had a look at both approvals, they are more or less identical, which is what you’d expect for a VoC application. Going back to the NPPF comment, this has been mentioned within the Officers’ Report for the original application along with the Committee Report (your third attachment), in particular Page 24. The reports state “there would be no unacceptable conflict with the aims and objectives of the NPPF in terms of the development of isolated new homes in the countryside...”. The Decision Notices then do make ‘some’ reference to that but only in the form of their standard condition responses “...and relevant guidance within the NPPF”. So after all that and to summarise, yes... Paragraph 79 of the NPPF has been complied with ?

A ‘minor material’ amendment as the OP mentioned is different to a ‘non-material’ amendment as you mentioned.

*still waiting in anticipation* ?

Even with PD rights removed does not stop them applying to convert and/or extend the loft. It just means the Council can control the development and decide whether or not to grant approval. For the LPA to have included that condition does imply that any formal Planning application is likely to be refused. However, the LPA may have seen that a two storey extension along with a loft conversion/extension as substantial works. Now they have completed the extension, the addition of the loft conversion works now phase 1 has been completed may soften the LPA’s approach.

A carbon monoxide alarm would only normally be required to rented properties and to rooms that contain any appliance which burns, or is capable of burning, solid fuel. This may therefore not apply in this situation and a min. Grade D2 Category LD3 system would be required.

All of this just to accommodate a larger and more usable Garage? Or were you also thinking about extending and altering the rear anyway?

@Ferdinand The first and third documents attached do not appear to relate. The first attachment is a Section 73 (Varying of Condition) application. The third attachment is the Committee Report of which Sarah’s application is referred to but not the actual S73 application. Or am I misunderstanding something?

Looks to be around 840mm to the opening so that’s ok. If the window stays open to a point where it provides the min. escape requirements then no need to change the hinges. As you have a 750mm wide opening, you would only need 450mm at the base.

Oh gawd, I don’t know ? The main BR requirements for what I’m involved with haven’t changed ‘much’ so just tend to stick with stuff I know. If I am wrong, Building Control will soon tell me ? @alex199 Your opening dimensions appear to comply as they provide a clear openable area of 0.5. How high is the cill above floor level as it should not exceed 1.1m? As for the hinges, Paragraph 3.6d states... ”Windows should be capable of remaining open without being held.” So you would need to replace the existing hinges.

The majority of escape windows have parliament style hinges so as the window opens, it does not compromise the escape clearance. It’s those kind of situations where the clear opening can be measured straight through. Where you have windows of which the back edge starts pulling in away from the jamb, this will reduce the ‘straight through’ clear opening and which is why you’d apply the angled approach. When the window is open, will it provide a clear opening of min. 450mm wide x 750mm high in addition to the window meeting the other requirements? Your Bedroom should meet Paragraph 3.7e (Page 20). It doesn’t matter if it was a single dwelling house and is now a flat as similar rules for both situations apply. But the rules prior to the conversion works may have been different. There are still a lot of older flatted properties with Bedrooms that rely on going through a Living area to reach the front door.

@alex199 There are some alterations you could carry out which would enlarge the Hall. This would involve pushing the door into the Kitchen further into the Kitchen, more or less aligning with the external wall to the Living Room. Then have the door between the Hall and Living Room closer to the Kitchen end... if that makes sense. But a bit of a ball ache to have to carry out those alterations at this stage in the process. But as you’re selling, would it really be the end of the world if a door did go on as it’d be then up to the new owner should they decide to remove it? Or a sliding/pocket door could also work. @Mr Punter As stated under Paragraph 0.1... ”This approved document has been published in two volumes. Volume 1 deals solely with dwellings, including blocks of flats, while Volume 2 deals with all other types of building covered by the Building Regulations.”

I assume this is a forever home as you are not likely to get your money back for the works you’re proposing? Just something to bear in mind that the majority of LPA’s state garages to be at least 3m wide x 6m long and this is more than enough for your average car. Bear in mind supermarket parking bays are usually 2.4m wide x 4.8m long. Is the side wall to the Utility your neighbours’ wall as you mentioned about needing to connect to it in order to achieve the required space? If so, how feasible is it going to be to pull this ‘party’ wall forward?

The creation of new dwellings have a far more rigorous Planning process than extensions or additions to provide certain uses, especially within the Green Belt. Only in situations where Very Special Circumstances can be provided will help get you there.

So to summarise... the top image is what you had, the bottom image is what you have now and the BCO has asked for a door to be provided/reinstated between the Living Room and Hall? If this is the case, it sounds like the BCO is trying to make sure there is a protected escape from the Bathroom or Kitchen to the communal stair/lobby. However, both Bathrooms and Kitchens are not considered to be inner rooms (ADB, Volume 1, Paragraph 3.7) so having the open plan Living Room as the ‘access room’ in my opinion should be permitted. There is the other case of the escape from the Bedroom only being possible via the Living Room. However, this can be overcome should the Bedroom have a window that meets the means of escape requirements (ADB, Volume 1, Paragraph 3.6). Can you ask the BCO the reasoning for wanting the separation?

I too would fit one. But as the OP’s question asked do they ‘need’ one then no, they don’t. It’s an optional but worthwhile installation.

Where is Appendix F? Or do you mean ADF and Paragraphs 7.11-7.15? If so, paragraph 7.12a makes reference to Table 5.2a and a note under ‘Intermittent extract’ states... “Intermittent extract rates are given in Table 5.1a. For sanitary accommodation only, as an alternative, the purge ventilation provisions (windows) given in Appendix B can be used where security is not an issue” So to me that reads mechanical extract is not required if an openable window can be!?!

What vehicle are you wanting to park in there?

When did that change as it appears the last amendment was in 2013? Guidance on the Planning Portal states... ”For toilets only, ‘purge ventilation’ (an opening window/door on an external wall) meeting the requirements specified in Appendix 2 of ‘Approved Document F - Ventilation’ can instead be used to provide ventilation if security is not an issue.”

Ah! I’m just over the BVR in A’shot ?

LPA’s would consider whether or not proposals are considered to be inappropriate development within the Green Belt. The proposals would of course have to be reviewed against Planning policy and LPA’s do have different rules and regulations relating to the GB. The shower room is interesting as some LPA’s take a different and stricter view. I’m also quite sure they’re not actually allowed via PD but would need to check that. From a BR point of view, they would not be that concerned about the provision of an annexe as they’re just there to make sure the habitable space is BR compliant. There could be issues should Building Control speak to Planning, especially if you were going down the PD route. I’ve had experience with one LPA that said absolutely no to an annexe, which was in that case an extension to the main dwelling. Their argument was that it ‘could’ be turned into and used as a self contained unit and they couldn’t control it as such. I begged to differ but they wouldn’t budge so we ended up withdrawing the application. Another situation I came across with a different LPA granted approval for an annexe but asked the applicant to agree and enter into a legal agreement. This specifically stated the annexe can never be used, let or sold as an independent self contained unit. I think it does boil down to the actual LPA.

Welcome! Where in Surrey are you from?