DevilDamo

@puntloos With all the various posts in relation to layouts, regulations, processes, etc... what exactly is your architect doing or advising upon? The majority, if not all of these this would normally be dealt with by them. Are they literally just a draughts(wo)man and have been instructed/paid as such?

Any alteration to a roof that is forward of the front elevation cannot normally be carried out under PD. Outbuildings themselves cannot be installed forward of the front elevation should you end up considering a replacement. A formal Planning application would in my opinion be required and should have no issues in being approved.

I appreciate LPA’s vary up and down the country but a bat survey amongst other reports and surveys are normally validation requirements. So these would be “ticked off” prior to the formal registration of the application as opposed to being brought up at the end. That is of course assuming the LPA are efficient. If changes are required during the formal determination process and of which are considered to be minor, the LPA should be able to accept revised drawings, which replace the previous. If the changes required are considered to be material, the LPA in most cases would have to re-notify the neighbours along with other consultees and may request an extension of time. Again, this is all assuming the ‘efficiency’ of the LPA.

Just don’t indicate any rooflights or dormers to the roof planes along with not providing them with a second floor plan. As and when you come to order the attic trusses, make sure there are allowances for double/triple trusses for any future openings.

@ProDave If the LPA have their CIL policy and charging scheme in place, they’d be very much interested in the additional floor space created via a loft conversion. Although self-build developments can claim exemption, the newly created floor areas would still need to be tabulated and the relevant forms submitted in order to benefit from the exemption.

Assuming they’ve quoted you for the larger length, then there must already be saving (to them) for a slightly smaller extension? Instead of agreeing to the smaller extension, establish the the additional costs to knock out the wall and form it on the line of where it should be. The existing foundations could probably be re-attached to. The overall costs may well up being more than already agreed and the duration of the project is likely to be extended too.

It would depend on where the boundary line is. If the access shown belongs to the house on the right, then it looks like the neighbouring house is 1m away!?! If so, you can generally have as many windows and openings as you like (under BR’s of course). Any window within 1m would need to be made fire resisting and have no openings so permanently fixed shut. Although those latter requirements may have already been set by Planning anyway.

A bit late into the process on this, so apologies if I end up repeating what others have already said. A contractor can only price and build something for which is shown on drawings and included as part of the specification. That would be their argument. However, the plans would clearly indicate the return wall and the contractor would have allowed for the construction of this wall... from foundations up to wall plate. If they had made any assumptions as to the finish of this wall, then those assumptions should have been clarified and confirmed with you. Not knowing if the garage is attached or detached but if it’s the latter, the ‘house’ elevations would have included that return wall. This would have allowed the detached garage to be shown separately and its position referenced to on site and/or floor plans.

If your Council has the CIL charging scheme/policy in place, you wouldn’t just be able to add a third storey without notifying them. If the Council withdraw your PD rights for loft conversions, then to add on the third storey will require PP. If the overall height of the building is not changing, then just submit an application for a 2.5/3-storey dwelling. The only time these additional floors can pose issues with Planning is overlooking or meeting the off-street parking requirements of which I don’t think the latter is a problem here? 3-storey houses require a protected staircase (or an alternative means of escape). The protected stair is the most common. The top floor needs to lead to a final exit door at ground floor with all those walls and doors forming the landings/halls achieving 30min. fire resistance. It doesn’t matter if you have a spiral but providing it doesn’t lead into or via a habitable room but is part of this protected corridor, then fine. Your architect should know all the rules and regulations.

What’s the reasoning behind the additional landing lobby to Bed 2? Why can’t the door be on the line of the stair wall? The current stair design complies with BR’s but if you’re worried about the space between the last riser and door opening to Bed 2, why don’t you reduce the length of that main flight by introducing some kite winders to the quarter landing? Can the door to Bed 1 be opposite to Bed 2 meaning you can get a full return of wardrobes to the Dressing area? Just a minor furnishing comment but the bed to Bed 2 may be better positioned on the left hand side wall as opposed to against/under the window. If you are going for a second floor either now or later, make sure the sliding/pocket doors to the protected stair can be made fire resisting.

Not sure why your ‘architect’ has specified a floor to ceiling height of 1.8m for a future convertible loft as that wouldn’t even meet the headroom requirement for the new stair. @the_r_sole Three storey houses would require a protected staircase, min. FD20 with intumescent seals or FD30, which are easier and better to fit as well as maintaining their fire resistance throughout the life of the property. Self closers are only required to doors between a dwelling and garage.

But it’s obscured glazed and is in very close proximity to the neighbouring flank wall so offers little, if any light!?! Just seems a little pointless.

What is the point or purpose of the window? Wouldn’t it have been better to just not have it?

It may be a Piccolino thing as they have the motorised/retractable awning at their Virginia Water restaurant too. I’ve just been onto the Council website to see if any supply or manufacturers’ details has been submitted but unfortunately not. You could try getting in contact with the architects who specified it... DGA Architects (01743-272323)

I’m assuming you meant a road? Ive never seen it before. As it appears to be a site plan produced by a third party, it may just be a drawing error as opposed to a symbol representing something from a formal OS map.

Still intrigued to find out what PAN height is...

In what context? Where is that map extract from?

4. CAD Technician, FREE ? That rate is still a lot for an ACIAT in my opinion. Was he or she employed as part of a larger/limited company with overheads, etc...?

Was your current extension built with BR’s or was it exempt? If the latter, the ground floor construction could have been whatever you like. As this new extension will be notifiable, your ground conditions would really dictate your ground floor construction. Building Control should be able to shed some light on this as they’ll know the conditions for the area. Or you could speak to your engineer. Failing that, good old fashioned trial holes would confirm your options. How wide are your bi-folds for them to have 7 panels? If you’re opting for 12.5 degree roof, you may well need Velux’s flashing kits in order to take the angle of their rooflights up to 15 degrees. Don’t let your builder try and make these on site. Check your tiles can also go down that low too. I’d never look to specify anything less than 15 degrees as it just reduces your tile/rooflight options.

Woahhh! £75/hr for a Technician!!! That is a lot especially as they’re not qualified or chartered. I’m in Hampshire and that’s the rate I charge, but I’m a Technologist.

If you were a general and all round builder, I could probably understand why a figure of £30k would be considered reasonable. To me, even for a general builder, it still is very cheap. Do your ground conditions permit traditional strip/trench fill foundations or would they be at a depth for piles to be considered? Is the new ground floor to be a solid ground bearing slab or is a suspended concrete/timber floor required, again due to the ground conditions? What door and window including rooflight configurations do you have? With a 5m span (front to back), you’d probably be looking at a 225mm deep B&B floor, assuming you were gong down that route. Or the other option is to span the floor side to side with sleeper walls and spans of 4m. Your rafters may also be in the region of 225mm deep and could potentially require some flitch or steel beams if you were going for a hipped roof as opposed to a lean-to. You just have quite high first floor window cills in order to accommodate the minimum roof pitch, flashings and rooflights?

Where are you/the property located? Down here in the south, I’d be using a rate of £2k per sq.m so your rear extension alone would be coming in at £120k!!! Even a rate of £1k per sq.m is around £60k. Where did your budget figure of £30k come from?

The OP is proposing a building... attached or not that exceeds 30sq.m so all the other ‘exemption’ criteria is irrelevant. But yes... for conservatories under 30sq.m would need to meet the other exemption rules for them to not require BR approval.

The only advantages are that it would get what you want. Obviously with formal PP, the proposals are reviewed against Planning policy while PD is more a checklist of widths, depths and heights. So yes, of course there is the possibility an application could be refused but is very rare for single storey extensions, especially those that are located towards the rear. During the course of the 8 week determination period, you’d liaise with the PO making sure there are no issues that could warrant a refusal. If there were to be any concerns and depending on how minor they would be, in the majority of situations, PO’s would offer you to submit revised drawings. I’m not sure what you mean about needing windows to match. The majority at ground floor can be installed via PD anyway. When it’s not PD, then again... they’ll check the openings as per Planning policy but more importantly, privacy via overlooking. Ground floor windows on either elevation wouldn’t generally pose any privacy or overlooking issues especially as you could build a 2m high fence between properties without PP. The amount of openings does come under Building Control and could trigger a SAP calculation. Changes to the external appearance via different materials that would not match existing would need to be dealt with via formal PP. Once you have gone through that process, you could build out the PD extension to match those new materials as they would then match existing. Assuming this is a self-build or one you are to live in, you can claim exemption from CIL. There are certain caveats for this and one of them being you should not sell the property within 3 years after completion. If you do sell, you’ll have to pay the CIL for either the full or remaining term. In terms of the submission of applications, you could submit a formal application for the rear infill extension and at the same time, submit a LDC application for the side extension as neither relate to one another. This would result in you only have one 8 week Planning process as opposed to two at 16 weeks.

So is it physically attached as I can’t make it out from the photo? You can install rooflights if there is space to do so. If inserting them to a Bedroom and needing to meet the escape window requirements, they’d have to be positioned quite low, i.e. max. 1.1 above floor level. However, you may find Planning having a few concerns with a lower positioned rooflight in a side roof plane. For windows/rooflights installed in a side elevation, the window would normally need to be obscured and have no openings below 1.7m above floor level. As Planning comes before Building Regulations, the overlooking/privacy issues would have to be dealt with prior to the escape requirements.