DevilDamo

You would normally have three options... - Non-material amendment - Variation of Condition - Revised Full application (as I assume this didn’t go through as a Householder application) The NMA is the quickest but the LPA do not make it clear as to what is classed as non-material. The VoC is definitely one way but can take up to 8 weeks to be determined. The revised Full application is also another way but again, can take up to 8 weeks to be determined. You’s have to pay application fees for the NMA and VoC applications with the latter being the more expensive. You’d be exempt from having to pay another application fee if you went down the revised application route, providing the re-submission is within 12mths of the previous and you haven’t had a free go on the site in the past. As above, check with the Planning Officer as to how they think the amendments can be dealt with.

For loft or garage conversion, you use the u-values as stated in L1B (Table 3) as attached and not those as stated in in L1B (Table 2). Table 3 is in relation to “Upgrading retained thermal elements” and Table 2 is in relation to “Standards for new thermal elements”. This is why I was trying to think why to upgrade a garage wall for a conversion, you’d need to meet the threshold value of 0.70 or improved value of 0.30 but you wouldn’t apply the same criteria for a porch wall!?!

If like you say both porches and garages exist outside the thermal envelope of a dwelling and are therefore not built to be a part of a dwelling, why would the upgrade of a porch wall need to provide min. 0.28 but the upgrade of a garage wall need to provide min. 0.30?

I agree all elements would need to be insulated to meet current u-values. But why would they need to meet the u-values for ‘new’ thermal elements if the elements are existing and are to be upgraded hence needing to meet the threshold or improved u-values?

That’s for a new element, so wouldn’t they relax the requirement as it’s more of an upgrade/renovation... similar to a garage conversion where a threshold u-value of 0.7 and/or improved u-value of 0.3 are required?

Oooh! So the gate is solely access to their property? Didn’t realise and thought there was some kind of shared or dual access to each property. Tbh, the additional photo is probably irrelevant anyway. Just wait and see if they decide to proceed with the works in the future and contact the Council as and when that happens.

Thanks but doesn’t really help much ? Any chance of one with the gate open so we can try and identify the boundary line?

I mentioned the garden as the place to take a photo of the rear of the houses to identify the boundary line. Do you have a photo of the rear from the yard or behind the gate?

I have seen that mentioned. Surely your side wall did not straddle the boundary line so your wall is solely within your boundary? The eaves and gutter may overhang but ignore that for the time being. Irrespective of the PWA, a neighbour cannot connect to or use a part of your wall without your consent. The way they’d get around this would be to build a separate and therefore independent wall, which would run parallel with yours. The excavations for that wall may indeed trigger requirements under the PWA. Do you have a photo from the garden looking back towards the house?

This is partly the reason why LPA’s do not like PD as they lose that control over the design. I suppose the only option is for your friends is to submit and secure CoL approval with these ‘ugly’ extensions. Then go back to the LPA with a formal application with something more in keeping and less of an overall increase than the PD scheme. Some support via a Planning Consultant may help in their case and if your friends offered this ‘what they want’ scheme along with potential removal of Class A rights, then the LPA may be willing to compromise.

Let the Council deal with that situation if and when it happens. With the vast amount of advice you have received here and other forums, you’re pretty much armed with as much as you can for if and when the neighbour does go through with it.

Just wait to see if/when you receive notification from the Planning department about an application having been submitted. As mentioned before, as the proposals would connect onto your your wall, the neighbour would have to serve notice on your prior to or upon submission of the application to which you will have 21 days to comment. If you do not receive a notice, get in contact with the Planning department direct because the applicant may in the background tell and confirm to them that none of his development will physically connect to yours. To get around this, he may look at retaining a small gap between the edge of this so-called balcony and your wall and in effect create a cantilever. If the neighbour proceeds with the works without Planning, then you’d be in your right mind to get in contact with the Council. They would request an application be submitted or advise enforcement action will be taken.

@Gummo What do you mean he wants to install decking over his single storey extension? Is he thinking about using the flat roof as a terrace/balcony? The bit you’ve shown in orange, is he proposing some kind of covered area or more like an enclosed structure? Depending on what your neighbour is proposing and if it needs Planning, they’d have to formally serve notice on you as they’re proposing to use a part of your wall for their development.

Your LPA does have many SPG’s, which will probably provide the answers to your questions... https://www.denbighshire.gov.uk/en/resident/planning-and-building-regulations/local-development-plan/ldp-spg/ldp-supplementary-planning-guidance.aspx In particular, they have SPG’s relating to Parking Requirements In New Developments, Residential Development and Residential Development Design Guide.

You mentioned the original Outline Planning has expired. Is that because the Reserved Matters application was not submitted and approved within the timeframe set? Are you also saying you are going through the process of submitting another Outline application? If this is the case and Outline consent had already been granted in principle, why not proceed with the submission of a Full application? Or were you looking at selling the plot with Outline Planning in place? Each LPA would or ‘should’ have its own policy guidelines along with supplementary guidance documents. Those would stipulate rules and guidance relating to the citing of properties, amenity/privacy/daylight and parking requirements. If you choose to seek the Council’s Pre-application advice, you would more than likely get the answers to your questions. That is of course assuming your LPA offer that service as some around my way do not. Btw, what is your Local Planning Authority?

The LPA haven’t yet seen any scaled drawings though so they wouldn’t be able to fully comment until those have been provided. A Planning Consultant would also need the same. No point in talking about appeal until you have at least gone through the formal Planning process. You can submit an application (with scaled drawings) along with a supporting statement by a consultant if you’d like. If that is refused, look at making some changes to suit the LPA’s concerns, which shows you are willing and re-submit taking advantage of a free go. If that’s refused, then look at taking it to appeal along with supporting from a PC.

Without any drawings, I can’t see how a Planning Consultant would be able to provide anymore advice than what the LPA have done to date!?! Why not first think about instructing somebody to draw up some proposals first and then seek Pre-application advice or advice from a PC or even proceed with a formal application. Bear in mind the latter may well trigger requirements under CIL if your LPA has indeed adopted the policy, which can lead to additional financial implications.

Yes as it would exceed 30sq.m.

As @Big Jimbo said, the PWA would normally apply as a result of the excavations, not any physical structure. Btw, what’s “Wass”?

Under PD, as close as you want. There may be some requirements under the Party Wall etc Act. In terms of the new foundation and unless site conditions dictate otherwise, the depth is approx. 1m below ground level. If you have a couple of courses up to your rear doors from patio/garden level, the depth would be in the region of 1.15m-1.2m below internal floor level. If it is to be a lightweight structure, you may be ok without traditional strip/trench fill foundations and more of a raft slab with a thicker toe but that’s for Building Control to confirm.

I've never heard of that anagram and don't say you just came up with that!?! ?

@joe90 I'm trying to think how or why it would make any difference if the garage did or did not have full Planning? If the garage was attached to the dwellinghouse, then Class A would apply but the fact it's detached, Class E applies irrespective of its Planning history... or am I reading this wrong? This is why I was under the impression for any building that is to be physically attached to an outbuilding, the PD rules for Class E would apply to the resulting building(s). With the garage having a maximum height of 4m, this would be ok providing the LPA agree the resulting building(s) have a dual pitched/gable roof because if not, the overall height is limited to 3m. In terms of Building Regulations and again, if they too treat the building(s) as outbuildings then as the resulting internal footprint would exceed 30sq.m, then BR's would apply!?! Because this is not that clear and the online guidance doesn't go into detail for such individual cases, I feel the only option is for the OP to submit an application... trying with a CoL first. If this is refused, then the OP would have to submit a HH application, which would result in application fees totalling £309.00. Or the OP just proceeds with the submission of a HH application for £206.00 and get it approved... which I can't see initially why they wouldn't do anything but.

...ish ?‍♂️

I’ve recently been involved something similar and convinced the client to run the new wall perpendicular with his rear wall as opposed to parallel with the neighbours’ garage wall, as attached.

@joe90 My theory is if you are joining onto an existing outbuilding, then the resulting outbuilding, i.e. existing and new would have to comply with the PD rules. This is where in this case the OP may have to check the existing garage in addition to the workshop extension complies with the heights, etc... With the workshop having a lean-to roof design and the garage having a gable roof, I don’t think you could argue the outbuilding would have a dual pitched/gable roof. This is why I think the overall height of the resulting outbuilding is limited to 3m, i.e. any other roof.