DevilDamo

@Jack757 Why have you sat on it for 3 years, finances? So your replacement dwelling will be bigger in footprint and volume. You’d need to check your LPA’s policies for the allowable uplift. And yes, the LPA can remove PD rights following grant of a Planning application. They cannot remove buildings which already exist. Architects are in most ways designers and will look at along with dealing with the proposals in comply with Planning and Building Regulations. Planning Consultants are those who specialise in the Planning rules, regulations, phases and potential loopholes. As mentioned above, you can find one via the RTPI website. There may also be some who have helped others in the past via the LPA’s website.

@Jack757 So your “site” is within the Green Belt and any development within the site will be assessed against its impact on the Green Belt. Back to your original question and as I have already mentioned, it’s always advisable to implement PD works first. And also as mentioned, that “could” go against you for the Full application. Unless your Architect is competent in doing so, speak to and seek advice from a Planning Consultant. They can also prepare a Supporting Statement to accompany the Full application. And btw, the LPA would need very good reasons to withdraw all PD rights, even those that relate to Class E. Especially if like you say the replacement dwelling is similar to the existing. Unless you did mean the new footprint will be similar but there will be increased bulk and volume?

And what is your site boundary?

Can you upload a plan which shows the relationship of the GB boundary to your property and site?

Is the garden within the curtilage of the original dwelling?

The GB allowance would be a factor if the existing bungalow is a replacement in the past, has been extended since it was originally built or when the GB policies came into effect. The LPA can withdraw PD rights following the grant of a Full application. The LPA cannot ask for previous works to be removed. And btw, the plot size doesn’t have an affect on the GB allowance. It’s a percentage of the original building(s).

It’s always advisable to implement your PD works first. However, even if you did that… the area/volume of the outbuilding would still count towards the Green Belt allowance when you come to formally apply for the replacement dwelling. You would be best speaking to and engaging a Planning Consultant so they can review and advise the appropriate phasing.

If only we could predict that, especially when some pick up on works carried out back in the 80’s without the relevant approvals!!! But also, the condition would be seen and included as a land charge and “is” something a solicitor would pick up on.

Then Parish Council’s wouldn’t have any work to do at their monthly meetings 😉

The new purchasers’ solicitor.

@qamar Ok. A Larger Homes Extension is different. It’s a halfway house between Permitted Development and Householder Planning. However, one of the caveats of the that type of application is that the proposed materials should be similar to the existing house. So if the existing house is brick, then the extension cannot be render. Some Local Planning Authorities are better and more proactive with that than others. Your comment/objection can be on the basis that the proposed materials should match existing. Unless of course you are more concerned about the overall impact the extension will have on your outlook, privacy and daylight?

Irrelevant for the LPA and/or PI (at present).

@qamar The application form and/or drawings should have something about the proposed materials. I wasn’t aware the application hasn’t yet been determined and in which case Planning Enforcement is not an option (yet).

If it is shown to be rendered and is left untouched, then technically they have not built in accordance with the approved information. You could then look to engage Planning Enforcement. However, the neighbour “could” turn round and say the works are not yet complete. That would be a little more difficult to argue if they have been issued with a Building Control Completion Certificate. As a side note, some block walls are not spec’d to be left exposed to the elements. Should the blocks not be suitable, then that would cause the neighbour more harm. If nothing is done to the wall, could you make it look more pleasing by adding battens, trellis, planting, etc…?

Suppose that does work with a rendered block wall as per the OP’s situation.

Unless it was to massively improve the u-value, I don’t know why internal wall insulation was even specified in conjunction with a 100mm cavity. May also working out the cost and time difference between IWI and wider lintels.

I’m sure they’re well aware of “their” duties then as that now brings them in as part of the dutyholder role.

Not like that anymore.

1. It depends on what is/was the original house footprint. 2. Only to the rear and providing you comply with the other PD requirements. 3. Assume you’re referring to the Garage being on the side? If so, anything above it will require Planning and you would ultimately lose those GB views. But the question may be whether you “need to” extend there. An architectural designer may be able to advise on a suitable design option which helps meet all yours and the LPA’s requirements.

https://forum.buildhub.org.uk/topic/40874-bungalow-permitted-development-advice/

Somebody would need to speak to the Planning Officer and whether it will require updated drawings or the withdrawal and re-submission of another application. Bear in mind the latter will attract additional application fees.

The LDC process will include a site visit. And they may also check the CIL situation as some notices need to be submitted within a certain period after completion.

You’ve answered your own question. PD rights and therefore a LDC application to confirm PD proposals come into force upon substantial completion of the property, which is usually BR sign off.

You could do but that would definitely result in two applications and two fees, but would be dealt with within 8wks. If you submit Option 1 and that was approved, then you wouldn’t need to do anything with Option 2 along with saving another application and fee.

Not at all. You would both end up having to design eccentrically loaded foundations.