DevilDamo

Option 2 is as per the top of Page 20 and this is the route I went down. It specifically mentions a side wall and not a rear wall. However, you could argue Option 1 isn’t that dis-similar to the top of Page 25. As LPA’s interpret and read the guidance differently, I didn’t want to risk something along the lines of Option 1 as time was not on our side. However and if time is on your side… try it. Obviously means the client would end up paying two lots of £128.00 plus the PP service charge fees.

They can build right up to but nothing can overhang (without you being notified).

Although I am pretty sure Option 1 would comply, I played it safe with one LPA and submitted Option 2 via a LDC which was agreed. So I’d suggest proceeding with the latter.

Building Control authorities set their own fees. Some charge more for BN applications as it usually ends up BC needing to offer more advice/guidance than those who have been through the FP route.

But you have objected so that is an objection against the proposed development. Unless you have submitted a comment and referred to the parking issue?

The LPA will not approve something that does not work. It doesn’t matter who has been allocated to deal with the application as reports are still reviewed prior to being formally determined. You have objected and that is enough.

The description of the proposed works is still correct. The parking statement is now not correct. The LPA will not request for an amended application form to be submitted. They will address the lack of curtilage parking within their report.

Has the room always been a Bedroom because if so, why does it need insulating at all?

Why has it not yet been signed off?

Correct. It just means you require formal Planning and the proposal will be reviewed against Planning policies. If your LPA have policies which relate to building infront of the notional building line, then you should check those before applying.

@kandgmitchell On the assumption the LPA advise a particular change could be included on a NMA application, then the determination period and application fee are very different to that of a VoC application. Planning Officers can sometimes be helpful in that regard.

A demolition and re-build would be treated as a new structure and as that would be forward of the principal elevation of the house, it would require Planning.

If that was always the case, what would be the point of a NMA application? There isn’t a strict definition of what constitutes a non-material amendment and each LPA will review it on a case by case basis.

Not necessarily. This is why you turn to professionals to advise but even those can offer incorrect or misleading advice. If in doubt, ask… which is what you have done.

Just to note, a S73 relates to a Variation or Removal of Condition application. A S96A relates to a Non-material amendment application. The application forms asks you for the relevant information so there isn’t anything different or unusual in that respect. The application would usually be accompanied with the original/approved and new drawings so the LPA can review and compare the changes.

The only way to know is to expose it.

Can you not ask the original designer to do it? Whoever does it will have to factor in the new dormer over the garage will not look the same as the other. Primarily because where the dormer roof meets the main roof.

This is why in the majority of situations, they know how to fit windows but are not aware of the rules or requirements.

As well as CIL if the OP’s LPA has a policy.

Limited or delayed contact from any party is one of my bugbears. I’d usually chase after a week and then every other day after that. So I’d therefore suggest you follow up again after 10 days to see what’s what.

I’ve never understood why people have 2-panel bi-fold doors, which are in theory French doors. Bi-folds traditionally work with a minimum of 3 panels. I’d therefore suggest sticking with French doors or increase to 3 panels where the outer one would be on a tilt opening.

It probably doesn’t matter. A couple of other forum sections may also give you the same answers… https://forum.buildhub.org.uk/forum/29-roofing-lofts/ https://forum.buildhub.org.uk/forum/26-structural-works-foundations-demolition/

You won’t have the headroom to position a compliant staircase in that position. The new stair would have to follow the profile of the garage roof slope so would start from the rear and the final step/landing would be near the middle of the ridge. So unless you don’t mind losing some width from the garage, then that is an option.

You would need a lintel to modify the brick wall opening and the whole job would appear to be a lot of work for minimal gain as you would need to insulate the floor and walls. Why not just have an arched window or door that is of the same profile as the brick arch but position the opening on the main/pink wall line?

Just be aware the Planning and Building Regulation policies, rules and requirements are a lot different for a new dwelling as opposed to an extension.