garrymartin

It's a conversion I believe.

@phykell has already mentioned this is another thread where the council's legal team have mentioned it, but Emin v Secretary of State for the Environment (1989) is regularly mentioned in relation to this. From an example appeal... "12. Both parties refer to the case of Emin which confirmed that that regard should be had not only to the use to which the Class E building would be put, but also to the nature and scale of that use in the context of whether it was a purpose incidental to the enjoyment of the dwellinghouse. The physical size of the building in comparison to the dwellinghouse might be part of that assessment but is not by itself conclusive." This is the part I think they are relying on, but in relation to a garage and swimming pool, I think they'd lose at appeal. A three-bay garage isn't huge by today's standards, and unless it's an Olympic size swimming pool, they'd be hard pressed to argue that the use isn't incidental because of its size.

If I'm reading it correctly, the issue is more one of dominance. So it's the "genuinely subordinate" element that is probably more of an issue rather than the "incidental enjoyment". After all, both garages and swimming pools are listed as examples in Class E so I think they'd struggle to argue the "incidental enjoyment" argument... Can you create two buildings? A three-bay garage and a swimming pool block? Combining them into one building might cause issues if in size it then becomes difficult to distinguish it from the main dwellinghouse.

How big is the "dwellinghouse" in comparison if they feel the outbuilding will not be "genuinely subordinate" as is required under PD rights?

It makes perfect logical sense really. If you enlarged the red line during the process, consultees who may have thought "that won't affect me" or "that won't impact on x" based on the original plan might well feel aggrieved. Also, fees for some applications are based on the application site size, so enlarging it might mean more fees. Alternatively, as you're finding now, reducing it might have it's own problems. Natural England might have responded based on the original site and sizing for BNG and a smaller site may have different opportunities... I can't see any situation where changing the red line plan would not warrant going back to consultees even if their responses remained the same.

+1 They're so cheap, why wouldn't you?

My understanding is that any change to the red line plan would restart the process.

Unless you want to take advantage of any VAT savings on the garage and on the landscaping (assuming you submitted a landscape plan with your application)...

It depends on the type of application you are making. If it's an outline application, or it's Permission in Principle, it's based on the site area. If it's a full application, it's the first submission of reserved matters against an outline application, or it's a Technical Details Consent application, then it's per dwellinghouse. In your example, that would be 3 dwellinghouses. https://ecab.planningportal.co.uk/uploads/english_application_fees.pdf

Yes. Where is the VCL in relation to where you want radio signals to travel anyway? Different Unifi access points also have different wireless characteristics. I have two LR (long-range) access points, one in the garage and one in the garden room. They have a more horizontal spread from a signal perspective, so work for longer ranges on a single horizontal plane (the ground floor). In the house, I have a Pro access point on the landing that serves all of the house quite happily. I don't have a metallic VCL, but I can't imagine any scenario where an access point would be required in every room.

🤣 Fair comment. Though the tables don't have the same numbers in them... 😉

Not sure that helps loads - it's an old document and for Northern Ireland...

I think we've inadvertently confused the hell out of @Harry13 Harry, just make sure to use C24 timber! 🤣

I'm clearly doing something wrong or fundamentally misunderstanding the calculations. I've just repeated my roof calculations as follows; 12.5mm plaster + skim = 0.2 kn/m2 XPS insulation = 0.04 kn/m2 18mm plywood = 0.1 kn/m2 1.52mm EPDM = 0.02 kn/m2 The total for that is 0.36 kn/m2 so well below 0.5 kg/m2. @DevilDamo Am I doing something wrong or misunderstanding some part of the calculations? Or is it just we didn't clarify what the proposed roof make-up was?

I suppose we should have asked what the roof make-up would be. Pretty sure when I did the calculations for my roof, the dead load was less than 0.5 kn/m2 for 18mm plywood, EDPM, internal 12.5mm plasterboard, skim, and insulation. Do you have something that would give me some advice on when to use 0.5, 0.75, and 1.0 ratings? Is there any specific roof make-ups to dead load comparisons?

I'm lost??? Is there perhaps something I'm misunderstanding in the tables? The first table clearly shows a 5.00m clear span for a 47x220mm C16 @ 400 centres (Table 7.1) and the second table shows a 4.89m clear span for a 47x220mm C16 @ 400 centres (Table 7.3)

Do you have a link to the Trada tables you're looking at? Perhaps the parameters are different? I've assumed access for maintenance and repair only. Are you also looking at the "clear span" of approximately 4.7m? These two links are Eurocode 5 compliant spans (as per Trada); https://www.taylormaxwell.co.uk/uploads/files/D.100.01-01_C16-Span-Tables_Design_Span-Tables.pdf https://www.taylormaxwell.co.uk/uploads/files/D.100.02-01_C24-Span-Tables_Design_Span-Tables.pdf

Using C16 timber, 47 x 220mm (roughly 2x9) will suffice for the clear span you will have and will allow you to be more efficient with your insulation. "3x9" is indeed overkill. If internal height is an issue, then moving to 63 x 195mm C16 will give you an extra "inch" but will reduce insulation performance. You could also use C24 timber, allowing 47 x 195mm or 63 x 170mm. See https://www.timberbeamcalculator.co.uk/en-gb/span-table/flat-roof-joists?load=0.75&class=C16 for C16 and https://www.timberbeamcalculator.co.uk/en-gb/span-table/flat-roof-joists?load=0.75&class=C24 for C24 timber.

Depends on the LPA. I'm just getting a Preliminary Ecological Assessment done and the LPA won't accept a report that is more than 12 months old; has to be re-done.

Perhaps worth reminding your wife that glazing below 850mm doesn't aid views or daylight much, and ends up costing more... 😉 Do you need three sets of sliders? Would reducing the overall height of some of the openings put the National Landscapes chappie more at rest without diminishing the views you cherish or requiring other conditions?

Amazed that the planning officer isn't up in arms about the amount of glazing to be honest given it's a barn conversion. I didn't even think such a radical change with regard to window openings was allowed...

Self-build is exempt... Self-build and custom build applications An exemption applies to this type of development when it meets all the following conditions:   consists of no more than 9 dwellings on a site that has an area no larger than 0.5 hectares    consists exclusively of dwellings that are self-build or custom housebuilding as defined in section 1(A1) of the Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015

Were they not submitted as part of the planning permission? If they were, you can likely download them from your LPA website.

I find the site search is pretty rubbish. I used Google, with the search term 'mbc duct harris site:buildhub.org.uk' - using site:buildhub.org.uk limits the search to just pages from this site.

This one?