Jump to content

Deejay_2

Members
  • Posts

    48
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

Deejay_2's Achievements

Member

Member (3/5)

3

Reputation

  1. Yes, I understand that Planning can't commit themselves with specific advice. We originally (18 months ago) submitted a pre planning application which I had put together myself from plans of the previous two new builds on our access road. The Planning Officer agreed the concept of a two storey dwelling but said the proposal was too bulky which it was as it had the lower 2 storey coachhouse style garage attached to the house via a link. He advised as well that the garage should be detached. Hence our original re-think to split the house and garage. My previous emails explain what happened next when we re-assessed our finances and CIL entered the equation. We'll see what Planning say this time, but I suspect it will still be a no-go. Even if we get approval we shall give ourselves some time to decide whether this is the way forward in the current climate of uncertainty. Thank you for your sound advice.
  2. Hi - Thank you for your thoughts and I do agree with you. The Planning Officer seems unable to comment for some reason and does not answer emails unless they are for a time extension. He has only stipulated single story with no indication of what he believes to be single storey, and used the description "large" but no reference to what he means, (the architect says he means the height). We have asked the PO what height he thinks would be appropriate in an email but no response so we are sending in revised drawings. The current design is the same as one passed recently down the road from us, on a very similar site but they have included demolishing their existing bungalow and are replacing this with a massive house. This is how we started off but then decided to separate the garage/flat from the replacement house to make the proposal less bulky and had plans drawn up for this. Due to changes in the economic environment and our financial situation we spoke to the CIL officer about what our position would be if we were unable to finish the whole development and his advice was to split it into two separate applications, so this is what we are doing and we have started with the double garage and granny flat but seem to have got lost along the way, with little to no advice from the Planning Officer and there have been so many mistakes made by the architect. The projection makes it look like a bungalow I agree, but whereas we started off with rooms above the garage, (more coachouse style) we now have to have the granny part on the ground floor, hence the extra space provided by the projection. The garages will serve the existing bungalow and as stated previously if the bungalow is ever replaced we will have already built the garage, which will sit at the bottom of the garden allowing a more appropriate "cottagey" style property to be built on the bungalow site, with no massive windows etc, which will fit in better than one with a large garage attached. You say you could give your own advice on how to proceed. This advice would be very much appreciated. My ultimate wish is to have somewhere to "be" in later years, where I can have carers, but hopefully not have to end up in a care home - sorry if this sounds morbid. I could easily give up now but deep down feel I'll regret it in years to come (which are approaching rapidly). Thank you for your help.
  3. I think that's probably what they are looking for. We have had to change the roofshape to increase the granny flat aspect so there is a projection at one end ie facing the building which is like yours there is a gable end . I'll try and post it but I need to anonomise is and scan it to my pc so luck will have to be in. Many thanks for your help.
  4. I'll try and do this today all things willing ie printer working, scanner working, my brain working !!!
  5. Yep, I think that sums it up perfectly. We have made the footprint slightly larger and lowered the height of the ridge but the architect still submitted the last lot of plans showing a man standing in the gym bit of the roofspace!! So yes, the height and use of the roofspace are what are bothering the planners.
  6. I agree with what you have said and we did debate changing architects a few months ago but others we approached were all too busy and we had hoped to get approval before the Building regs change in June. We decided to stick with him but this is just for Planning and we'll go elsewhere for our Building Control plans. No chance of hitting that June target date though. I am now concerned about whether the Planning Officer will give us another chance at a revision if we are still too high. The 4.95 m revision will be sent in early next week and I'm wondering after reading Devil Damos post whether we should go in lower, rather than risk the PO saying they are going to refuse permission. I don't know what the process is regarding number of opportunities to revise.
  7. History Original plan was to demolish 1970 bungalow and rebuild with house incorporationg triple garage with granny flat over. Current Situation For various reasons we have decided to split proposal into 2 separate applications, starting with triple garage with granny flat over at the bottom of the garden. Refurb or reconstruction of bungalow to be considered at a later date. Question More and more I am seeing applications for detached garden buildings/garages with rooms at first floor but classing room as hobby room, studio etc. One I saw yesterday down the road from us in the process of construction looked like a bungalow at the bottom of the garden, with a double garage and sunroom, albeit single storey. It has wc and shower and one half was labelled sunroom. Our current plans show a full scale granny flat with internal staircase, bathroom, kitchen and bedroom. The building is 12 m x 7 m x 7m (height). Are we going about this submission in the wrong way. Should we label the first floor accommodation differently ie say it's a hobby room with wc and shower just to help get permission and then could we get change of use somehow at a later date. Intention The intention has always been to provide accommodation for my twilight years and this is what we are going for with the granny flat. However, if there is an easier way of obtaining planning permission then it would be worth considering, but only if we could then apply for change of use at a later date. We are in a Conservation Area and also facing a Listed Building. Has anyone else been in this situation and what was the outcome?
  8. We live in a bungalow that originally had some land on which we received planning permission in 2011 for 2 detached dwellings. One plot we sold and we built on the other. The Rating Officer visited our build and decided it was sufficiently finished to warrant a G banding. I assumed the planning application approval, or maybe Building Control stuff had prompted the visit. We remained in the original bungalow and are now considering building a triple garage at the end of the bungalow garden with a granny flat at first floor level. From earlier posts have I understood correctly that if we decide to refurbish the bungalow ie go up a floor, install insulation, etc, the property won't be rebanded until it is sold. Also, the granny flat when completed will be banded but if only one person lives in it, then there is a 50% discount. (I actually had believed there was no Council tax on a granny flat). So the position would be that the refurbished bungalow would remain in Band E until sold, but we would have additional Council Tax (at 50% discount) on the granny flat. Can anyone confirm this. Lots of thanks.
  9. Hi LNP - I've written to HMRC Enquiries so will post their response (if I get one). I'll also phone the Claim it Back people - thank you for their number. I've spoken to another Vat reclaim company who were 100% certain we would be OK. Strange the employee who I spoke to in the HMRC office that receives the tax reclaim forms didn't know, but that's often the case - she could have been a temp or something - who knows. I do need to make sure we get this right though as it could be a costly mistake for us if we decide to build at a later date but it's all so time consuming!!!
  10. Thank you. At the moment I'm considering carrying on, mainly because it's looking as though we shall initially submit an application for the triple garage and granny flat. I would definitely not be carrying on if we were applying for permission for the whole development. I shall need to ask the architect's permission for someone to use his plans but don't know what this involves as his plans are done on software - would the hardcopy plans he sends me be sufficient for someone to do construction plans from. Also what qualification am I looking for in someone to do the construction plans (are Building Regulation plans and construction plans the same thing?). Many thanks again.
  11. Thank you. What would I need to ask him re using his plans for Building Regs and Construction drawings. He uses software but for some reason my PC won't accept them so we do everything by post (otherwise he'd be having to drive over here constantly with the number of revisions that have had to be made). Would it involve him having to forward some software plans or something. The plans will be on the planning portal if we decide to use him but would they be sufficien for someone to do contruction drawings from (with his permission). Still undecided what to do.
  12. I posted sometime ago to say we had found an RIBA qualified retired architect to undertake our plans. We are restricted in design by Conservation Area status and facing a Grade 11 listed building. We intend to demolish our bungalow and replace with house and triple garage with granny flat over. I seem unable to write a short post, on any subject, so apologise for length of this in advance. The architect was within our price range and I hoped his qualification would "impress" the Planners. Although the plans he has produced look good what worries me is that each time he does a minor revision at my request I literally have to check every detail on his plan as every time there are things missed off or changed. This has taken up hours of my time. I am also constantly reminding him of the requirements listed in the Planning Officer's response to our pre-planning application. He also had no particular knowledge of CIL. I am quite capable of researching this area myself, with the help of this site, but feel, perhaps unreasonably so, that he should be more knowledgeable. The latest example is as follows: We decided as a result of the Planning Officer's comments to split the proposal so that the house will be built where the bungalow currently sits, with the detached triple garage moved to the bottom of the site facing south. At the time of the decision to undertake the change I specifically asked him to check that everything fitted on the site before doing any more plans and I cut and pasted the original plans to fit the site accordingly but am not conversant with turning distances for cars. He seemed to concentrate on the house aspect and the 25 degree rule and I assumed as he was going ahead with the plans for this, the garage was Ok in its new position. Turned out I was wrong and I don't think he had even considered this. He subsequently informed me there is not enough space to turn 90 degrees into the garages. Ok so I said the garage could be sited across the bottom of the garden facing the house, eastwards, and could he check that this fitted - I measured the garden myself to be sure of the size. I cut and pasted again to show how the garage/flat should be laid out to suit the new position. He came back with a plan with the garage in a totally different position which I know the planners would have objected to. So I contacted him again to ask whether there was a planning reason for not doing as I had suggested, and it appeared not as he came back saying the garage would fit across the bottom of the garden. He produced the latest plan with the garage sited facing east, which I received this week and I could see immediately that he had reduced the depth of the roof by one metre, together with missing off windows, doors etc. I phoned him to ask if the reduction in the roof depth was a planning issue (I never receive any explanation for any change) and he said he hadn't realised he had done this so it was a mistake. It is very frustrating having to go over everything with a fine toothcomb every time there is a change (mostly correcting his omissions). The plans are done on software and he provides me with a 3D image of how it will look on site if I ask for it - which is very useful and helps me to visualise how the proposal will look. Due to CIL issues, it now looks as though we shall submit a separate planning application for the triple garage/flat, but he will supply us with plans for the house as well which we will be able to use for a second application in the future. Should I soldier on with the garage plans with him, as we are almost there, and get through Planning. I would not trust him with the house with a second application in the future. Because I have concerns about his "accuracy" would I be able to use someone else for the Building Control plans, and will it be easy to find someone to do this, and what qualification should I be looking for. Or would I be better moving on altogether to someone else and taking the financial consequences on the chin. If so, would an architectural technologist be better as we have the design/plans we like but need someone to ensure they are suitable for the site and might offer some advice re insulation etc when doing the Building Control plans. Any advice would be appreciated.
  13. I have put an update on my original post CIL IMPLICATIONS regarding phoning HMRC. If you would like to follow that thread you will be able to see the eventual outcome!!
  14. This is an update. I phoned the HMRC VAT DIY Builders enquiry line this morning. I explained about our situation regarding the CIL exemption and the advice from our local authority to submit two separate applications ie one for the triple garage/flat and a future one for the demolition and replacement of the bungalow if we decide to go ahead with it. I asked if doing the development this way would affect our eligibility to apply for the VAT refund. The conversation started off positive with her saying initially if there were two applications they would just consider the one for the house - the garage/flat wouldn't concern them. I said that the garage would presumably show up on the plans for the house - she said they don't need a location plan so they wouldn't know about it - all a bit iffy I thought. I pressed on explaining that we would have submitted just one application for the whole development had it not been for the CIL complication but were concerned that by following the advice of the CIL officer we might fall foul of HMRC re VAT reclaim. She then said it would depend on what was written in the planning approval eg if it says in the approval for the house that the garage and house must be sold as one entity, then this would draw their attention and might preclude us from the claim, but that in her role she would have to consult a higher office to get their advice. Well there's no answer to that as I don't have a crystal and am therefore unable to predict the wording of the planning approval. So from positive to negative. I asked who else I could ask for a more positive response and she gave me the address of the VAT written enquiries but said they would probably say the same. I would like to write to them (at least I should have something in writing and it will be seen that I tried to sort this out before applying for planning permission). Does anyone think it's a bad idea to involve HMRC at this stage. Any thoughts much appreciated. I'll post the outcome in the hope it might help someone else.
  15. Hi - thank you for responding. Just to say that we realise we would forgo the VAT reclaim if we build the garage/flat first on a separate application and felt this was worth doing to avoid getting bogged down with the CIL exemption legislation on the whole development. However, we are not sure whether doing it this way will mean we can't reclaim the VAT if and when we submit a further application to demolish and replace the bungalow. Do you have contact details of the further accountant you spoke to. I'd like to try all avenues first before contacting HMRC. Many thanks again.
×
×
  • Create New...