Deejay_2

Hi We received planning permission on 14 July for double garage with attached habitable area for "granny" and yes it does look like a small bungalow. We managed to apply for Building Regs before the 15 June date when regulations changed. We have three pre-commencement conditions 1 Structural calcs (Part A) roof trusses. We are not having pre manufactured roof trusses and I'm not sure who I would ask to provide these calculations. Do Building Control normally ask for calcs for a "stick" roof. Is this a job for the structural engineer. The guy who did the drawings is not being very helpful so not sure who to approach and Building Control seem to have gone to ground for the summer. 2 Drainage (Part H) H4 Build over agreement. I contacted the Water Authority a while ago who sent me a map and application form to join a nearby foul sewer which we intend doing at some point. There was no mention of a build over agreement and the sewer is much further away than the 3 metres minimum distance required by the Water Authority. The sewer connection will be on a public footpath. Has anyone else come across this and does anyone think I should just apply for the agreement anyway? (Water Authority also on a go slow ie no response). 3 Details regarding Part L - As Design SAPS, as Built Saps and EPC. I contacted our local authority Building Control to point out the description appearing on the approval notice (and presumably other records) is for a bungalow with a double garage which is incorrect and in no way matches the description on the drawings which is "Garage with dependant relative accommodation". I explained that the proposal is not for a separate dwelling and is principally a double garage with a bit added on for me, which would receive its services via the existing bungalow. In the absence of the author of the approval his colleague confirmed that the title would be changed and that as the proposal was not a separate dwelling we would not require to fulfil Condition 3 - SAPS and EPC. Had I not queried the description I would have been non the wiser. I have still not received an amended approval or confirmation of the advice given. Has anyone else come across this situation. I have included this here as information for anyone else undergoing a similar proposal. Any advice/observations on the above (particularly the roof question) would be very much appreciated. Footnote: We hope to get the footings in before the one year transition period is up in June 2023. I have a question about the feasibility of this but will post it in the appropriate thread.

2 months later. The Planning Officer decided he had to readvertise the application. No objections received and plans passed. The whole experience with both the architect and Planning has been a farce and I'm glad it's behind us now. I employed someone else to do the Building Regulation plans and took the risk of submitting them before we had planning approval (although the PO had said he was going to support the plans). They were submitted to BC before the 15th June so we will have 12 months to start the build under the previous Building Regulations. The experience with the guy who did the BR plans was a wholly different ball game and he was a pleasure to deal with. The approved proposal has a roof height of 5 metres with no staircase, rooflights etc but in all honesty I think we could have gone higher. I've come to the conclusion that the PO just wanted single storey as in no staircase, no velux windows, no shower room etc. We're happy with the result and there are no conditions attached as such. Thank you all for your comments. I shall have a stream of questions which I'll post on the relevant threads.

Your last paragraph is the exact solution I was looking for - thank you so much. So we can use our combi boiler with an indirect cylinder. The cylinder water will be heated by the boiler but should we end up with no gas for any reason we shall have an immersion heater to fall back on. This will still require a header tank and may also require a pump for the shower. I now know what to discuss with the plumber. I have spent quite sometime researching the options but your post has fitted the jumble into something I can understand. Can you let me know if I have misunderstood anything. I'm so grateful.

OK. We appear to be in a hard water area according to the Yorkshire Water postcode search. I've taken samples of both hot and cold water and no sediment whatsoever after an hour. I would say it's definitely sand in the incoming hot water pipe in the shower as it is red in colour and looks and feels like sand plus the plumber said it is sand but offered no explanation. We have a Brita filter kettle so can't see the bottom, but I seem to remember with other kettles having build up of calcium type stuff in the bottom. Is it possible to continue using the combi boiler and have the vented cylnder as a completely separate entity but use it a few times a week to keep the water moving. Or as you seem to be saying, could we convert the boiler to a heat only boiler (central heating) and use the cylinder for all our hot water as gas is no longer cheaper than electricity. I'm not sure what the difference is now as we are still on a fixed rate until next year - stroke of luck really. I would prefer the simplest way possible and am not sure about the complexity of an unvented cylinder. We shall be reviewing our heating and water requirements in the future when we refurbish the bungalow so this is an intermediate measure as I am not comfortable being totally reliant on gas for our dhw. Thank you for your advice which was very helpful. Any further thoughts would be appreciated.

We intend refurbishing our bungalow sometime in the future. In the meantime we have a 12 year old Worcester Bosch combi boiler which is serviced annually and seems to be working well. We have a recurring problem with our 3 year old Mira Mini Duo shower which started to "scream" when the water became hot and over time the flow reduced. Plumber said we needed a new thermostat (£300+). I sourced, he fitted. Problem remained. He removed the whole thermastatic valve from the pipe inlets in the shower and it turned out to be sand in the hot water inlet. So new valve redundant. This same problem now happens regularly after around 3 months and because I witnessed the sand clearance by the plumber, we can now do this ourselves. This has been going on for around 2 years. Others on the internet with same problem put this down to a boiler problem but our very experienced plumber never mentioned this and has since serviced the boiler twice. We have no back-up hot water if the boiler breaks down. So: 1 Would like to reinstate cold water tank in loft on existing plynth. I presume most of pipework is still in place. There are only 2 of us and we have one shower room, no bath, and one kitchen. 2 Would like a vented tank with immersion heater(s), we have cupboard space in the kitchen (where the original boiler was I think). This would mainly be used as back up should the boiler break or the gas is cut off or rationed (which could happen). 3 We don't want to change the boiler at this point as it is not over-used and I think has quite a few more years to go. Could we install an INdirect cylinder not connected to our combi boiler and just use the immersion facility so the cylinder is ready to be connected to a new non combi boiler in the future. If not we would have to presumably change the cylinder from direct to indirect in the future. 4 We have a thermostatic Mira Mini Duo shower - will this still work from an unvented cylinder. We just want simple and straightforward, and the least expensive but not the least efficient. Any advice would be appreciated.

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.

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.

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.

I'll try and do this today all things willing ie printer working, scanner working, my brain working !!!

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.

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.

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?

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.

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!!!

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.

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.

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.

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!!

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.

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.

We are in a similar situation regarding your VAT reclaim question. Did you manage to get your question answered by HMRC. Our intention was to demolish our bungalow and detached garage and replace with new detached house and separate triple garage with granny flat over. However, with current financial uncertainty we are not sure whether we would be able to do all of this in one go. I contacted the local authority CIL officer and his advice was to submit an initial application for the triple garage/granny flat and claim CIL exemption and if we later want to demolish the bungalow and replace with house, submit a further application and claim again for CIL exemption. Good idea we thought. Build the garage/flat and then we could live there if we decide to demolish the bungalow etc. However, we are now concerned that doing it this way may somehow exclude us from the VAT reclaim on the new house. We read the HMRC advice much as you have in that it doesn't mean all buildings on the site have to be demolished - just the complete demolition of the building to be replaced. Will building the garage/flat first impede our VAT reclaim. Do you have any further information that might help - it would be much appreciated.

Thank you for your response and so to more researching. As a result of the LA's response at the moment we intend to demolish the existing detached single garage sited near the existing bungalow and construct the triple garage with granny flat over. This will incur a CIL charge for which we will apply for exemption. Your answer Temp has now put our current plans into question. My belief up until your response is that if we construct the triple garage/flat under its own planning approval, and then decide sometime in the future to demolish the bungalow and replace it with a new house, we could submit a separate planning application for this. We would live in the flat until the new house is built and then it would be just me in the granny flat thereafter. I thought we would be able to submit a VAT reclaim for the bungalow demolition and replacement house, but there would be no VAT reclaim for the garage/flat. From my research this morning of the HMRC information, I can't find any reference saying all existing buildings on the site have to be demolished, habitable or otherwise - are you able to point me in the direction of where it says this. My interpretation is that the info means that the demolition of the property being replaced has to be demolished completely. We realise that by submitting two separate applications we will forgo the VAT reclaim on the garage/flat, but it would be a lot of money to lose if the same applies to replacing the house on a separate planning approval at a later date. Any help is much appreciated as I seem to clarify one area, only to be faced with another. The following is a quote from another thread which is very similar to our situation : "HMRC will go to great lengths in an attempt to reduce or totally refuse your reclaim and it’s down to you or us to evidence to them that we are correct. This specific claim comes to mind because it has only just been resolved so it’s fresh in my memory. It has taken a whole year almost to the day to get resolved, but yes, the client did get paid. The client built a new house, an annexe, and some barns. Neither the annexe nor the barns qualify for VAT reclaim or zero rating. The client built the annexe first and moved into the annexe to live while the main house was being built. Then moved into the main house and then completed the project by building the barns. We presented a completion certificate to HMRC with the reclaim that was 7 days after the date on the completion certificate, so that’s 10 weeks inside the 3 month deadline for submitting the reclaim. HMRC investigated the claim, valued around £40k and advised they had evidence that the house had been lived in for many years longer than the date we had put as a moving in date and therefore HMRC felt this claim could and should have been submitted before the time it was. HMRC had viewed the voting register and the council tax banding list and as the family were living in the annexe, it proved they were living on site but not in the house. By total chance the client found a photo showing them at the annexe with no house in the background and took another photo of the site as it stands today, showing the house was in the background now, evidencing that the annexe was built first. We now thought and hoped this would allow the claim to proceed, it did not. HMRC came back with a claim that the reclaim included material for the annexe and the barns, neither of which qualify for VAT exemption or refund, which they did not. HMRC offered an olive branch by requesting the client make an offer of a reduction of the claim value and begrudgingly the client offered £2k. HMRC then hired a drone to take photos of the site from above and highlighted the square meterage of the barn and annexe against the square meterage of the house in order to try and get the client to increase the reduction further. This was now 9 months and 6 letters from HMRC into the claim, the client advised they would accept a £5k discount, HMRC accepted this. A year to the day of submission I had a discussion with a senior officer at HMRC and voiced my displeasure at their tactics in this reclaim and that person went away and looked at the claim. Three days later the claim was refunded in full, with no discount taken from the original submission. That was a result."

MatHyde83 - Your situation is very similar to ours except you have more certainty regarding completion of the whole development. We don't have that certainty due to available funds and may end up building the triple garage/flat and then just updating the existing bungalow at a later date. We have heard of horror stories of people inadvertently contravening the CIL rules, hence our pushing to get something in writing. Once I managed to locate the contact details for the CIL Officer, everything has been plain sailing. I hope the following is of help to others in a similar situation, although each local authority might have its own interpretation of the rules so always best to check. Below I have copied the CIL officer's response to my questions, received this morning, and I have to say I found him fantastic! "In reply to your CIL enquiry/discussion After a little more investigation: Scenario 1 - Separate Planning Applications - Submission of Planning Application to only Build Extension/annex first (refurb the existing bungalow) You would need to submit CIL Form 9 to claim exemption for the annexe/extension prior to commencement of the development, the relief is applied the same way as a self-build, so you need to remain in the main residence for 3 years after completion of the annex/extension. Note: Demolishing and rebuilding the bungalow at a later date under a separate planning permission won’t affect the claim so long as the new dwelling remains your main residence after completion of the rebuild. You will need a separate claim for the self-build exemption of the new build bungalow at the time of the new permission, a separate 3 year claw back period applies to the new dwelling. Scenario 2 – Submission of Planning Application to demolish and rebuild the bungalow along with the construction of annex/garages under a single permission. Submit Form 7 to claim self-build exemption for everything. Again this needs remain your main residence for 3 years after completion under CIL legislation. In both scenarios you can claim exemption for everything, but all the forms must be submitted before commencement. If you are uncertain about the ability to complete scenario 2 it is advisable to go down the route of scenario 1 and make two separate applications with separate exemption claims for each due to the impact of commencing on relief claims under CIL legislation. I’ve also spoken with a planning officer who advises you add a brief note to both applications laying out why you have done it this way so the officer understands the whole picture re: build costs etc. and look at the site as a whole."

Temp - thank you for that very useful response. I didn't know about CIL not being available for a retrospective planning application. You have really stopped in my tracks and we need to pause and consider all eventualities before moving on with our application. Just some thoughts 1 If we get planning approval and build the garage and then change our minds and decide to refurb the bungalow for financial reasons, do you know whether we could submit a new application and transfer the CIL exemption over to it - I can see from the very complicated example you have given that the owners had changed from an extension to a self build house - perhaps the outcome could have been different if they had stopped the job and gone back to planning before steering away from the original details of their approved application. 2 I have roughly worked out the CIL at around £25,000 which I realise seems not much when compared with your example. However, it's not a cost I would choose to incur if it can be avoided. 3 Would it seem feasible to apply just to build the triple garage with granny flat over, build it, and then pause to consider a way forward at a later date. The garage shouldn't incur CIL involvement as the Gross Internal Area will probably not exceed 100 m2 when the GIA of the existing single garage to be demolished, is deducted. We are in a Conservation Area so not sure whether this is a simple Householder Planning Application. 4 After building the garage, if we decide at a later date to apply to demolish the bungalow and construct a replacement then presumably the floorspace acquired via the triple garage will be added to the CIL liability exemption. 5 If we decide to refurbish the bungalow and not increase the floorspace no CIL to consider. 6 If we decide to refurbish and add floorspace, then presumably the triple garage space will be included which would probably bring us into the CIL range. We have ploughed ahead with our plans for demolition, construction of new house and triple garage to enable us to take full advantage of the VAT refund. We need to pause and try to get some "definitive" answers from the Local Authority re CIL. At the moment, just undertaking the garage seems like the best way forward. Does anyone have any knowledge or thoughts on the above points. Any further information I get from the LA, I'll post on here for information. Many thanks again Temp. You have made me see I need to try harder with the LA.

Sorry to resurrect this post but still not sure of CIL situation. We intend to apply for permission to demolish 1970's bungalow and construct new house on this site, together with demolition of single garage and construction of triple garage with granny flat over further down the garden - ie two separate buildings with garden inbetween them. 1 We shall complete the required CIL exemption forms. 2 We aim to construct the triple garage as soon as possible and this will trigger the commencement of the development. 3 It may be that we are never able to afford to replace the bungalow and therefore the CIL exemption will continue to be attached to the property. We have no intention of selling the property. 4 If we decide to refurbish the bungalow, does anyone know how/whether we can remove the CIL exemption attachment. 5 I am aware of the VAT refund implications - just simply concerned about having the CIL exemption attachment hanging around forever and what this might mean. No-one is answering the phones at the LA so no help there.