Gimp

So I was hoping to gather some views as to what would be a good gradient for a Veranda & Flat roof. Both are going to be built of Beam & Block with a layer of Insulation then Screed. However, what I've discovered so far form my CAD drawings is that even a 5 degree pitch is pretty steep. Now I'm thinking about a 3 degree pitch, but even this is a bit tricky to work in. I don't want to go too high since I would prefer the veranda & flat roof to be relatively comfortable to walk on, table & chairs to stand on etc. So I don't want the pitch to be so steep it would feel weird walking out on. On the other hand I want the roof & veranda to drain water sufficiently since the location of my self build is in Wales. So I'm in a bit of a quandary.

Funny I was just about to ask a question on screed, but to answer your question according to this website its 24-48 hours before you can walk on it. Link: http://www.easymixconcrete.com/resource-centre/screed-faqs/ So I guess myself I would leave it at least a couple of days to be sure, test it before starting work and go easy on laying timber on it and avoid dropping tiber down on it, but that's just me. Anyway, my question which might be of use to you is, 'Does anyone here have any experience of using screedboard?' I've looked up the technical details and they vary. I'm looking to using screedboard with beam & block without any poured screed underneath. Does anyone know how this fairs, whether its acceptable to Building Inspectors? The problem I have is for first floor that will also be beam & block the floor once built is set at that height and will not really be possible to change it. I have designed it so it is built on the top of blockwork at the walls. I could lower the beam & block floor a little and say put some insulation in to give me some leeway if it ever needed changing for a floor finish greater than the 20mm approx of screedboard. However this would entail using two layers of brick in the outer wall instead of a layer of dense concrete block to take the beam & block floor down approx 75mm ish. This would be more time consuming and expensive, so I was wondering if anyone has used or heard of screedboard being directly laid on beam & block floor after grouting? (the stairs unfortunately can't be changed to adjust, they are at the maximum permissible) Theoretically I'm guessing the sensible thing to do is go with the brick option and lower the floor a touch as it at least provides a scope in case I later find I need a thicker floor finish?

Ah, lol, sounds like he tried to do a copper fitting with a blow torch probably as no room for compression fitting but in the end couldn't do that either as too awkward as near the wall & accidentally set fire to the wood in the attempt. Probably added money on for the unknown ordeal.

Yeah, my tendency is if its been done in copper to stay with same. No doubt it will be fine but it just looks a cheap job, says to me he thought, can't be ass'ed with doing the copper work, cheaper and easier to stick in the plastic. Almost looks like novice skill level. I would use check a trade in future. Price wise it is over the top, but these days many people are on the make, they only want to know if they can make decent money on any job, no longer the 'I buy materials for x amount then add on thirty quid for my time'. I don't blame them but he should have been upfront on cost and given a estimate reasonably close to what he would be charging. After all there is advertising and running costs for the trade's person to cover but I think he is still charging over the top. Ask for at least an estimate next time, quote if possible and if he is too arrogant to feel he needs to give one, move on. Personally I would not use him again. The electrical wire looks dangerous next to the wood, so I would make sure that's seen to before to long.

Sensus that could be well worth me considering doing then, thank you. If I can avoid having to jump the hurdle twice then it might well be the best way to go. The design is mostly done out fully since even for OPP I wanted a fairly accurate sizing of the build so as you know really involves doing the design to all the required spacing for doors, etc. So yes might save a few quid and hassle by doing that since I don't think the planners will be able to add much what is needed at OPP stage anyway. If I did OPP had to appeal then did FFP and had to appeal it could be a real long drawn out process which could wear me down and be more work which wouldn't be great. My hope is that planners will see that this plot has had OPP several times before and will want to see progress towards something actually being built there within reason and of course within the rules. I'm pretty sure I can put up a decent argument for a two storey as the neighbouring houses are so have argued this in my DAS. I'm thinking if the planners are going to be a pain it may make sense not to linger by going through the two stage process but instead as you say go straight for FFP and if I get that then I'm done

True, and FPP would be nice from the outset, but as I've brought up before the existing OPP has as a condition that it is just for a bungalow or dormer bungalow and I want to get rid of that, I'm not sure if I can do this with going forward with a FFP with a house build. I know I can apply to get this condition dropped but apparently it takes the same time as applying for OPP so my thought was to just apply for OPP for the new build.

Is there any real full on design approval in the process? My thought was it goes OPP, FFP, then Building Regs drawings, or FFP then Building Regs drawings. So is there particularly any any more design approval in the FFP stage then OPP? I know there is reserved matters and I am thinking about moving to part reserved when I make my submit for OPP to cut down on the practical & aesthetical issues at FFP stage. So I guess tackle the design issues part at OPP and part at FFP if that is how it can be raised. My training is in design so that is where I should be strongest so would make sense to deal with this at an early stage as possible. My thoughts on the OPP are to put in an DAS whether they read it or not. I'm thinking as my site has many positives in terms of location (within settlement, brown filed, not right next to neighbours, etc) is to capitalize on this with a DAS since even if they don't read it, it will go down better at appeal if it goes that way. I'm thinking a planning statement my well be better for a site that has some or many negatives so to avoid focus on them and like you say planners turning the argument into a negative and point for refusal. Already though I am thinking that despite it all being a thought out application its likely to end up with rejection and appeal if only for the fact that you now don't need a DAS or even a planning statement so they will take that as a reason not to read and hence turn it down on whatever they like whether it is sufficiently explained in a DAS, planning statement or whatever. Like you say they just don't bother to read it anymore. Already the responses I have received from my enquires with the LPA have not been great, just asking basic questions about the 'local plan' and I get constant, 'I don't understand, or 'I'm not sure what you mean' - I mean this woman works in planning and she doesn't seem to know anything. To asking for a link to the local plan I got a, "I’m not sure what information you are looking for. If you would like a link to the LDP page on our website it is..." Well if it is on there website it is the best kept secret well hidden away because I couldn't find it from any of their menu's. To me it looks like they start of from a position of evasiveness to any new comer which shouldn't be how they should be acting in this day and age where it should all be equal access and doesn't bode well for an application before its even been submitted to my mind.

Added to this I wonder how planning refusals and appeals are dealt with now since most of this was based on the DAS then upon what grounds are the points made. Would seem silly to submit application without a DAS only for it to be knocked back on some rule of local plan policy and only then get the applicants side when it goes to appeal. That's unless they can't be convinced to reverse their appeal beforehand but once decisions are made then I find people often get entrenched in their particular position and are less likely to accept the arguments of the applicant that they might have already otherwise considered before a decision was made. I think I'll submit a DAS as usual, if its CABE recommended format then surely its best to go with the recommended rather than deviate and risk doing something under par. Makes sense to cover all bases I think, just seems ridiculous that they introduced this oddity into the process that most were happy with really. Risks creating more problems I think rather than less.

Exactly!

Think you're right but the way she wrote back to me in email was as if to say 'we don't do that anymore so don't' I found this surprising and I think her email should have been more neutral in its direction. Like had been said I would find submitting without one an impediment to the application before the process has even begun. I think she must be pushing a planning department preference to not have them submitted if it can at all be helped so it puts the power all in their hands. I wasn't even enquiring directly about DAS but about where to find their local plan as it doesn't appear on their website. I get the impression their whole approach is deliberately non transparent.

Yeah, I think you're fully right here, thank you for the advice, it's focused my mind a bit. I'm thinking if I don't submit one then quite possibly I could be leaving all the power in their hands to say yay or nay at their interpretation of the planning policy alone. Which makes me wonder if this change has been made to benefit the planners in terms of their personal power over the planning system.

I've just been told by the local planning department in my area that no DAS (Design & Access) statement is needed for a submission of outline planning permission for a single dwelling, (since 16th March 2016) my plot is in Wales. I previously heard rumour of this but found nothing concrete online from a google search. I now wondering where this leaves me, to me it seems idiocy not to have a DAS when applying for OPP. For sure as we have seen from the previous post you could get some b*llocks written in there and referenced to, however, how else am I supposed to relay what I am proposing to the planners and of course neighbours who may be more motivated to object if they don't understand the scheme? I'm not sure if a DAS would be needed for FPP or whether to just go straight for this or outline first and submit one anyway if feasible. There are of course the drawings and a good set can relay well what you want but I rather thought the DAS helped to get more detail into what is being proposed so be helpful more than anything. My main concern is will proposals risk being turned down by planners without due cause just of the back of what they see on plan drawings? or do they just rubber stamp the vast bulk of it all?

B&Q do Polyfilla in paintable form, think they sell it in large tins though reasonably expensive as paint goes. Should come across it if you look in one or more of their big stores. Similarly they do slightly more paste forms so make sure you get the actual paint form as its easy to get confused as they do several versions of simialr stuff but some is more paste than paint so look for the specific 'paint' brand of the product. If its a small job then could just use a small pot of polyfilla or a cheaper brand, I think even the more cheaper brands in B&Q can be painted over and just paste it in. I would'nt get too concerned over the painting over aspect just try a decent one and see how it takes, can always redo later on if no good.

My point entirely, why abstract the ideas on there why not instead have your own. For sure your house doesn't have to be entirely unique and indeed is unlikely to be but the lifting up off a lot of ideas of others and placing them in your home just seems pointless to me like your home would be a clone of others around it. You may have one or two ideas from elsewhere and of course now common systems like MHVR fair enough but I just think it gets so boring when seeing the same ideas being regurgitated on TV then copied by Architects and self builders as if it is something new. Stuff like exposed ply board, large screen windows, exposed copper plumbing fittings, light bulbs dangling down, concrete kitchen worktops, grinded smooth concrete floors, etc all have been doing the rounds for quite a number of years now on TV on all the different building design programmes there now old hat. The moment of real development as a designer I think is when you wish to discard all of that and design a totally different aesthetic from the 'as seen on TV' designs. This though requires careful thinking so as to get it right and a willingness to move away from the dominant design ideas of the day.

I wasn't same old tired ideas doing the rounds again. They were all pretty much large oblong boxes stuck together. That and the size of them were ridiculous like we are all millionaires who can build massive houses for just an odd few people to inhabit and they wonder why we have a housing shortage.

If it were me I would run the pipe outside as you suggest Barney, others may differ but to run the pipe inside under concrete slab would be a major pain in the arse and mess up your rooms if anything went wrong. Imagine having a big hole punctured though your floor and how unpleasant it would look particularly guest are around at a seasonal time of the year, smell might penetrate into the house more also.

I agree with Sensus, I didn't wish to offend Joe but I though similar when I gave the D&A Statement a brief view over the other day, its not all bad and some stuff of value is there but in some places the signs that its not a planning guy writing it really show, just kind of value statements with little weight. I'm not assessing it with much in the way of knowledge that I hold but when comparing it to the D&A statement of the ex-planning guy for the previous OPP that the previous owner obtained the difference can be seen. Like said though unfortunately the planning guy was unfortunately not as good when it came to design - I kid you not when I tell you the guy had incorporated a 5 meter high retaining wall into the design onto which the small dormer bungalow would be built and a coach long parking layby at the front, lol. God knows how thick and deep that retaining wall would have to be let alone the cost of SE calcs. The owner doesn't seem to have proceeded to FFP or gave up when consulting others on it since the ex-planning guy only does to OPP - convenient? So then the previous owner no doubt had to take it to an Architect/Architectural Technologist/SE who probably told him the impracticality of the design, is my guess at what happened and next thing land on the market to be snapped up cheaply by yours truly. This of course would have been fine for ex-planner guy who was just responsible for getting OPP had played his part, gets his fee and wash his hands of it. The benefit for me is that I can rehash the D&A statement as much of it will still be relevant to mine and adjust for the issue over the chalet dormer build by demonstrating how a house build would be more appropriate. Doing it myself is just my way, I think I am equipped to take it on but I can see why some ex-planners from the LPA are sought after in the Architecture/Planning Environment as on the planning side they will know all the boxes to tick.

Thanks for that Joe much appreciate it. Looking at it I think odds are your site is in a different situation/context to mine being a 'Replacement Buildings in the Countryside' as they call it and Policy DVT4 I would thought unlikely to apply to mine which is a proposed new build on a brownfield site within the settlement boundaries of a village though surrounded by countryside. Its handy thought to see the rules drawn upon by planning officers in opposition to a scheme. I think here the planning officers were being over zealous in their application of the rule, its not that large an increase and I think the adjudicator looks like they saw it the same way. Maybe the planners just thought they should oppose any small increase as a matter of course under this rule as it didn't state otherwise. The issue over the replacement being closer in style to the surrounding properties than what was there previous seems like the planners were being overly concerned with the aesthetical change I think. The guy who did the previous OPP for my site was an ex-planner from the council apparently, looks like he knew his stuff on the planning side, the quotes decently on the local planning policy. I think he fell down on tackling the design side though, perhaps he should have passed to a more design mined bod for this. The whole design I think has been designed to be as inoffensive as possible to anyone (no side windows to neighbouring front garden, small dormer bungalow build) but in trying to please everyone else and planning really falls short of site potential for the inhabitant. I'm thinking that the site being brownfield site within the settlement boundaries of a village will keep at bay a lot of rules they might otherwise bring against me so making a decent sized build feasible so worthwhile being bold in submission.

Hi Joe, yes a link to the applications and appeal would be grand if you can. The current outline planning permission for my plot from the previous owner which I hope to replace with an entirely different build reads in the conditions of approval, "This consent benefits for a single dwelling, of a bungalow or dormer style bungalow only. Reason. In the interests of visual amenity and the amenity of adjoining properties." I'm thinking this is probably because the application put forward by the owner was for a dormer bungalow so they would not then want to deal with a change to an entirely different build going forward. My thought is by submitting a new application for OPP then it will all be reassessed on the build style I put forward, i.e a house. Most of the village is traditionally houses, only recently has there been dormer bungalows built, though it makes me wonder if someone on planning is pushing for dormer bungalows to be built despite the style not being traditional to the village. If the above condition from them is a sign that they only view a dormer bungalow as permissible on this plot then a precedent such as yours could be very useful and could save me a lot of time and hassle. I'm hoping it won't come to that, as to be honest with you the site itself would be underutilized by a long way with the small dormer bungalow that was proposed. While I would not seek to build to borders or dominate the site with a build for profit (I intend to live in it anyway rather than sell once built) I think it is a shame to waste a site on a build that is too small when something could really be made of a site if you know what I mean. I'm hoping that since the previous OPP was back in 2013 things will have moved on and hopefully I will get a planner that is positive on what I'm proposing and go by the rules rather than having their own agenda.

I was starting to wonder about that, the plot I have lends itself to avoiding many negatives. I'm willing to accept where a negative might occur but if a planner just states that something doesn't fulfil a requirement in the rules & the rule is ambiguous/abstract then I'll just have to push on and take it further nothing that can be done about that I guess if a planner is objectionable for whatever reason and plays it loose on the rules from their side to justify the objection. I've noticed in the village where I have the plot that some of the recent builds aren't exactly in keeping with the traditional builds, but perhaps planning played it easy on these with regard to build style/site context. My build is a little different to the rest, modern with traditional aspects but I think fits in more than some of the more recent builds. Will just have to hope that the planners are positive on it as I don't wish to copy other builds just to play it safe as would be a shame for the site I think and of course myself.

Thanks Mike this was also very helpful. I guess my view was I envisaged a planner saying that it needs to be a bit smaller here or there because there impression was that it was too big or whatever so it is good that, "The planners don't have a view on 'what they want' its just what fits within the rules" as that what I was afraid of as I was not sure how planners operate these days. So I'll acquaint myself with the rules and go by them as I'm normally quite decent with that stuff though I'm thinking odds are I won't have to do much work as the design build is not real excessive or anything. I think with the space on site to the neighbouring properties buildings is enough that there will be absolutely zero issue with overshadowing, etc particularly as the neighbouring properties are further up the hillside than my plot so they would have trouble proving that one. I guess my thought was if I had one argument and the planners had their own argument not based on anything than their judgement and then having to challenge that judgement in an appeal, but if its just based on the rules then it makes it all a lot easy going I would think.

Twice the length of half of it That's the technical answer, lol. Thanks, Sensus, this helps a lot. I think I've got a fair bit in my favour in the 'constraints & opportunities' so a detailed analysis may be worthwhile here. I was just wondering I suppose if there was a kind of ratio of garden to build space or just down to individual planner concern. As Mike has pointed out below if its down purely to the rules then I think I should stand a decent chance. I'll look up the local & national policy, I'm thinking though its likely to be ok as I think I'm being fairly reasonable with what I am proposing for the site. I guess I maybe have a bit of an old skool view of planning as being subject to the whims of individual planners, but if they have to back up what they say with the rules then its not so bad.

So the plot of land I recently bought in Wales I have designed a building for. The build I would say sits well in the land, I would judge as not too big or too small. It has at least a good 2.5 meters or so on all sides, 4-5 meters at the front and diagonally perhaps 7-8 meters from the corners of the house, roughly. Its a two bed property about 10 meters front to back & side to side, not perfectly square though, just a bit under 60sqm footprint. Now my thought is that as its on a slope the surrounding land is essentially buffer space between myself and the next door neighbours who have both wide gardens putting their properties a reasonable distance from my proposed build. My build location is unlikely to be directly in their eye much at all really. Since my site is on a hillside 25 degree pitch average its of little use as a serious garden (I'm no gardener) so would be a waste of build if I were to go overboard on retaining a lot of outside space at the expense of a decent sized but not overly large build as I see it. Essentially I would see it as a waste of a good site and the build falling far short of its potential. The previous outline planning permission had a piddly little chalet bungalow on it that I think would have been a terrible waste of the land, the dormers in the roof would have made upstairs an awkward space, possibly impractical given the width of the thing. Now I'm pretty determined not to do that build so I really only want to do the build I have designed. I don't mind going to appeal or whatever to do it if needs be, it has not gone forward to planning yet, but as this is my first time I don't know how edgy planning might be when it comes to 'how much can I build on site'. I would not of course wish to build up to the boundary, it makes sense to have some surrounding land, yet I am concerned in case I get an awkward bugger from planning. Many of the other houses in the village either open out onto the street or just have a small plot of garden mainly in the back, many of the new builds as well. So I guess I was wondering if anyone has any experience of issues with how much you can build on here? Personally, I'm not willing to build what the planners may want. To me with present low interest and inflation on the rise the land I believe will be a better investment than the money in the bank as I got it cheap as well. I want to build what I want, of course I realise you cannot go overboard but my general thrust is that as long as I'm reasonable in terms of size of build and it looks like it sits well within the land then that would be acceptable to most. Considering of course the need for this build to have modern insulation levels and a 800mm wide staircase to me it seems reasonably sized.

On the original Outline planning permission that came with the plot I've recently bought its got a condition that its just for a chalet bungalow. Now my plans are for a house, which fits in more with the tradition of the village which was all originally just houses, only in the last few years have chalet bungalows been built. The property to either side of my plot are terraced houses and in general the village is a composition of terrace housing, semi detached and detached houses. A chalet bungalow wouldn't really fit in well on the plot which is on a visible hillside without sticking out like a sore thumb I think. I don't really know why this was a condition of that application other than the build for that application being for a chalet bungalow - I guess in case people get surprised if a house is then talked about, would still need to go through full planning permission though. Plot could easily sit a house without it looking over sized or out of place. I haven't gotten to looking into it yet but I'm guessing when I submit for a renewal with a plan for a house this condition won't be carried forward from the last outline planning permission, since the subject will be for a house and the whole lot will be assessed from the beginning.

I mostly use the shower as often just don't have the time to run & then sit in a bath. When I do have a bath I like to relax in there a while, but this is infrequent as like I said I rarely have the time. Personally I have had studio flats/rooms at uni with an en-suite shower and you don't really miss the bath that much as really the most important thing is to have a facility to wash the whole self and a shower does this. So for a single or couple buying it would be fine, not sure about an older couple they might be more traditional and prefer a bath, any disability may also be a factor. That said it depends on the area and what market you are planning to attract and their expectations. A professional city couple may not be bothered, but more rural types might feel it goes with the country living more to have a bath. Also, consideration of the traditional location of a bathroom if a very traditional house, that and further ventilation, and water protection considerations for upstairs bathroom. Set against that consider whether a kitchen dinner would really add much, it trendy now but is often for more modern homes and can be wasteful on space. Is there any other way you could plan out the space efficiently?