Onoff

I wonder if...

Recommended Posts

Pipe dream possibly but as opposed to a knock down rebuild I've been musing if I'd get pp to:

 

- change hips to gables.

 

-extend the front dormer and bring level with the front of the bungalow. Vertically clad to the full height (black possibly).

 

-make front dormer windows full height

 

-extend the rear dormer slightly

 

-make downstairs front windows full height (just the RHS one shown)

 

-ewi and warm roof

 

IMG_20200802_015441747.thumb.jpg.26c89b275554fcc925124d77d3ac9381.jpg

 

What would be my next logical step to see if this would be permitted? Bungalow in an AONB has already I think had its 50% extension (must check that). 

 

Cheers

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you in a conservation area ..?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your best bet would be to seek Pre-application advice.

 

The LPA would normally be mindful to grant PP for alterations that would then take you over the 50%. Are there any other buildings on the site that could be used as a trade off?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, DevilDamo said:

Your best bet would be to seek Pre-application advice.

 

The LPA would normally be mindful to grant PP for alterations that would then take you over the 50%. Are there any other buildings on the site that could be used as a trade off?

 

I wouldn't be increasing the footprint btw.

 

Stable block, double garage and 8x10 wooden shed. None of which I want to lose.

 

31 minutes ago, PeterW said:

Are you in a conservation area ..?

 

 Just done a quick search and no, it appears not. In however the Kent Downs AONB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We originally tried to go down something like this route (currently a bungalow, wanted to put a new floor on top of part of the house and insulate properly), and eventually abandoned it purely for cost reasons:

  • Downstairs is already in need of major refurbishment, so we would essentially be keeping the existing walls and foundations. Unfortunately the cost of EWI to a good standard is not far off that of building new walls from scratch, and to sort the layout we even had to get rid of most of the internal walls.
  • Keeping anything above the foundations means that the whole build attracts VAT at 20%. For us this would have been significantly more than the value of what we could have kept.
  • Very few of the package companies would quote because of the risk to them that the walls would be slightly mismatched to the plans when we got the roof off. The only one that would quote still said it would be cheaper to knock down.
  • If we wanted to go for EnerPHit we would need to dig out the slabbed parts of the ground floor by hand, and possibly dig out under the suspended floor area too before insulating and re-laying. We would also have been left with a very annoying step (the existing rear extension was built on top of the earth excavated from the original foundations, as far as we can work out), and around half of the losses would have been through the floor.
  • Existing layout isn't great, and we'd be locking that in. In particular, to leave by car we have to reverse out into a fairly busy road, albeit one with a 30mph limit.

I've since found out that one thing I knew was a bit of a risk hit some people over the road very badly - they were planning to do much the same as us, albeit probably to a slightly lower insulation standard. However, when they got the floorboards up to start work they found the place had essentially no foundations and it got condemned as unsafe so they were forced to demolish and rebuild after already starting work on refurbishing. Our house is from the same era and on the same ground (gault clay) so we would have been at severe risk of the same thing happening.

 

Looking at what you're thinking of, it looks a lot like our initial thinking - "we need to fix items X, Y, Z, that's it, it'll be much cheaper than knocking down and starting again". The problem is that those items didn't form a clearly defined section of the existing structure, they were scattered all over the place. That then had knock-on consequences, which snowballed.

Essentially if you can get what you want with extending the existing loft conversion (e.g. hip to gable conversion for another room) then it's likely to be viable. If not you're probably worse off than knocking down and starting again.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I,ve been looking at this over the years for the house I am in and on my new project

 every time every builder say -start from scratch ,

and you can see why 

they can quantify every part of it much easier --no bobby traps 

 so yes it doe not surprise me that flatten and rebuild will work out cheaper and better solution in the end 

pre- planning advice is the way to go  in my view 

Its what I am attempting to do with  my ruin-

so I can then make proper decisions on what they will allow  and then cost it before starting to spend money on lots of plans they won,t like 

my solution wass to lift the roof build up the walls another 8ft and extend other side of house you can,t see by 3 m then refit modifed roof 

,the way house is built I loose 0ver 1m upstairs on each side 

foot print now of main house not including extension is 11mX6m

 

also considered making it 2 storey over the kitchen /garage 

-by the time we worked all that out and scafolding tent etc,-it was cheaper just to flatten 

in next couple of years the pylon you can see is going --new major line is being constructed around the town  and this one is being removed

now If i get lucky for a change this should work in well when new house is built  and lift the value of this one 

 

 

01010085.JPG

01010086.JPG

01010087.JPG

Edited by scottishjohn
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, scottishjohn said:

so yes it does not surprise me that flatten and rebuild will work out cheaper and better solution in the end 

 

You'd have thought I'd have learnt that by now! 

 

The only thing I keep coming back to is that I would do all the work myself (albeit slowly and in stages). I'd even do the ewi. 

 

37 minutes ago, pdf27 said:

the place had essentially no foundations

 

A worry here. In amongst the house sale documents or it might be on the 80's re-roof/dormer extension plans I got from the Council a few years back I seem to recall a note about test digging to gauge the existing foundations prior to the place being re-roofed with the dormers. 

 

I presume it must have "passed" that test. However, when I redid the water main and had to go under the footings they look pretty shallow imo. This duct for the water main goes under the footings, not through them! (We're on clay then chalk). 

 

2016-10-01_05-11-33

 

Saying that the bathroom walls where I looked were a later addition after the place was built in the 30s I think. Uncovering the walls here and you find infills where doors and windows once were since moved.

 

I suppose a few test digs around the perimeter would be in order.

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Onoff said:

 

You'd have thought I'd have learnt that by now! 

 

The only thing I keep coming back to is that I would do all the work myself (albeit slowly and in stages). I'd even do the ewi. 

 

 

A worry here. In amongst the house sale documents or it might be on the 80's re-roof/dormer extension plans I got from the Council a few years back I seem to recall a note about test digging to gauge the existing foundations prior to the place being re-roofed with the dormers. 

 

I presume it must have "passed" that test. However, when I redid the water main and had to go under the footings they look pretty shallow imo. This duct for the water main goes under the footings, not through them! (We're on clay then chalk). 

 

2016-10-01_05-11-33

 

Saying that the bathroom walls where I looked were a later addition after the place was built in the 30s I think. Uncovering the walls here and you find infills where doors and windows once were since moved.

 

I suppose a few test digs around the perimeter would be in order.

 

 

 

 

 

you know the right way is to get a static caravan and just rebuild from new 

how ever think you would have to do it a bit quicker than the bathroom ,but again planned right it will be easier anyway 

 and if using ICF -durisol or isotex -you can stop and start as much as you like 

would you get permission to build new founds   round the outside of exsisting house -and demolish only when ready ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't see it happening. Pre planning charges are a pi** take from the off. 

 

https://www.lbhf.gov.uk/planning/planning-applications/planning-advice/planning-pre-application-advice#:~:text=Pre-application advice is provided,being granted a planning permission.

 

System is screwed. I really wonder where my council tax goes. Round here it's certainly not spent on visible policing, road repairs, preventing / clearing up fly tipping or stopping anti social behaviour. Even have to book a slot at the tip now and you get banned if you go too many times.

 

Yet still they want more ££££.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, scottishjohn said:

you know the right way is to get a static caravan and just rebuild from new 

how ever think you would have to do it a bit quicker than the bathroom ,but again planned right it will be easier anyway 

 and if using ICF -durisol or isotex -you can stop and start as much as you like 

would you get permission to build new founds   round the outside of exsisting house -and demolish only when ready ?

 

Seeing what people have done here the only way I would want to go is a floating slab on 300mm of EPS.

 

One thing I've forgotten is money. I haven't got any! 😂

  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, SteamyTea said:

 

Ta. That's for new homes though? I imagine a knock down rebuild would class as such.

 

Conversely I can see why extra scrutiny would perhaps be needed on an extensive refurb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Onoff said:

I wouldn't be increasing the footprint btw.

 

Stable block, double garage and 8x10 wooden shed. None of which I want to lose.


The percentage uplift would be in relation to floor area, not footprint. Otherwise, that would allow people to keep extending upwards.

 

What would be more of a priority and importance to you... the additional floor area to the dwelling or the outbuildings? If you did offer a trade off, the LPA ‘may’ not look to withdraw your Class E rights so you can put back those buildings. They may however withdraw Class A.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still have very mixed feelings on a knock down and rebuild.  Yes it does make the most technical sense, but you have paid "full house price" for a plot, that is the bit that does not make sense. 

 

We have a housing market that presently values a habitable old leaky wreck at almost as much as the energy eficcient new build that could replace it, meaning it is rarely cost effective to knock down a habitable house to replace it.

 

I am mindful of one near here where they bought an old bungalow and it was only when they started to try and do some alterations, they found it had no foundations and there was nothing to work with, so they knocked it down and rebuilt.  The result is they paid more than 3 times as much for a building plot as we did for our bare plot, and they have built a house that has cost them to build way way more that it would ever sell for on the open market.

 

That is perhaps more of an issue here where plots are easy and cheap to buy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, ProDave said:

 

We have a housing market that presently values a habitable old leaky wreck at almost as much as the energy eficcient new build that could replace it, meaning it is rarely cost effective to knock down a habitable house to replace it.

 

 

I'd say there is a 25-35% difference round here, depending on segment.

Edited by Ferdinand

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Ferdinand said:

 

I'd say there is a 25-35% difference round here, depending on segment.

So you buy an old wreck for 35% less than a decent house.  Can you build a replacement decent house for that 35%?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even the "wrecks" here, really only suitable for knock down & rebuild start at around £500,000.00. I imagine anyone buying this place would view it as such. 

 

Imo you should get concessions (grants? 😉 ) for wanting to improve the housing stock, not keep having to pay more and more to do so. 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

@Onoff You say You have little foundations, but has it moved yet? You don’t appear to have any cracks in your render. Lots of old buildings don’t have founds and they are fine. Good example in Shropshire when I lived there, chap wanted to convert an old threshing barn 200 years old, no additional load (the guy was an SE!) but council made him underpin it at great expense . I have done up loads of old houses in my life but my new build was lovely not having to deal with unforeseen problems and able to work with a clean slate but I was lucky that I had the money to do it because I worked my nuts off for years doing up old houses. How much could you do to your house without involving the council? Only get them involved with stuff not permitted development.

 

i think you have to have a budget and work out what you can do for that price!

Edited by joe90

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Onoff said:

You'd have thought I'd have learnt that by now! 

The only thing I keep coming back to is that I would do all the work myself (albeit slowly and in stages). I'd even do the ewi. 

That was part of our thinking too. Problem is, the same logic applies to new build - which is cheaper in both time and materials, so you're still better off starting again. Unless you keep the external works pretty minor, the house isn't going to be a lot more habitable while it's all happening either.

 

28 minutes ago, Onoff said:

A worry here. In amongst the house sale documents or it might be on the 80's re-roof/dormer extension plans I got from the Council a few years back I seem to recall a note about test digging to gauge the existing foundations prior to the place being re-roofed with the dormers. 

 

I presume it must have "passed" that test. However, when I redid the water main and had to go under the footings they look pretty shallow imo. This duct for the water main goes under the footings, not through them! (We're on clay then chalk). 

 

Saying that the bathroom walls where I looked were a later addition after the place was built in the 30s I think. Uncovering the walls here and you find infills where doors and windows once were since moved.

 

I suppose a few test digs around the perimeter would be in order.

That would make me nervous given what I know the neighbours found. Again, it depends what you're doing - a minor loft conversion probably won't change anything significant and you'll get away with it, the risk is that you're pushing towards the borderline of a world of pain - and you might not find out until you've done quite a bit of work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, pdf27 said:

That was part of our thinking too. Problem is, the same logic applies to new build - which is cheaper in both time and materials, so you're still better off starting again. Unless you keep the external works pretty minor, the house isn't going to be a lot more habitable while it's all happening either.

 

That would make me nervous given what I know the neighbours found. Again, it depends what you're doing - a minor loft conversion probably won't change anything significant and you'll get away with it, the risk is that you're pushing towards the borderline of a world of pain - and you might not find out until you've done quite a bit of work.

 

Tbh structurally I'm sure it'd be fine. The existing dormer is in effect an 8m X 8m, 4 room box built on a 9x6" frame. There's also an RSJ, front to back, mid span. 4x2" stud walls with 4x4" corner & mid posts come up of this frame to form the rooms.

 

The 9x6" frame sits above and independent of the original ceiling joists. It rests on concrete padstones at the corners and mid span. These are cast atop the existing, original walls. So point loads as I see it. If I brought the front wall of the dormer out it'd sit on the original front wall and I guess evenly distributed. 

 

I'd do a bit more investigation / peering into eaves and crawl spaces along with referring to the (poor quality) copies of the plans the council gave me if this went anywhere. 

 

1 hour ago, joe90 said:

You don’t appear to have any cracks in your render.

 

Unfortunately we do! Corner of the lounge is "falling off:

 

20200714_202842.jpg

 

20200714_202911.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Onoff said:

Unfortunately we do! Corner of the lounge is "falling off:


But is it still moving?, my son bought a Victorian end of terrace in bad need of TLC and the gable wall has moved, back bedroom floor goes “downhill” but the signs are it has not moved recently so it’s settled as much as it is likely too. Stitching brick courses and underpinning is not too bad a job to be done DIY.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now