Proving the existence of...

[harry_angel]

I find myself potentially in the insane scenario of having to prove the existence of a mezzanine level in an outbuilding.

 

In brief, this is critical to the LPA I'm dealing with approving the new 1st storey in the outbuilding which replaced it.

 

Now, not trusting the LPA in question as far as I could launch them in to the sea (we can but dream...), I am trying to work out how to definitively prove the existence of this now demolished mezzanine.

 

Bear in mind: last time I submitted actual photographic evidence of it, and the officer just calmly ignored it and refused my app due to its 150%+ floor increase...

 

So my question is: when is a mezzanine not a mezzanine? Does it need a permanent ladder or access? Must said access be fixed rather than a free-standing ladder? Must it be load-bearing, demonstrably? Does the fact that the previous building had a 1st storey gable window help? Does it help that said barn had first storey side "hatches", presumably where hay was once ejected?

 

It would send me over the edge with rage if the existence of said mezzanine were once again thrown out, on a micro technicality.

 

 

[ProDave]

If you have a photograph of the previous mezanine I would say that is good grounds for appeal and just make it clear to your LPA that is exactly what you will do if it is refused.

[Ian]

A sworn “Statement of Truth” would be useful to your case.

[harry_angel]

1 minute ago, Ian said:

A sworn “Statement of Truth” would be useful to your case.

 

@ProDave yes we did include that previously and he ignored it, but will put it more prominently this time, with more photos.

 

@Ian great idea, thanks. Would this be better from a doctor or lawyer or tradesperson or someone official?

[Mr Punter]

If you post up the photo we could take a view.

 

Is the whole building demolished, or just the mezzanine?  Even if there are some supports or fixing holes it should help your case.

[Ian]

1 minute ago, harry_angel said:

 

@Ian great idea, thanks. Would this be better from a doctor or lawyer or tradesperson or someone official?

I got one prepared by a local solicitor when we were preparing our own planning application. It didn’t cost much. We also got some friendly neighbours to write letters of support which included statements about the existence of a previous structure on the site.

[joe90]

38 minutes ago, harry_angel said:

Now, not trusting the LPA in question as far as I could launch them in to the sea (we can but dream...),

Join the club.

22 minutes ago, ProDave said:

If you have a photograph of the previous mezanine I would say that is good grounds for appeal and just make it clear to your LPA that is exactly what you will do if it is refused.

+1 . 

[harry_angel]

Here is the beauty: load bearing, with an accompanying 1st storey window and 1st storey (presumed) hay hatches...

 

How could anyone ignore its delights?

 

PS. LPA also calmly ignored the PD fallback position in terms of floor area, where I could whack up some absolutely vast outbuilding in this one's place, and crack their little " floor percentage increase" thermometer in the process....even typing this is bad for my blood pressure

[ProDave]

So, to understand the full picture, you got PP to replace that old building with a new one but only put "rooms" in the ground floor leaving an empty loft?

 

You now want to put rooms in the loft (just room in roof not a full on roof off and add a second story) and the LPA say no?

 

Is that about it?

[harry_angel]

@ProDave essentially yes.

 

I suppose the critical error was made by the original architect who said: "don't worry about including either the original mezzanine or a new mezzanine...just build the structure and then put the mezzanine in immediately as an 'internal change'....also don't worry, we can always use the PD fallback position".

 

Yeah, cheers buddy.

 

The original PP approved was 6m in height so I'm not entirely sure what the LPA thought at the time..."wow these people are really in to their vaulted ceilings...in outbuildings..."

 

The whole thing's batsh*t but there you go, one of the refusal reasons was: "177% increase in floor area".

 

I have to combat that in the next app.

[ProDave]

Why are you not going straight to appeal?

[joe90]

I found the appeal process easier than applying for planning (and I did it myself). Crack on ?

[harry_angel]

@ProDave basically because at present the structure is unsecured (enforcement officer appeared c. 80% through the build).

 

And I don't want this hovering for 6 months, I want to crack on and finish it.

 

That said, the next step if they refuse this one is a guaranteed appeal.

 

@joe90 out of interest when you appealed did all your neighbours get fly-ered and could they comment on said appeal?

[Temp]

2 hours ago, harry_angel said:

one of the refusal reasons was: "177% increase in floor area".

 

Normally they use more words to justify the refusal, possibly citing the impact and it being contrary to some policy or other. Any chance you can post the full reason given? 

 

The only other reason I can think of is that more floor space can mean more bedrooms, more people living there so more cars, parking, school places etc. 

[joe90]

5 hours ago, harry_angel said:

out of interest when you appealed did all your neighbours get fly-ered and could they comment on said appeal?

Not that I am aware, we had one particularly stroppy neighbour and their objections to the original planning application were thrown out resoundingly by the areal officer ?

[harry_angel]

@Temp yes they batted away the new mezzanine level in the "balancing exercise" at the end.

 

To my mind the officer's wording was deliberately minimalist and evasive, he said:

 

"there is no provision under permitted development for a two storey outbuilding"

 

......after, earlier in the report, "invoking" the total building floor area as a reason for refusal.

 

Well, how can you invoke the total floor area as a reason for refusal on the one hand, and then REJECT the PD fallback reality that a building with a far LARGER total floor area could be erected, on the other?

 

Selective arguments, much?!

 

It's one or the other you numpty!

[Temp]

I must be missing something..

 

You have PP for a building that is tall enough so this change would be entirely internal right?

There are no planning conditions that preclude adding a mezzanine in the PP? 

 

In which case I don't think adding a mezzanine after completion is even counted as development...

 

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/when-is-permission-required#:~:text=The categories of work that,more than 200 square metres)

 

Quote

The categories of work that do not amount to ‘development’ are set out in section 55(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. These include, but are not limited to the following:

* interior alterations (except mezzanine floors which increase the floorspace of retail premises by more than 200 square metres)
 

 

 

If the planning officer won't allow the PP to be changed I suggest you point out you could apply for a 'Lawful Development Certificate' (LDC) for a mezzanine added after completion on the grounds that it is not development as defined by section 55(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.  That might be enough to make him change his mind and allow the PP to be changed. If not then go for the certificate.

 

The downside is the fee for a LDC might be more than the fee for amending the PP (if any).

The upside is that applications for a 'Lawful Development Certificate' (LDC) are considered on the law and aren't subjective like planning applications.

 

 

Edited June 7, 2021 by Temp

[harry_angel]

@Temp this is great. But you're not really a Temp, are you? You're more like a Jedi!

 

And that is an awesome example, straight from the horse's mouth. Why am I paying planning consultants? I should pay you guys.

 

Yes, the original building was even tall enough for the mezzanine.

 

I think the weak technicality they're (unspoken-ly) wriggling out on is that because we have not yet finished the build, or used/executed its purpose definitively (it is listed as a home gym and office), we cannot make an internal change to the previously approved plans..........because we haven't yet executed the approved use.

 

Or, in simpler terms, we haven't used the gym/office for 6 months or so...recorded a load of evidence of it being used as such...and then added the mezzanine as a totally lawful internal change.

 

I think (not certain) that this lurks behind their ropey frontline argument, although they haven't come out and said it.

 

What do you think?

[IanR]

Have you included changes to the exterior (from the original out building) that are intrinsically linked to the inclusion of the mezzanine? I suspect you may have.

 

If so, then the inclusion of the mezzanine is "development" since it has altered the external appearance.

 

Even if no exterior changes have been made to accommodate the mezzanine, I believe the fact that it is included/shown within the planning application for what is a development, it becomes part of that development, and so is included in floor area calcs.

 

Is it possible the Council are not allowing the floor space previously provided by the original mezzanine to be considered, as it was not structurally capable of being a "floor". It does look like a storage area, rather than a floor. Are those "joists" capable of performing as a floor for their span, in residential building regs terms?

 

If it could have passed building regs, without additional structural additions, have you proved that to the Council? Too late to get a structural report, if you don't already have one, but a submission by you of the joist size, spacings, span and a link to a reference that says that combination is acceptable should be sufficient.

 

I thought LPA's have moved away from making judgements on floor area increases in favour of volumetric increases. I guess this is out of your hands, but volumetric increase is the actual impact on the surroundings, not floor area. If you are to resubmit an application, I'd steer the conversation towards volume of old v. volume of new in your Design and Access Statement.

 

If you can't get around the floor increase issue, you'll need to re-submit without the 1st floor area being "used". Maybe it could be there, as storage, but without a fixed stair case. Then add it once the build is complete and outbuilding is in use. I suspect that the Council may challenge any exterior detail that was included for the Mezzanine, beyond what was in the original outbuilding. 

Edited June 8, 2021 by IanR

[harry_angel]

@IanR thanks Ian, another great response.

 

Yes, I wondered about this when I first read the officer's report and again, slyly and succinctly, he has deliberately connected the dormers with the mezzanine:

 

"the dormer windows would serve a mezzanine".

 

So you've essentially presented two routes:

1. prove the existence and robustness of the previous mezzanine*
2. resubmit with the mezzanine labelled "storage space", remove the staircase (which fortunately has not been installed on site) from the drawings, too, and then add the staircase as said internal change after PP has been approved

The former feels tough indeed. I mean, the whole of the rest of the previous building wouldn't pass any regs, but equally nor would the previous mezzanine.

 

Which leaves the latter. I guess the difference here is in "defending" an issue VS neutering and cutting it off at source completely. Which this 2nd route seems to achieve....(they can't object, pre-crime stylee, to something that hasn't been done yet, after all).

 

When you say "I suspect that the Council may challenge any exterior detail that was included for the Mezzanine, beyond what was in the original outbuilding", do you really mean ANY?

 

ie. if we remove the dormers, that deals with that, but the materials have changed from the previous permission (albeit in the most recent refusal report said new materials were deemed acceptable)...I mean....will they try and tie any and all micro changes to this mezzanine floor do you think?

 

We don't have long to decide on our tactical play so all assistance very much appreciated.

 

[IanR]

18 minutes ago, harry_angel said:

When you say "I suspect that the Council may challenge any exterior detail that was included for the Mezzanine, beyond what was in the original outbuilding", do you really mean ANY?

 

ie. if we remove the dormers, that deals with that, but the materials have changed from the previous permission (albeit in the most recent refusal report said new materials were deemed acceptable)...I mean....will they try and tie any and all micro changes to this mezzanine floor do you think?

 

If the dormers were not included on the original outbuilding, then their form on the new outbuilding is linked to the mezzanine, so it is quite possible that if you re-submit without the mezzanine being in use, they would probably say they are superfluous, and as they add to the size and volume of the new outbuilding, push-back on their inclusion.

 

The material choice though isn't directly linked to the mezzanine, so if they have accepted your new materials, there shouldn't be a problem.

 

How well does your LPA engage? If you know there will be a chance to discuss their issues during the consideration period, it may be worth re-submitting with the dormers included, but the mezzanine not in use, and be ready to update your drawings without said dormers, if they do push-back against them.

 

It depends if they really don't like the dormers, and that is their priority reason for rejecting your initial application, or if they are avoiding setting a precedent for the floor area increase.

 

You say you have engaged a planning consultant, are they not able to get you an informal steer on this? That's the whole point of paying for a planning consultant. 

[harry_angel]

@IanR they are poor at engaging, have suspended their pre-app service and the officer told me to my face: "I simply cannot engage".

 

The blunt truth is they hate the dormers. Easy, if slightly costly solution: remove the dormers, neutering that problem.

 

Then we move on to the mezzanine/floor area issue: heated conversation between me and my other half about that just now, as follows:

• my position is that they have already proved beyond doubt they will use ANYTHING against us, so we must not even show the new mezzanine on the plans. It does not have fixed stairs, it does not currently have anything habitable in it, it is bare and barren (as of right now).
• my other half's position is that we should still show it, and cross our fingers that by removing the dormers we offer enough of a gesture to the LPA that they'll see the mezz as ok.*

Having re-read your thoughts @IanR I do not concur with this 2nd road. If the mezz had its staircase in and was properly built out, and had evidence of a habitable area I'd agree this first route would be tricky, but as it is, it doesn't. They know that, we know that. There is no fixed staircase: you can only reach the mezz via a moveable ladder right now. It's empty.

 

Fundamentally I just can't see them going back on their whole "177% increase" argument....they've put it in black and white.

 

They're not going to have a change of heart and say: "it's ok, we won't count the mezz seeing as you've removed the dormers".

 

You can't defend a problem like this, you can only neuter it at source by batting the ball back to them, removing all trace of the mezz, and saying: "you PROVE this theoretical, unlisted mezz is being used for habitation....at some point in the future".

 

What do you guys think? Road A or Road B?

[IanR]

Crikes, you've done a lot without having permission, that puts some pressure on you...

 

If the LPA are unlikely to engage, I'd not change anything on your build yet, but re-submit planning without dormers and showing a cold roof, justifying the 1st floor ceiling structure, which in the future will become your mezzanine.

 

Retain all fenestrations that were in the original building's 1st floor area that bring light in to that area. Maybe show a couple of light wells in the ground floor ceiling that indicate borrowed light entering the ground floor from the 1st floor storage area, to justify retaining the old/original fenestrations.

 

Close off the stair way opening to mezzanine to no larger that a loft hatch.

 

There is no need to show the structure of the 1st floor ceiling on your planning drawing, just minimum info showing ceiling position and thickness above, labelled as insulated.

 

Submit your revised planning and keep your fingers crossed.

 

If successful you could then submit an amendment to planning for the dormers, but I think this is unlikely to succeed without the mezzanine justifying them - Catch 22!

 

37 minutes ago, harry_angel said:

You can't defend a problem like this, you can only neuter it at source by batting the ball back to them, removing all trace of the mezz, and saying: "you PROVE this theoretical, unlisted mezz is being used for habitation....at some point in the future".

 

Once the build is complete, you will be able to lawfully reinstate and use the Mezzanine, without planning, as it would then not be classed as development, since it would be internal works only.
 

With the Mezzanine installed/reinstated and lawful, now is the time to submit a planning app for the dormers if you really want them. But you will have had to have removed them to finish the build in line with what you hopefully get permission for, and then apply to add the dormers to improve the functionality of the mezzanine. - The mez must already be in use before the planning app for the dormers is submitted.

The LPA then has to consider the chance of loosing at Appeal what is "just" a minor increase in building volume, but they may have a good argument for you not having the dormers.

Edited June 8, 2021 by IanR

[harry_angel]

Thanks @IanR, so essentially you agree that a floorplan displaying the new mezzanine should not be included in this next app?

 

And that only the ground floor should be displayed?

 

The light wells is a great idea.

 

In all honesty re the dormers the better play is likely to be to wait several years and lilypad from granny annexe to dwelling, and then (as dwelling was constructed post 1948) add 2 storey's on top of the exiting under PD.

 

We're not that obsessed with having them and are a bit regretful we included them in the first place.

Edited June 8, 2021 by harry_angel

[IanR]

18 minutes ago, harry_angel said:

Thanks @IanR, so essentially you agree that a floorplan displaying the new mezzanine should not be included in this next app?

 

And that only the ground floor should be displayed?

 

Yes, no habitable Mezzanine, just a ceiling over the ground floor.

 

19 minutes ago, harry_angel said:

We're not that obsessed with having them are regretful we included them in the first place.

 

That makes it an easy decision then, remove them from the plans you submit and forget about them