Optional M4(2) as planning requirement

[OldYeller]

Hello All.

Our planning application has been slowly progressing however, I have a question that bridges between planning and building regs.

Today the planning officer has come back to me and stated the our Local Plan requires new-builds to comply with the optional M4(2) for accessible and adaptable dwellings.

I can see that much of this is pretty sensible stuff that is not too difficult to achieve...however my principle entrance (front door) is in the middle of a large, glazed, full height front wall.

The requirement to have the principle access landing area 'covered' will mean a big ugly protrusion in the middle of my glazing!

Is M4(2) a common requirement?

Also M4(2) mentions requirements for lifts - does this mean we have to incorporate a lift at this stage?

Attached is a pic of the front glazing and door.

Thanks!

 

Front Glazing.pdf

[Mr Punter]

Hi @OldYeller

 

It is common for some planning authorities to impose this.  It is probably easier to go with it for now and try to remove it either with an application to vary the condition or perhaps your building control body will relax part of the requirement.

 

With the canopy, if it gets picked up on at planning stage, just show it on the plan / elevation and either do not fit or fit something temporary.

 

Regarding the lift, this is often just for future provision, so an area of floor that has been trimmed around so could be used in future (with a fair amount of work) plus a socket at ground floor that the lift could be plugged into.

 

We have been asked to do this in the past but it never happened on site.

 

 

[nod]

Very good advise Mr P

 

We had a similar situation 

Didn’t  want to use main entrance as main access 

We decided to wait and speak to BC 

at a later date 

[Temp]

4 hours ago, OldYeller said:

The requirement to have the principle access landing area 'covered' will mean a big ugly protrusion in the middle of my glazing!

 

Perhaps just a simple flat a glass porch/canopy would be ok and near invisible from a distance.

 

 

 

[OldYeller]

Thanks for your replies - I am relieved there are options to meet these requirements. I have confirmed with the planning officer that we will meet M4(2).

I'll discuss with BC the exact details.

I can fully understand why accessibility is best considered early on.

 

The planning officer is 'recommending approval' and it has now been passed to a senior officer for review.

Fingers crossed!