Replacement Design Challenge for Bungalow being demolished/rebuilt by Insurer

[michelenh]

Hi all

 

Three years ago I posted that I had instigated a subsidence claim re my dad's 1963 semiD bungalow in Stratford upon Avon Warwickshire and had therefore had to place our extension plans on hold pending claim.

 

Three years later, insurer (foll use of its multiple experts) has accepted full liability for claim, declared that as it is progressive subsidence and that due to extent of damage to bungalow & the challenges of the land/original foundations that the bungalow is to be fully demolished, the (new/tbc) floorplan is to be fully piled and that a new DETACHED bungalow will be built.  It has been determined that detached is required due to the required repairs to ours would endanger the attached bungalow.  Next door are very happy to go detached at our Insurer's cost (& us giving them c4 inch for outside wall)

 

Insurer has elected to use our architect & our structural engineer and we await the first designs - the challenge being that the existing bungalow's width will be reduced by c1.8m (combination of:  2x exterior walls ilo one party wall, one new rear access path (we want at least 1.35m) & leave at least 0.35m between us and other boundary. 

 

Question One

The good news is that we have good depth of plot both front & rear so I thought a *replacement design (for 3 beds, one lounge, one kitchen, one main bathroom, one wc, one hall) would be simple ie just go deeper and less wide.........however our architect has advised that although we are not in a conservation area that planners hate different ridge heights/ roof pitches.........so how does one go deeper/how much and keep planners happy?

 

Question Two:

Also, we are hoping to work with Insurer and have a new/bigger sqm build with us paying the difference of course  - nothing major, but want to have bigger kitchen, bigger main bath (to make into wetroom with bath) plus extra spare space for a staircase (in case we ever want to go into roof & would also pay for the type of joists/materials required).........how is this best discussed/evidenced to Insurer Build 1 vs Build 2 costs (checked by a QS that we engage) & we pay difference?  (Dad can decamp to my house so we would already be contributing "accommodation" costs)

 

We already feel that we have won the lottery with Insurer accepting full liability as it has been a very rocky road and to get a detached new build is a dream BUT I want to make sure that I don't miss any opportunity to get the best/right build for us.

 

Thanks, Michele

[DevilDamo]

In relation to question 1 and in some instances, LPA’s may look to retain certain design features that other properties incorporate. But each application is determined on its own merits.

[kandgmitchell]

Going "deeper" doesn't mean the ridge would automatically be higher - it's a function of span and pitch so turning the direction of span across the narrower width may actually result in a lower ridge. Planners are almost certainly going to want you to respect the nature of the surrounding properties in scale, form and materials but that doesn't mean an exact copy.

 

As to the insurance company the first step I would have thought is to ask about the potential for "betterment" if you contribute the balance. The conversation has to start somewhere......

[LSB]

But, if the planners are going to demand that there is no increase in height then will you even have enough roof space for those stairs.  Would you be better looking at extending into depth for future, even down to laying foundations.

My brother had a catastrophic house fire and the house had to be rebuild, not from nothing, but definitely 70% and his insurance company were happy for them to extend into the side return so just ask them.  They can only say no.

 

[Johnnyt]

Why don't you explore the possibility of a cash settlement with the loss adjusters/insurers.

They may well be be happy not getting involved in interim payments and ensuring the build cost to date is comensurate the the interim payment.

A buildings policy is generally one of reinstatement or indemnity, they might let you loose and just seek sight of the final account(s) for release of the vat element if any with a new build.

This would free you up to add any extras you feel fit to add.

 

[michelenh]

On 18/09/2023 at 19:22, Johnnyt said:

Why don't you explore the possibility of a cash settlement with the loss adjusters/insurers.

They may well be be happy not getting involved in interim payments and ensuring the build cost to date is comensurate the the interim payment.

A buildings policy is generally one of reinstatement or indemnity, they might let you loose and just seek sight of the final account(s) for release of the vat element if any with a new build.

This would free you up to add any extras you feel fit to add.

 

 

Hi, Thanks for your comment.  We were offered a cash settlement but it was insufficient to warrant acceptance PLUS the demo/rebuild/interation with neighbours/ever increasing costs all contribute to a very complex build so prefer to have insurance project manage to be honest.