When is a large renovation a new build?

[peekay]

Hi all.

 

Have been reading the forum for a few years whilst planning a self build, but this is the first question that I haven't been able to find an answer to in an existing thread (but if someone is able to point me to a previous similar post then please do).

 

We have bought a semi derelict dormer bungalow and now have planning permission to remove the roof, raise the ridge line slightly to create more habitable space upstairs, raise the ground floor ceiling height, remove some bay windows, a double storey rear extension, internal reconfiguration and change the size/location of almost every window and door on the ground floor. Basically very little of the original 1950s building will remain untouched. 

 

We had intended to use a local builder for demolition/ground floor prep and structural works to existing, and a timber frame company to put on the new first floor/roof structure. The foundations of the house are good.

 

We are now considering removing all of the existing ground floor walls and having the timber frame company build the ground floor structure as well as the first/roof. Same layout as the approved drawings, and utilising the existing footings. Would be quicker, cheaper, easier, fewer unknowns, and create a better sealed/insulated house.

So the question is, when does something become a 'new build'? Is it not a new build if a certain amount or %age of original walls remain?

 

If we did use timber frame for the ground floor, the finished house would internally and externally still look the same as the approved drawings.

 

We are keen to progress as quickly as possible and would rather not go through a new planning application given if we were to go for full timber frame the plans and application would be almost identical to what we already have approved.

 

Is there a risk that a planning officer may pop round and notice that the house has been demolished and cause problems? Is this significant and what actions could be taken?

 

It is quite feasible that during the original plan of keeping the existing ground floor that we come across issues that require further demolition. Or a construction vehicle could accidently reverse in to the part demolished ground floor, meaning that we have to rebuild it anyway. 

 

Would be good to hear thoughts.

 

Thanks 

 

Edited December 20, 2023 by peekay

[Iceverge]

If you're in the UK you can reclaim the VAT on a new build. It may be worth considering. 

 

 

[peekay]

Yes, however if doing that, then we are committing to it being a 'new build', and not a renovation.

 

Given the house has been vacant for so long, we are claiming 5% VAT rate anyway, so although the 0% reclaim is good, it is not really a huge incentive for us. For cashflow reasons the 5% probably works better for us as we pay 5% now, rather than pay 20% and reclaim to 0%.

[Mr Punter]

I think you are being a dick to stake so much money by "accidentally"  demolishing parts of the house.  The downside risk is enormous and I cannot see much upside.  Just get a fresh consent, knock it down and build from scratch.

[JohnMo]

13 minutes ago, Mr Punter said:

I think you are being a dick to stake so much money by "accidentally"  demolishing parts of the house.  The downside risk is enormous and I cannot see much upside.  Just get a fresh consent, knock it down and build from scratch.

Exactly my thoughts, just put a bit better that I was going to write.

 

 

[Russell griffiths]

You won’t pay 20% vat and then claim it back

if the timberframe company supplies the frame and erects it the vat will be zero rated as a new build. 

[peekay]

Thanks. Maybe a fresh application is the way to go then if I decide to remove what little will remain of the ground floor.

 

But, my question still remains, as to where the line is between a new build and a large scale renovation/extension.

 

Is there guidance, previous determination or case law that sets the threshold of how much building must remain for it not to be classed as a new build? 

 

My approved planning permission shows that by length, around 50% of the ground floor external walls will be either new (due to the extensions),  or modified (by having a bay window/door removed, a standard window removed or window inserted). Plus, I am adding an additional 20% on to the height of all ground floor external walls. 60% of existing ground floor internal walls are being removed. 100% of everything above the ground floor is to be removed and replaced. So in effect, there is very little original to remain. 

 

Thanks for the VAT related responses, definitely something to have in mind, but I do not really want this thread to be about that.

 

Edited December 20, 2023 by peekay

[saveasteading]

4 hours ago, peekay said:

Is there a risk that a planning officer may pop round and notice that the house has been demolished and cause problems? Is this significant

Only that you have no house and have costs but no certainty of permission to build a new one.

There  are no tricks. it has all been thought of.

 

However, its worth realising that builders seldom buy to renovate, and would prefer to demolish because of the constraints in the existing building.

Then the zero VAT thing comes in too. 

 

But you can't assume that you will get permission to demolish unless the building is unfit for purpose.

 

4 hours ago, peekay said:

vehicle could accidently reverse in to the part demolished ground floor, meaning that we have to rebuild it anyway. 

Erm, not necessarily. Permission is not certain enough.Again, Please concentrate on doing a good job, and not looking for dodges.

[Conor]

You run the risk of being asked to rebuild parts of the building. There's lots of arguments either way, e.g. retain structure in order to reduce embedded carbon cost, Vs demolish to get better insulation and lower long term CO2 emissions. Also, don't forget your mortgage company (need their permission, unlikely you'll get it for a full demo) and also insurance. 

 

Might be worth a word with the planning officer to see what they think 

Edited December 21, 2023 by Conor

[George]

I've been involved in a few jobs where they've kept maybe a few walls from the ground floor. It' never worth it, demo and do a new build. 

[DevilDamo]

There isn’t a set rule and is down to the discretion of the LPA. So you would need to put your question to them.

[kandgmitchell]

Just be aware these things can bite you and very hard. I recall a case in 2002 of a small baptist chapel getting permission to be converted to a dwelling. It was the usual rural chapel kind of thing - corrugated sheeting on a timber frame. A fair amount of upgrading had been agreed with the planners but essentially it was a conversion. However, the owner went too far, taking down the frame (because he said it was rotten) and re-building the walls in blockwork along with a new roof. The Council served an enforcement notice saying that this was now a new building not a conversion. Being in the green belt it was not appropriate development. The owner went to appeal and lost.  The Inspector stated that the original planning chapter had been closed by the extent of the works and what was now there had to be viewed as something different. The owner wasn't allowed to re-instate the original building and had to completely demolish all the new work. He was however allowed to retain the original concrete floor slab. 

 

To date that concrete slab still sits on an empty overgrown plot. 

[ToughButterCup]

14 hours ago, peekay said:

...

Is there a risk that a planning officer may pop round and notice that the house has been demolished and cause problems? Is this significant and what actions could be taken?

...

 

Q1: Yes.

Q2: Tell the Planning officer. Listen.

 

Why take an unforced risk, when all you have to do is some paperwork?  Use the inevitable delay to plan.

[BigBub]

You probably want to look in to a Prior Approval application under Class ZA - Demolition of buildings and construction of new dwellinghouses in their place: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2015/596/schedule/2/part/20/crossheading/demolition-of-buildings-and-construction-of-new-dwellinghouses-in-their-place

[Iceverge]

Personally I think you should be allowed to rebuild a house as it was without planning permission. It would save a lot of messing and we'd have far better housing stock as a result.  I have seen the cost of a new house poured into a renovation to end up with a compromised heap of junk once or twice. 

 

However that's neither here nor there in this situation. 

 

You have permission for a renovation that as far as I know they can't retract.  It sound lightly that as you were permitted to renovate the existing house to such an extent then you'll be able to rebuild as it must not have been of great architectural value to begin with. 

 

Perhaps some photos of the existing building and proposed floorplans would help crowdsource ideas. 

 

 

 

 

[LSB]

We are converting a barn and about Aug this year a car drove in and it turned out to be the planners.

He was doing the rounds of all the local barn conversions to check.

He was happy with us as he could see the old walls and what we were doing, but he told us that there were 3 people who had lost their planning because when he did his random visit there was no existing barn there and they had obviously knocked down and started from scratch.

2 others lost their planning because they hadn't started in time.

 

So, go for planning for what you want to do, but as others have said don't do anything until a rebuild is approved so that you have a fall back option of renovation.

 

[SteamyTea]

TL:DR

 

There was someone on here who took down one too many walls and got clobbered by the planners.

Either scale back your plans or start a fresh.

No real middle ground here.

[Kelvin]

Yes listen to the examples given here. There’s another example near me where the guy got planning to renovate a derelict cottage on a large plot. He got into it and the building turned out to be much worse than he thought. The walls “fell down” so he started erecting a new house on the footprint. Building control stopped by to check progress and stopped all work. In the end he reapplied for planning to build  a completely new house on a different part of the plot. It’s not worth the risk to mess about with this. 

[peekay]

Thanks for all of the advice and opinion.

 

We will be keeping the very few original walls in place.

[saveasteading]

On 20/12/2023 at 22:59, peekay said:

the line is between a new build and a large scale renovation/extension.

If the roof and walls are gone, it isn't a building. Many planning permissions have been lost on this basis, even if genuinely accidental.

Then the foundations can not be deemed ok just because they have performed for many years.

 

How many walls must remain? I've no idea. I'd recommend don't play games but get it clarified. 

Edited January 19 by saveasteading

[Blooda]

Getting a new planning does not revoke the older one.

You would be able to choose which one to go with.