No planning

[DevilDamo]

  On 05/03/2024 at 11:36, NailBiter said:

ou will get a "free go" if they refuse the permission and you reapply with a similar planning permission.

Expand  

That was removed on 6th December.

[vik2001]

@DevilDamo do you think me being so close to the boundary fence will be a issue with the planners? In the bottom corner the space tapers in.

I will have a small window facing out towards the fence for bathroom and kitchen with obscured glass. The neighbour has no issue with this, and encourages the build.

 

Edited March 7, 2024 by vik2001

[vik2001]

The boundary gap start at 610mm and tapers in at the end to 380mm

This is because the neighbour built the fence not in line so he's actually on my side

[DevilDamo]

Planning would not have any issues in terms of overlooking. Depending on how close the neighbour is to the boundary, there may be issues in terms of overbearing, loss of daylight, etc… But I seem to remember you mentioning that the nearest and impacted neighbour is quite a way away. Because you don’t have a PD fallback position, then you’re in the Planners hands.

 

If the proposed window exceeds 1sq.m, then that is likely to be an issue with Building Regulations. But you could get round that by installing fire resisting glass and have the window non opening.

[vik2001]

To the boundary the neighbour on his side is 2000mm away.

 

The other problem I will have is rendering behind the block work in such a tight space, hoping the neighbour will pull the fence down for that, especially as he's come down to my side.

Edited March 7, 2024 by vik2001

[TerryE]

  On 06/03/2024 at 21:04, DevilDamo said:

No help to the OP as the proposals require Planning.

Expand  

 

They probably do, but why do you say this with 100% certainty?  It is the LPA that decides.  An expert such as a planning consultant who is familiar with the LPA's process and practice might have a relevant informed view. 

 

It is dangerous putting in a PA "blind" because rejection kicks off what might be an extremely long process - a year+ delay, if not indefinite.   IMO, far better to have a dialogue with the Planning Department, and then submit an application that has a local officer's support.  And the officer might just say "this doesn't need an application", in which case a CoLD is essential to protect the owner.

[TerryE]

  On 07/03/2024 at 13:23, vik2001 said:

To the boundary the neighbour on his side is 2000mm away ...  hoping the neighbour will pull the fence down for that, especially as he's come down to my side.

Expand  

 

@vik2001 you need to tread carefully here.  The Land Registration records the accepted boundary, and in practice the boundary is where is boundary is, unless you have prior photographic evidence that your neighbour has subsequently erected his fence within your curtilage, and in doing so possessed some of your land (without your consent?)  This could easily escalate into a formal boundary dispute.  You need to decide your priorities: do you want to get into a boundary dispute with your neighbour, or do you want a supporter of your application?   Even if you both agree that the current fence does not reflect the actual boundary, then you'd probably need to offer some sweetener to remedy this: e.g. offering to replace the fence as new on the actual line, plus ....  A difficult one to navigate.

 

Edited March 7, 2024 by TerryE

[DevilDamo]

  On 07/03/2024 at 13:53, TerryE said:

but why do you say this with 100% certainty?

Expand  

Because you cannot extend off an original rear wall by more than 8m without Planning.

[DevilDamo]

  On 07/03/2024 at 13:23, vik2001 said:

hoping the neighbour will pull the fence down for that

Expand  

No Planning, BR’s or requirements under the PWA give you that access. It’s something that should have been considered at design stage. 

[Moonshine]

  On 07/03/2024 at 09:12, vik2001 said:

Expand  

 

Am i being thick here, or i may have missed it. I can't get my head around this construction and this detail.

 

An earlier drawing the OP showed is for a cavity wall along this line. Those beams should not be crossing the cavity to the external leaf.

 

Also those beam ends don't look like they have been treated to protect the rebar from the ingress of moisture.

Edited March 7, 2024 by Moonshine

[vik2001]

So he should have put the beams before the cavity and not build the cavity on top of the floor

[Moonshine]

  On 07/03/2024 at 17:07, vik2001 said:

So he should have put the beams before the cavity and not build the cavity on top of the floor

Expand  

 

once they are shortened and on the inner leaf i would get him to paint the ends with bitumen paint to seal the rebar.

[vik2001]

  On 07/03/2024 at 17:23, Moonshine said:

 

once they are shortened and on the inner leaf i would get him to paint the ends with bitumen paint to seal the rebar.

Expand  

Does he need to use infill blocks as well under thr blocks to fill the voids?

[Moonshine]

Yes, he should be using concrete slips which are 40mm deep when used with a mortar bed is 50mm to fill the gap between the low part of the beams

 

https://www.bradfords.co.uk/details-blc056

[vik2001]

I think if you didn't point this out this builder may attempt to start building up the cavity insulation from the block and beam floor.

[Moonshine]

  On 07/03/2024 at 20:59, vik2001 said:

I think if you didn't point this out this builder may attempt to start building up the cavity insulation from the block and beam floor.

Expand  

 

You do build the inner wall leave on top of the last 100mm of beam and block infills, but there has to be a supporting wall below that. The other thing that looks off is there is no ventilation vents visible going down under the block and beam floor?

[Moonshine]

It should look like this in section 

 

[DevilDamo]

  On 07/03/2024 at 16:34, Moonshine said:

Those beams should not be crossing the cavity to the external leaf.

Expand  

That’s right. And only a “similar” detail is used at door thresholds. 

[BigBub]

  On 06/03/2024 at 20:58, DevilDamo said:

Where have you seen it extends beyond the wall, which is considered a principle elevation?

Expand  

 

From the original floorplan that OP posted which shows that the garage extends beyond the front of the house and therefore if the extension joins to the garage then it would be beyond the principle elevation. Why is everyone so sure that the garage is an original part of the house for the proposed extension to be under rear and side extension rules?

 

@vik2001 do you know if the garage is an original part of the house or a later addition?

[vik2001]

The garage is originally, it was built with it.

[DevilDamo]

@BigBub The front of a house is not always the principle elevation. In the OP’s case, the garage footprint remains and the proposed development is to the rear. Hence it being a rear and side extension.

[scottishjohn]

  On 04/03/2024 at 18:18, vik2001 said:

Also the wall is still within my boundary and 50 or 60mm away from the fence on that side, so I'm hoping it won't be a issue with planning dept

Expand  

I know when I looked ta an extension to current house  anything less than 1m was problem for planning

[DevilDamo]

@scottishjohn What was their issue? And I assume you’re referring to a single storey side extension?

[scottishjohn]

  On 08/03/2024 at 18:10, DevilDamo said:

@scottishjohn What was their issue? And I assume you’re referring to a single storey side extension?

Expand  

yes side extension - no mention of how many floors etc -- just wanted 1m to boundary 

which if you think about it  is sensible for repairs and alos inmtial building ,you need over 1m to get scaffolding in 

Edited March 9, 2024 by scottishjohn

[DevilDamo]

Yes, it is sensible. But when space is already at a premium, maximising your internal usable space will be the number one priority.