Main dwelling and outbuilding

[Zak S]

Please critique.

 

The house is proposed as an extension to existing banglow plus new garden room (65sqm)

 

Last image is the option  2 for the ground floor layout which I prefer compared to the original per the plan.

 

Main house layout is biased more towards better design but scarificies the potential space still achieving around 500sqm.

 

Would be great to have some feedback on everything. Thanks

Edited March 22 by Zak S
Clarification

[JohnMo]

For me the whole design needs to be simplified. Too many bits and no symmetry. Big for the sake of being big. Sorry not a fan. The outbuilding doesn't tie in to the rest of the property design wise.

[Zak S]

Starting all over again is not an option. We like the contemporary nature of the design concept. We are too far in the process to restart and we don't think there is s need. We are looking to see if there are any improvement that can be made with few tweaks with reasons/benefit for the changes or if there are any fundamental flaws with explanation of why its a flaw in practical terms and how it can be fixed. General comments ofcourss welcome but would contribute less to our efforts to improve the design.

Edited March 23 by Zak S

[JohnMo]

Just going back in history isn't this just repost of a question you asked a while ago and got lots of feedback?

[DevilDamo]

That isn’t an extension. It’s a new build dwelling.

[Zak S]

Yes I have now linked the updated design to that discussion. There have been updates made to the design so nearly final and due to submit in a month time hence looking for some last minute feedback.

Edited March 23 by Zak S

[Zak S]

5 minutes ago, DevilDamo said:

That isn’t an extension. It’s a new build dwelling.

With the ground condition, it will require piling so we will go with steel framing which should reduce the need to knock down the banglow and also reduce piling cost partly.

[DevilDamo]

2 minutes ago, Zak S said:

With the ground condition, it will require piling so we will go with steel framing which should reduce the need to knock down the banglow and also reduce piling cost partly.

Your LPA may determine this as a Full and not a Householder application. Best to get some advice on that.

[Zak S]

8 minutes ago, DevilDamo said:

Your LPA may determine this as a Full and not a Householder application. Best to get some advice on that.

Do you mean replacement dwelling rather than extension/rebuild? Didn't know councils can insist the change!

[DevilDamo]

2 hours ago, Zak S said:

Do you mean replacement dwelling rather than extension/rebuild? Didn't know councils can insist the change!

Yes. If they consider that not much of the existing structure remains, they may not accept the submission of a Householder application. So you’d have no choice but to submit a Full application. Different policies kick in with new build dwellings but as it’s a replacement so no net gain, that will help.

 

You’d then also need to meet the Building Regulations for a new dwelling so would require to provide additional reports and calculations.

Edited March 23 by DevilDamo

[Zak S]

2 hours ago, DevilDamo said:

Yes. If they consider that not much of the existing structure remains, they may not accept the submission of a Householder application. So you’d have no choice but to submit a Full application. Different policies kick in with new build dwellings but as it’s a replacement so no net gain, that will help.

 

You’d then also need to meet the Building Regulations for a new dwelling so would require to provide additional reports and calculations.

Thanks for the clarification. To be totally honest, I will prefer it to be an extension.  Though from build perspective, it's easier and cleaner to rebuild but I just don't want to down that route for various reasons.

[DevilDamo]

That may not be your decision. Have you sought any kind of Pre-application advice from the LPA?

[AppleDown]

From a design aspect it’s huge. Everything could be shrunk a little and I’m sure you’d make some substantial savings.

 

Is the bedroom off the carport an annexe type situation? If so, I’d switch the bedroom part with the bathroom and kitchen. Don’t want to be woken up by a car pulling in or going out.

 

If you do actually want a snooker table up in the loft, make sure you can get it in there. And ensure the floor can take the added weight.

[Zak S]

23 hours ago, DevilDamo said:

That may not be your decision. Have you sought any kind of Pre-application advice from the LPA?

This is the extension (in blue) to the existing footprint so in the context of significant increase compared to what we have it does not not seem but just being built upward.

 

Nb: pink section is demolition and replacement.

Edited March 24 by Zak S

[Zak S]

20 hours ago, AppleDown said:

From a design aspect it’s huge. Everything could be shrunk a little and I’m sure you’d make some substantial savings.

 

Is the bedroom off the carport an annexe type situation? If so, I’d switch the bedroom part with the bathroom and kitchen. Don’t want to be woken up by a car pulling in or going out.

 

If you do actually want a snooker table up in the loft, make sure you can get it in there. And ensure the floor can take the added weight.

As per above comment the increase on existing footprint is relative small but its being built upwards, not sure in this scenario how to cut everything smaller.

 

Bedroom next to car part is an option as in the second option it was moved towards the garden.

 

Snooker table.is just illustrating. I am not very good at it anyways.

[ETC]

Massing is too over-bearing with too much roof.

Not a fan of the elevations - they’re too fussy with too many different material used.

There doesn’t seem to be much left of the existing house. Looks like a new build to me.

Not a fan of having the kitchen open to the staircase - dangerous. Have you consulted BC about a protected staircase?

The garden room is a bit twee.

[Zak S]

19 minutes ago, ETC said:

Massing is too over-bearing with too much roof.

Architect have two options. One with higher and other with lower roof (plan B

 

21 minutes ago, ETC said:

they’re too fussy with too many different material use

There are options to keep all timber cladding front and back (removing aluminium/zinc cladding) and replace sides with render but I felt shingles bring a bit of character but I might be wrong. 

 

23 minutes ago, ETC said:

Have you consulted BC about a protected staircase?

No not yet but the architect advised it might be ok in terms of building control.

 

24 minutes ago, ETC said:

The garden room is a bit twee.

What are the option to make it better so it goes in the corner and not waste too much space behind/ sides?

[ETC]

You should speak to BC before you go too far. A three-storey house will need a protected staircase - something you don’t currently have.

 

As for the garden room - don’t put in the corner.

[Zak S]

7 minutes ago, ETC said:

You should speak to BC before you go too far. A three-storey house will need a protected staircase - something you don’t currently have.

 

As for the garden room - don’t put in the corner.

Good idea. Will speak with BC before proceeding to submit planning.

 

With regards to Garden room, it's 65sqm and garden shape lends itself to place it in the corner otherwise will have to significantly sacrifice garden space place the corner space will be wasted as well. Image of garden attached. It is proposed to the tucked in the corner where the green compost bin is.

Edited March 27 by Zak S

[Zak S]

On 27/03/2024 at 21:59, ETC said:

You should speak to BC before you go too far. A three-storey house will need a protected staircase - something you don’t currently have.

 

As for the garden room - don’t put in the corner.

Hi @ETC. Just wondering if in your view, using a differnt kind of Hob e.g. Induction in the Island in the large kitch will be acceptable be less problematic, given the dirty small (secondary) kitchen is already proposed to be isolated? Or one can omit the hob in the main large open plan kitchen or replace it with Teppanyaki plate.

[ETC]

It won’t make any difference.

[Iceverge]

On 23/03/2024 at 14:52, Zak S said:

Though from build perspective, it's easier and cleaner to rebuild but I just don't want to down that route for various reasons

 

I've been following this thread. 

 

I'm beginning to think you have a body buried in the existing foundations. 

 

 

[Zak S]

On 31/03/2024 at 19:02, ETC said:

It won’t make any difference.

Thanks. I have been informed that loft area will be protected from first floor by fire doors and that I would need mist system for the ground floor as fire suppression system. Obviously this will add to the cost but cost of fire doors and mist system (likely 5k) seems manageable. I have not been told about protected fire escape route and the plan currently does not have that so not if that will be required if we have taken the measures mentioned above.

[Zak S]

Also I been looking at some ed render which used charred timber through out with grey bricks and seems to like it better compared to using aluminium/ zinc shingles. I think my initial brief was contemporary and arts craft coming together but feel charred timber through out for more contemporary look could be better out come and it will make it less busy. Thoughts on terms of comparison to the image posted in original post above?

[ETC]

While a fire engineered solution may be acceptable to BC having the kitchen open to the floors above is - in my opinion - dangerous. Consider a scenario where smoke from a fire on the ground floor rises - the parents are in their bedroom and the children are in theirs. All rooms have fire escape windows but a parent will always want to get to their children in an emergency and this could mean entering a smoke filled hallway.