How far can I go without PP?

[Benpointer]

Apologies for this I will try to be brief:

• Our plot has full PP for a 160m2 3-bed chalet - not started.
• The plot also has two existing buildings on:
• 1)  A 9m x 5m timber frame 'classroom' - was used for dog (owner) training - pitched felt roof, eaves 2.8m, ridge 3.9m.
• 2) A 6m x 6m timber framed garage, pitched felt roof, eaves 2.3m ridge 3.9m
• The current PP shows those two buildings but makes no other reference to them - importantly they don't have to come down as part of the PP.
• We are going to submit revised PP for the house because we want single-storey - we do not plan to propose any changes to the two existing buildings.
• The 'classroom' is within the canopy (and no doubt root protection area) of a neighbour's oak which now has a TPO.
• I doubt we'd be allowed to knock the 'classroom' down and rebuild in that area because of the oak tree.
• I want to repurpose the 'classroom' as a workshop, ideally before our house build but potentially afterwards.

 

So my question is:  what can we do to the classroom without obtaining PP (and ideally BC)?  E.g.:

1. Reclad it?  (It's currently clad in ropey, rotten, softwood T&G.)
2. Repair the frame where needed?  (There's bound to be some rot here and there).
3. Insulate it? (It's lined with plasterboard inside - not sure if there is any existing insulation.)
4. Replace the roof with an insulated, tiled roof?
5. Replace the wooden floor with an insulated, concrete or screeded floor?
6. New windows?

 

Basically, I am happy to keep a building on the same footprint because we'd never be able to use that part of the plot for building due to the TPO'd oak.   But ideally, we'd put a more substantial, better-insulted, better-built building on the same footings.

 

Any thoughts?

 

Thanks!

 

[Benpointer]

Some pics:

 

'Classroom' on left, TPO'd oak behind, garage on right.

 

 

Extract from topo survey, 'classroom' shown as 'STORE',

 

 

[mjc55]

38 minutes ago, Benpointer said:

So my question is:  what can we do to the classroom without obtaining PP (and ideally BC)?  E.g.:

1. Reclad it?  (It's currently clad in ropey, rotten, softwood T&G.)
2. Repair the frame where needed?  (There's bound to be some rot here and there).
3. Insulate it? (It's lined with plasterboard inside - not sure if there is any existing insulation.)
4. Replace the roof with an insulated, tiled roof?
5. Replace the wooden floor with an insulated, concrete or screeded floor?
6. New windows?

 

 

I would probably say that 

 

As regards planning

 

1.  If replacing cladding with same then no PP otherwise PP required 

2. No PP

3. No PP

4. PP required

5. No PP

6. No PP 

 

As regards BC

 

As greater than 30 sq. m. then would require BR approval.

 

Others will probably be along to agree/disagree!

 

[mjc55]

Just to add that proximity to boundary looks less than 1 or 2m, this will have an issue regarding timber cladding so close to boundary.  There would be requirement for fire related protection.

[Temp]

17 hours ago, Benpointer said:

Our plot has full PP for a 160m2 3-bed chalet - not started.

 

Remember the CIL rules preclude starting work before you have formally claimed the exemption on the right forms.

[kandgmitchell]

Wells as regards Building Regulations:

 

The building has a useful floor area of less than 50m2 and isn't a dwelling so the energy efficiency requirements don't apply so insulate it if you wish but that's your choice.

 

As to the cladding, bear this in mind:

 

An alteration is material for the purposes of these Regulations if the work, or any part of it, would at any stage result—

(a)in a building or controlled service or fitting not complying with a relevant requirement where previously it did; or

(b)in a building or controlled service or fitting which before the work commenced did not comply with a relevant requirement, being more unsatisfactory in relation to such a requirement.

 

I would suggest that replacing the existing cladding like for like, one strip at a time say, would not make the building more unsatisfactory than it was.

 

However, replace the felt roof covering with heavier tiles then you would be carrying out a material alteration as the roof structure would be taking a higher dead load than it previously did. From a practical point of view insulated metal sheeting would be a better bet than tiles given that the roof structure maybe a bit scant.

 

[Benpointer]

6 hours ago, mjc55 said:

Just to add that proximity to boundary looks less than 1 or 2m, this will have an issue regarding timber cladding so close to boundary.  There would be requirement for fire related protection.

Yes, it's 1.5m distant at the closest point. Presumably though if the original rotted, I'd be allowed to repair it like for like (or perhaps WRC for pine)?

[Benpointer]

2 hours ago, Temp said:

 

Remember the CIL rules preclude starting work before you have formally claimed the exemption on the right forms.

Good point but fortunately there's no CIL in North Dorset.

[kandgmitchell]

20 minutes ago, Benpointer said:

I'd be allowed to repair it like for like (or perhaps WRC for pine)?

The Building Regulations control "building work". That is defined specifically in the Regulations. The definition that potentially applies to you is making a "material alteration to a building" since you are patently not erecting a building, installing a controlled fitting, underpinning etc etc (other actions included in the 9 definitions of building work).

 

However, as above, an alteration is only "material" if it makes the situation worse than it was, either by creating a new contravention or making an existing contravention worse. Now at 1.5m from the boundary, odds on the wall doesn't have the correct fire resistance nor does the cladding have the correct spread of flame classification so there is an existing (and no doubt long standing) contravention. However, as long as you do not make it worse by your actions, perhaps by replacing the timber with cardboard for instance, the alteration; swapping one piece of timber with another would not be "material" and thus is not "building work".

 

The roof tile issue is different because there would be a new contravention, in that the existing roof structure would not have been designed for that loading and thus additional work would be required to bring it back into compliance (i.e strengthening) and so that alteration is "material" and is thus "building work".  

[mjc55]

43 minutes ago, Benpointer said:

Good point but fortunately there's no CIL in North Dorset.

I am not sure why you say this.  We have a plot in North Dorset, awaiting PP and as I understand it there certainly is CIL.

[Benpointer]

13 minutes ago, mjc55 said:

I am not sure why you say this.  We have a plot in North Dorset, awaiting PP and as I understand it there certainly is CIL.

"Dorset Council does not operate CIL in the former North Dorset area and mitigation required to support the needs of new development is secured through section 106 legal agreements. "

 

https://www.dorsetcouncil.gov.uk/w/dorset-council-community-infrastructure-levy

 

Edit: Could your plot be just outside the old North Dorset District Council area?

Edited November 28 by Benpointer
Further thought

[mjc55]

I am sure that I knew this earlier in the year, it's age I guess 🙃

 

Yes, we are in West Dorset (just).

 

Sorry to add to the confusion - it's happening far too much lately.

[Benpointer]

13 hours ago, mjc55 said:

I am sure that I knew this earlier in the year, it's age I guess 🙃

 

Yes, we are in West Dorset (just).

 

Sorry to add to the confusion - it's happening far too much lately.

No worries - take it from me, living in the Blackmore Vale addles your brain 😉