Clarify 2.5m height planning rule for outbuildings
Discussion
Equus said:
Well, if you have more than 25% of the floor area as glazed area, you usually have to demonstrate (by calculation) that you have compensated in some other way.
We didn’t.But we did go larger as we were going to use existing French doors and side panels from another building that the previous owner built the council made us demolish as they decided the curtilage wasn’t where the previous owner believed it to be.
The reason for the change was due to the pillars falling down in the wind.
Hence better windows and new builder
Out of interest what does that mean by compensating in some other way?
Edited by hunton69 on Thursday 27th August 12:46
hunton69 said:
We didn’t.
And didn't Building Control even query it?! What is the use of the building?hunton69 said:
Out of interest what does that mean by compensating in some other way?
In simple terms: you do a calculation to work out how much heat would be lost if you'd used the 'allowable' (25% floor area) amount of glazing, then you do another calculation to prove that your design is at least equally energy efficient.This can be by means of using more efficient glazing than the basic regulations assume, by putting more insulation somewhere else (roof, walls, floor) than would normally necessary, and/or by fitting a more efficient heating system than the basic regs assume.
Edited by Equus on Thursday 27th August 13:01
Swimming pool, snooker room, gym and a smallish bar.
Building control have been round many times not mentioned anything. The doors are sliders and double glazed.
Insulation in roof will 150 mm but that was my choice as I disagreed with the architect.
He did Not allow for any insulation under the steels. His design 125mm roof timbers I put in 200
Heating system is underfloor plus air ducts underground in pool room.
Pool is also insulated again my choice
Building control have been round many times not mentioned anything. The doors are sliders and double glazed.
Insulation in roof will 150 mm but that was my choice as I disagreed with the architect.
He did Not allow for any insulation under the steels. His design 125mm roof timbers I put in 200
Heating system is underfloor plus air ducts underground in pool room.
Pool is also insulated again my choice
hunton69 said:
Swimming pool, snooker room, gym and a smallish bar.
....Pool is also insulated again my choice
As an aside, there are specific conditions in the Regulations relating to the insulation of swimming pool basins.....Pool is also insulated again my choice
I'm astonished, if you've applied for B.Regs, that they haven't taken more of an interest!
Equus said:
PhilboSE said:
...something like this:
Of course, in practical terms, it usually makes much more sense to simply build the structure on top of the retaining wall, instead of immediately in front of it, as shown on that diagram. Otherwise, apart from the fact that you're wasting space and money building two separate walls when one would do the job, you've got potential issues of damp penetration between the two. TA14 said:
Building a small, water resistant retaining wall that sits on/is part of the slab, and which is also part of the building/insulated and easy to build for the DIYer and exempt from all regulations isn't going to be a five minute job.
Neither is something to that detail that doesn't allow water to penetrate between the retaining wall and the wall of the building that abuts it?Equus said:
ETA: I might be misunderstanding what Pheo is trying to say about 'building on plinths' though.... but yes, if the retaining wall is an entirely separate structure to the building, it throws up questions of:
a) Whether the retaining wall is separate 'engineering work' that required permission in its own rights and;
b) Whether the retained ground is any longer immediately adjacent to the building, for the purposes of measuring the building's height.
Once again, it raises the question of whether you're trying to be so sharp you could cut yourself... if you're having to expend such a lot of devious effort to dodge through the precise wording of the rules, it probably means that you should just apply for Planning Permission and have done with it.
(apologies: edit overlapped with Pheo's post immediately below)
a) Whether the retaining wall is separate 'engineering work' that required permission in its own rights and;
b) Whether the retained ground is any longer immediately adjacent to the building, for the purposes of measuring the building's height.
Once again, it raises the question of whether you're trying to be so sharp you could cut yourself... if you're having to expend such a lot of devious effort to dodge through the precise wording of the rules, it probably means that you should just apply for Planning Permission and have done with it.
(apologies: edit overlapped with Pheo's post immediately below)
PhilboSE said:
I think it's because of the belief that the retaining wall has to be part of the building, or at least touching it.
Permitted Development Technical Guide for Class E.1 (e) (iii) states "The height of the building, enclosure or container should be measured from the highest ground level immediately adjacent to the building, enclosure, or container to its highest point.".
If your eaves extended, say, 150 mm and the retaining wall was 75 mm from the building wall would the retained earth still be the height from which the building height is measured?Permitted Development Technical Guide for Class E.1 (e) (iii) states "The height of the building, enclosure or container should be measured from the highest ground level immediately adjacent to the building, enclosure, or container to its highest point.".
If the retaining wall is away from the building wall but still part of the slab/foundation of the main building would the retained earth still be the height from which the building height is measured?
Could do with a couple of test cases
Equus said:
As an aside, there are specific conditions in the Regulations relating to the insulation of swimming pool basins.
I'm astonished, if you've applied for B.Regs, that they haven't taken more of an interest!
The pool is 200 mm thick concrete with rebar the insulation wasn’t the usual kings span.I'm astonished, if you've applied for B.Regs, that they haven't taken more of an interest!
They were more interested in me knocking down the other pool and 6 outbuildings that the previous owner put up.
We reused the brick (wife done a good job cleaning them) and roof tiles.
I wanted to reuse loft insulation but had to get rid off as I only had a year to clear the site.
TA14 said:
If your eaves extended, say, 150 mm and the retaining wall was 75 mm from the building wall would the retained earth still be the height from which the building height is measured?
The wording of the Technical Guide says that the measurement is taken from the base of the outside wall, not below the eaves overhang, so it seems fairly clear to me that any eaves overhang is irrelevant,As I've tried to get across above, 'development' is defined by the T&CPA and includes stuff beyond just buildings. So if your building is PD compliant, but you're also doing groundworks that fall within the Planning definition of 'development' that aren't PD and form part of the works overall, then it brings the whole lot within the scope of a Planning application.
TA14 said:
Could do with a couple of test cases
I think I might put in for a LDC with some "site preparation" groundworks to level the site and avoid the need for a retaining wall, but retain the original ground level for PD purposes.If it gets knocked back I'll put in for PP. Contrary to trying to be "sharp" about interpreting the rules, I'm just trying to understand what is and isn't allowed. If it's PD, fine I'll crack on, if not then I'll do it by the book and have to accept that my schedule has gone to pot.
Does a LDC application get processed directly by the council staff, or does it have to go through the normal PP public consultation exercise?
PhilboSE said:
Does a LDC application get processed directly by the council staff, or does it have to go through the normal PP public consultation exercise?
Directly by Planning Officers.As above: they are testing it against the rules... it either complies, in their opinion (in which case they'll issue you with a LDC) or it doesn't. They don't need to ask Joe Public's opinion on the matter.
Equus said:
Do you feel lucky?
There's a box to tick on the application form that asks you whether work has already started.
There's nothing to stop you ticking that box then carrying on regardless, at your own risk. Theoretically they have the power to serve a 'stop' notice on you, but it's most unlikely that they would.
Course, if the application is then refused, you're f
ked.
I would hve to learn to draw properly, Im not sure my efforts on the previous page would do!There's a box to tick on the application form that asks you whether work has already started.
There's nothing to stop you ticking that box then carrying on regardless, at your own risk. Theoretically they have the power to serve a 'stop' notice on you, but it's most unlikely that they would.
Course, if the application is then refused, you're f
ked. It’s certInly an option I guess, as is running at risk and putting in a retrospective application if anyone should ever complain? (I need to check if retrospective costs a lot more to lodge)
Again in both scenarios you’re running at risk you get approval, which albeit is probably likely isn’t a given ever I guess!
So yes after all that faffing trying to force it on under PD is fools game! Soz!
Gassing Station | Homes, Gardens and DIY | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff