Lawful development/Planning permission

[Equus]

J4CKO said:

You didnt actually link to the doc you referenced, he sent me a copy of,

Yes I did: click the highlighted word 'this' on my post timed 13:14 today. It answers your question very clearly and specifically.

Edited to add:

And have you got Building Regulations (as opposed to Planning) approval for those drawings, yet? They are separate systems, and you WILL need B.Regs approval, regardless of whether it's Permitted Development under Planning. From the drawing extracts you've posted above, I'd be mentioning the phrases 'cold roof' and 'cross ventilation requirements' to your esteemed Architect, if I were you.

I'm hoping that gutter and fallpipe arrangements are shown elsewhere on the drawings, too, unless you're planning to keep goldfish up there.

Edited by Equus on Thursday 21st September 15:53

[J4CKO]

Equus said:

J4CKO said:

You didnt actually link to the doc you referenced, he sent me a copy of,

Yes I did: click the highlighted word 'this' on my post timed 13:14 today. It answers your question very clearly and specifically.

Edited to add:
Or click these words in blue wot I have written here in the form of what we call a 'hyperlink' - clever, innit - if you want to see the guidance referred to.

And have you got Building Regulations (as opposed to Planning) approval for those drawings, yet? They are separate systems, and you WILL need B.Regs approval, regardless of whether it's Permitted Development under Planning. From the drawing extracts you've posted above, I'd be mentioning the phrases 'cold roof' and 'cross ventilation requirements' to your esteemed Architect, if I were you.

I'm hoping that gutter and fallpipe arrangements are shown elsewhere on the drawings, too, unless you're planning to keep goldfish up there.

Edited by Equus on Thursday 21st September 15:32

Yes, have engaged a company to deal with those aspects and do the inspections, rather than the council, they are approved by the council to carry out that work on their behalf. They are doing Plan Vetting and Site Visits.

The architect came recommended, a couple we know who are serial house extended and have recently done a full new build have used him, three different projects.

Based on the hyperlink (which I thought I had looked for) compared to the drawing and it looks like we should be ok, i.e. they measure tot he roof surface and not the parapet, so lets see how it actually goes.

[smokey mow]

J4CKO said:

Yes, have engaged a company to deal with those aspects and do the inspections, rather than the council, they are approved by the council to carry out that work on their behalf. They are doing Plan Vetting and Site Visits.

An Approved Inspector?

If so they are not approved by the Council and most definately not working on behalf of the Council. Approved Inspectors are an independant company and are direct competition to the Local Authority Building Control.

[TA14]

J4CKO said:

So, the confusion he has seen is been the interpretation of "Eaves", if its the roof itself, we are good, even a layman like me can see its under the 3m, if its the parapet, then it will get knocked back, there doesnt seem to be any consistency as to how they interpret their own rules and very little in a right of appeal.

You/your architect haven't helped yourself. If the submission is confusing to you then what chance have the Council got. For something on the limit carefull dimensions or a note explaining why it is PD would have been nice. If it comes down to scaling off drgs then it's virtually a dead duck - almost every drg has a note which reads "do not scale off this drg"

As you say it's not the end of the world.

Next time make sure that the drg on the submission clearly conforms to the PD rules - make it simple for them

[J4CKO]

TA14 said:

J4CKO said:

So, the confusion he has seen is been the interpretation of "Eaves", if its the roof itself, we are good, even a layman like me can see its under the 3m, if its the parapet, then it will get knocked back, there doesnt seem to be any consistency as to how they interpret their own rules and very little in a right of appeal.

You/your architect haven't helped yourself. If the submission is confusing to you then what chance have the Council got. For something on the limit carefull dimensions or a note explaining why it is PD would have been nice. If it comes down to scaling off drgs then it's virtually a dead duck - almost every drg has a note which reads "do not scale off this drg"

As you say it's not the end of the world.

Next time make sure that the drg on the submission clearly conforms to the PD rules - make it simple for them

I did email him and suggest that he added something to that effect, but he didn't, never done this before myself so not sure of the process and pitfalls, its sticking a box on the back of a house, how hard can it be !

[Equus]

Of course, as you yourself pointed out in your original post, if it's pure Permitted Development (ie. not under the Neighbour Consultation relaxation), you don't actually need the Council to tell you that it is: you can just go ahead and do the work.

Your Architect should have sufficient understanding of the rules, and sufficient confidence in his own drawings, to just tell you to get on with it, at his risk. The LDC is just an arse-covering exercise for everyone involved. As I said in my first post: ask HIM to give you a straight answer: our opinion is meaningless.

[TA14]

J4CKO said:

I did email him and suggest that he added something to that effect, but he didn't, never done this before myself so not sure of the process and pitfalls, its sticking a box on the back of a house, how hard can it be !

We al live and learn. If it were me I'd send a clarified drawing through without delay - can't do anty harm. We all live and learn.

[J4CKO]

Well, council are bhing, will try and get a photo, it wasnt the height but the fact there is a square bay on the back of the "Original Dwellinghouse", house is ten metres across and the bay is about half a metre deep and covers maybe two to three metres across. The extension will encompass this part.


house by Mark Jackson, on Flickr

The lady at the council is classing the side of the bay as the side of the house and applying the rules for that scenario

Having reviewed the proposals submitted as part of the above application I regret to advise that the proposed extension does not comply with the GPDO 2015. As the proposed extension extends beyond a side wall of the original dwelling house and has a width greater than half the dwellinghouse. The side wall I refer to is part of the small rear element which extends the breakfast room by 0.5m.

Goes on to say

I understand that the proposed extension does not extend beyond the main side wall of the dwelling, however as that small off shoot of half a meter is original, the side walls of this section are also considered to be the side elevation of a dwellinghouse. Therefore as the extension is across this section, it is considered that it does extend beyond the side elevation of the original dwellinghouse.

She quotes this doc

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...

The bit on the right was an existing extension.


Anyone got any good comebacks ?

Edited by J4CKO on Friday 3rd November 13:30

[Busa mav]

Yes, tell her she is quite correct

[J4CKO]

Busa mav said:

Yes, tell her she is quite correct

Ah ok, so looks like planning is inevitable ?

It doesnt make much difference as we dont have the quotes back yet and none the three builders can start until next year anyway, she did say with planning it wouldnt be a problem, its another £176 but int he scheme of things its peanuts, just annoying it took seven weeks for them to tell us !