Extension on top of single brick garage.
- Thread starter mattu27
- Start date
Sponsored Links
Hello again, looking to getting things progressing on the extension.
So from last time, building control were happy with all foundations and a new small foundation has been placed where the small garage access door stands to the required depth to build upon.
We submitted our plans to the planning team as an informal enquiry as to whether they looked ok and had enough detail. We included a mock up of the extension with windows to match the existing property and a lower ridge height roof so that it would appear as an extension.
The reply we got back was that the plans were detailed enough but also that:
"I have some initial reservations in relation to the design and scale of the proposed extension. The Council’s adopted ‘Extending Your Home’ Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) sets out that side extensions should be sympathetically designed to appear subservient to the main house. Whilst a lower ridge height has been incorporated, I consider that its proposed width is excessive and appears out of proportion with the existing dwelling. It is considered that this, together with the lack of a set back from the front elevation, would not achieve a sufficient level of subservience from a planning perspective. With this in mind it is recommended that the proposed extension should be amended by way of stepping back the front elevation of the extension, at first floor level, from the main front elevation of the house, whilst the width should be reduced at first floor level by stepping in the extension from the side elevation of the existing garage below. A small pitched roof to the front and side, between the garage and the extension above, could be incorporated into the design to allow for this visual break. I would suggest that the level of set back from the front elevation and set in from the side should be a minimum of 1m in both respects. It is considered that such amendments would result in the creation of a subservient extension in line with the advise contained in the SPD.
I suspect that by incorporating the amendments that I have suggested above, the build may become more complex (i.e. additional RSJs may be required as you would not be building off the existing garage walls below), but ultimately you would need to make such changes in order to increase your chances of gaining planning permission. I would advise that the design that you have currently proposed is unlikely to be supported should you submit a planning application for the proposed works, for the reasons outlined above. With this in mind I would advise you to consider amending the proposal prior to submitting a planning application"
So basically, to please this guy at planning we need to step the front and side in by 1m minimum which would render the garage below useless due to the steelwork and additional support needed and would look absolutely ridiculous. Also leaving us with a smaller extension that wouldn't be worth the cost or hassle to build. I've read the SPD and it specifies nothing about stepping in by 1m at all. One brick I would understand but 1m!?
Our house sits on a street of entirely individual properties built 80 years apart in some cases with ample space between each neighbour. It isn't a housing estate so a terracing effect wouldn't be achieved either.
So, my next question is do I ring this guy and explain my concerns or simply submit the plans as we propose and appeal it should he get involved?
What's the best course of action?
Thanks in advance, Matt
So from last time, building control were happy with all foundations and a new small foundation has been placed where the small garage access door stands to the required depth to build upon.
We submitted our plans to the planning team as an informal enquiry as to whether they looked ok and had enough detail. We included a mock up of the extension with windows to match the existing property and a lower ridge height roof so that it would appear as an extension.
The reply we got back was that the plans were detailed enough but also that:
"I have some initial reservations in relation to the design and scale of the proposed extension. The Council’s adopted ‘Extending Your Home’ Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) sets out that side extensions should be sympathetically designed to appear subservient to the main house. Whilst a lower ridge height has been incorporated, I consider that its proposed width is excessive and appears out of proportion with the existing dwelling. It is considered that this, together with the lack of a set back from the front elevation, would not achieve a sufficient level of subservience from a planning perspective. With this in mind it is recommended that the proposed extension should be amended by way of stepping back the front elevation of the extension, at first floor level, from the main front elevation of the house, whilst the width should be reduced at first floor level by stepping in the extension from the side elevation of the existing garage below. A small pitched roof to the front and side, between the garage and the extension above, could be incorporated into the design to allow for this visual break. I would suggest that the level of set back from the front elevation and set in from the side should be a minimum of 1m in both respects. It is considered that such amendments would result in the creation of a subservient extension in line with the advise contained in the SPD.
I suspect that by incorporating the amendments that I have suggested above, the build may become more complex (i.e. additional RSJs may be required as you would not be building off the existing garage walls below), but ultimately you would need to make such changes in order to increase your chances of gaining planning permission. I would advise that the design that you have currently proposed is unlikely to be supported should you submit a planning application for the proposed works, for the reasons outlined above. With this in mind I would advise you to consider amending the proposal prior to submitting a planning application"
So basically, to please this guy at planning we need to step the front and side in by 1m minimum which would render the garage below useless due to the steelwork and additional support needed and would look absolutely ridiculous. Also leaving us with a smaller extension that wouldn't be worth the cost or hassle to build. I've read the SPD and it specifies nothing about stepping in by 1m at all. One brick I would understand but 1m!?
Our house sits on a street of entirely individual properties built 80 years apart in some cases with ample space between each neighbour. It isn't a housing estate so a terracing effect wouldn't be achieved either.
So, my next question is do I ring this guy and explain my concerns or simply submit the plans as we propose and appeal it should he get involved?
What's the best course of action?
Thanks in advance, Matt
It's hard to comment without seeing drawings, the spd, and context.
The cost and usability aspects aren't their concern and can't be used to argue.
But, they can't blindly apply policy either as every case is unique.
Setting back the front is common, but usually a Brick or two is sufficient. The width then depends on the relationship to the house size rather than relationship to garage. So it depends how wide the existing house is.
You say "individual" houses... Is every house significantly different, or are they the same and simply detached? If unique there is often more flexibility on rules as there is less street pattern.
The cost and usability aspects aren't their concern and can't be used to argue.
But, they can't blindly apply policy either as every case is unique.
Setting back the front is common, but usually a Brick or two is sufficient. The width then depends on the relationship to the house size rather than relationship to garage. So it depends how wide the existing house is.
You say "individual" houses... Is every house significantly different, or are they the same and simply detached? If unique there is often more flexibility on rules as there is less street pattern.
Sponsored Links
Up to 4 houses is still free with City of London Corporation too
Thanks for your helpful reply, I appreciate that I need to include a lot more detail and will do so if things progress.
The document is the generic "extending your home" planning document which speaks of subservient extensions and I can see some of the logic but not the width reduction.
I was going to use the environmental costs of manufacturing, delivering and installing large RSJ's and sending most of the garage floor to landfill as part of the arguement.
I think we probably should step it in a brick to create the visual break and allow for the new brickwork contrast but a metre is ridiculous.
The garage width is 4m so it is a large extension but the existing substructure is there so why not use it? The property across the street has been extended to similar proportions so why not ours.
Yes, every single property is totally unique as plots were purchased on the street over many years so we've got every variety of building going. Some have two plot widths etc..
So should I ring and discuss the email and what are the next steps?
Thanks, Matt
The document is the generic "extending your home" planning document which speaks of subservient extensions and I can see some of the logic but not the width reduction.
I was going to use the environmental costs of manufacturing, delivering and installing large RSJ's and sending most of the garage floor to landfill as part of the arguement.
I think we probably should step it in a brick to create the visual break and allow for the new brickwork contrast but a metre is ridiculous.
The garage width is 4m so it is a large extension but the existing substructure is there so why not use it? The property across the street has been extended to similar proportions so why not ours.
Yes, every single property is totally unique as plots were purchased on the street over many years so we've got every variety of building going. Some have two plot widths etc..
So should I ring and discuss the email and what are the next steps?
Thanks, Matt
Every local authority has different documents, whilst many of the policies are similar they are not the same.
This won't change their opinion and will be a wasted exercise. (If the environmental argument stood then the most environmentally friendly thing to do would not build an extension).
Usually just a front set back and lower ridge is sufficient when building over a single garage.
How wide is your main house? As a rule of thumb usually half is easily acceptable (i.e. if your house is 8m then 4m would be fine), but wider is also often fine too but more subject to design.
Not sure how the building opposite can be totally unique but have done similar to what you require.
If every house is completely different then the subservient design requirement makes no sense. This is typically the requirement when there is a consistent pattern of development and so extensions shouldn't break this, keeping the reading/legibility of the existing houses intact.
If there are larger houses in the street than yours would be after development and every house is completely different already then the subservient argument is probably flawed as the reading of the original house isn't really important.
From a design perspective if the end results isn't out of scale to the context and looks good it should be acceptable subject to meeting other policy requirements.
Another design approach might be to unify the extension with the house (if possible) so it looks like it was all done in one go, rather than an add-on. As above if it doesn't match anything at the moment then It would be no more not matching afterwards.
Ultimately if planning are unwilling to negotiate you probably need a planning consultant and be prepared for a refusal and a planning appeal.
Thanks again,
Hopefully I've attached the SPD document which applies to our local council.
I see what you're saying and won't include that in the discussion, it's just frustrating that the cost and complexity of the extension will be unnecessary high for a lot smaller gain in room.
The house is just over 6m but is on a large plot and the garage doesn't look out of place, we realise that the extension is big but it will compliment the character of the house when/ if completed.
The house opposite is entirely different but is of similar width with the extension that they have had done. Was probably done 15 years or so ago though as a guess.
We would love to make the house look like it has always been there and have searched all over for the same bricks but even Reclaim won't be a perfect match, the initial idea was to tooth the bricks in but this wasn't to his liking. I'd be happy to retile the front of the house in reclaimed tiles aswell but I don't think this will please this guy. He wants the house to look like the one in the document with no varience from the SPD.
I wish that he had actually walked down our street and seen the variety of buildings on here, I think then his comments might not have as much influence on the extension as we feel they have now.
Thanks, Matt
Hopefully I've attached the SPD document which applies to our local council.
I see what you're saying and won't include that in the discussion, it's just frustrating that the cost and complexity of the extension will be unnecessary high for a lot smaller gain in room.
The house is just over 6m but is on a large plot and the garage doesn't look out of place, we realise that the extension is big but it will compliment the character of the house when/ if completed.
The house opposite is entirely different but is of similar width with the extension that they have had done. Was probably done 15 years or so ago though as a guess.
We would love to make the house look like it has always been there and have searched all over for the same bricks but even Reclaim won't be a perfect match, the initial idea was to tooth the bricks in but this wasn't to his liking. I'd be happy to retile the front of the house in reclaimed tiles aswell but I don't think this will please this guy. He wants the house to look like the one in the document with no varience from the SPD.
I wish that he had actually walked down our street and seen the variety of buildings on here, I think then his comments might not have as much influence on the extension as we feel they have now.
Thanks, Matt
I really wouldn't have bothered with a pre-app - in these instances, it simply affords the LPA more time to think about reasons for refusal. If you really want the additional area, submit a scheme as large as you think you can while still complying with the spirit of the SPD and local precedent, and be prepared to go to appeal.
Thanks guys,
Hindsight is a wonderful thing isn't it. I am in complete agreement that I shouldn't have bothered with an email of the draft plans following my conversation today.
So I rang the planning officer and asked about the next steps regarding the plans and to further explain/ justify the proposals. He's printed off the plans previously and tool it to a planning review meeting so NAKAJO you were right, they've had time to come up with reasons why it wouldn't be suitable and he was still adamant that the side should come in 1m.
Anyhow, I discussed our views and stated that other extensions in the area have been built larger than ours and have only stepped back one brick and have gone to full width possoble and look like terraces. There was some leeway on the front and I think they'll go for one brick hopefully but the side width looks like it will go to appeal.
How do I progress from here? Do we need full plans with site plans, boundaries, tree locations and sizes etc....?
Thanks, Matt
Basically,
Hindsight is a wonderful thing isn't it. I am in complete agreement that I shouldn't have bothered with an email of the draft plans following my conversation today.
So I rang the planning officer and asked about the next steps regarding the plans and to further explain/ justify the proposals. He's printed off the plans previously and tool it to a planning review meeting so NAKAJO you were right, they've had time to come up with reasons why it wouldn't be suitable and he was still adamant that the side should come in 1m.
Anyhow, I discussed our views and stated that other extensions in the area have been built larger than ours and have only stepped back one brick and have gone to full width possoble and look like terraces. There was some leeway on the front and I think they'll go for one brick hopefully but the side width looks like it will go to appeal.
How do I progress from here? Do we need full plans with site plans, boundaries, tree locations and sizes etc....?
Thanks, Matt
Basically,
L
Leofric
Setting back 1m is ridiculous to make the extension subservient to the main house , as others have said setting back one brick is usually enough.
If you are building off steelwork at first floor a timber stud inner leaf would be lighter , this would need to be to approved timber frame details with a brick outer skin.
I would suggest your next step should be to engage an architect or architectural technician to prepare sketch scheme proposals for the extension for your approval.
If you still want to proceed ,they can then prepare the planning drawings and submit a planning application;if this is approved they can then prepare and submit a building regulations application.
If you are building off steelwork at first floor a timber stud inner leaf would be lighter , this would need to be to approved timber frame details with a brick outer skin.
I would suggest your next step should be to engage an architect or architectural technician to prepare sketch scheme proposals for the extension for your approval.
If you still want to proceed ,they can then prepare the planning drawings and submit a planning application;if this is approved they can then prepare and submit a building regulations application.
Thanks for the reply.
A few people have now suggested the timber inner skin, this seems to make sense to me and would be less labour intensive and costly than a block inner skin.
Am I right in thinking that this would eradicate the need for a cavity as the studwork could be insulated between?
With regards to it being an approved frame, what does this mean exactly? Not just a student wall CLS type construction?
Would the frame be tied into the outer skin? And by what method?
We do know an architect but have been a bit hesitant due to the potential costs involved. Would they assist us with the appeal procedure?
Sorry for all the questions but this is new territory for us.
Thanks, Matt
A few people have now suggested the timber inner skin, this seems to make sense to me and would be less labour intensive and costly than a block inner skin.
Am I right in thinking that this would eradicate the need for a cavity as the studwork could be insulated between?
With regards to it being an approved frame, what does this mean exactly? Not just a student wall CLS type construction?
Would the frame be tied into the outer skin? And by what method?
We do know an architect but have been a bit hesitant due to the potential costs involved. Would they assist us with the appeal procedure?
Sorry for all the questions but this is new territory for us.
Thanks, Matt
Who were you planning on getting to do the planning drawings and submit the planning application forms? (and then later the technical drawings?)
Might be easiest to ask your architect for a quote which will detail what services they would provide.
If you need to appeal - some architects can help with this for a small domestic house but many individuals won't and will instead point you to a planning consultant who will specialise in policy more.
For such a small and simple extension the technical design you would only detail post-planning. I would stop worrying/thinking about it until you get planning. There are so many ways to build such things, and if planning require an amended design then any technical design work could be time wasted. An architect will be thinking about general build-ability whilst drawing up a planning stage drawing, but they won't/shouldn't be detailing it at that stage.
Might be easiest to ask your architect for a quote which will detail what services they would provide.
If you need to appeal - some architects can help with this for a small domestic house but many individuals won't and will instead point you to a planning consultant who will specialise in policy more.
For such a small and simple extension the technical design you would only detail post-planning. I would stop worrying/thinking about it until you get planning. There are so many ways to build such things, and if planning require an amended design then any technical design work could be time wasted. An architect will be thinking about general build-ability whilst drawing up a planning stage drawing, but they won't/shouldn't be detailing it at that stage.
L
Leofric
Why think of appealing now ? You haven't submitted an application yet let alone had it refused ! Think about getting an architectural designer (architect or architectural technician) to come up with a design that they think stands a good chance of receiving planning approval. Previous post more or less confirms what I said previously regarding procedure, and construction can be specified in more detail for bldg. regs application; but to answer your query a cavity is required behind a brick outer skin which is tied in to the timber frame inner leaf with stainless steel plates. I am repeating the previous post by lt8480 but there are various ways of constructing a timber frame external wall as well as every other part of a building ,but this where the architectural designer comes in, they will specify the whole of the external wall construction.
First thing - a sketch scheme design.
First thing - a sketch scheme design.
DIYnot Local
Staff member
If you need to find a tradesperson to get your job done, please try our local search below, or if you are doing it yourself you can find suppliers local to you.
Select the supplier or trade you require, enter your location to begin your search.
Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local
Sponsored Links
Similar threads
