Do I need to make a planning application?

A strange approach. The Building Control fee also has no value once you have built the extension, so try asking the inspector if he will inspect for free, as there must be thousands of similar extensions he has inspected.

 

Up to them, but I don’t intend on selling any designs we develop and I would happily contribute anything we develop or own the rights to once our little building project is over.

 

I guess the problem with the inspection is that it requires the inspector to sacrifice more time to do the second inspection. Donating my drawings to a repository costs me nothing more and will help somebody who owns a property with a similar layout.

Just like open sourcing any kind of knowledge/design/idea.... like wikipedia or github... that kind of thing. I guess this is a foreign idea in the building design/planning/building regulation business...

 

You can try Google image search, e.g.
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=site:.gov.uk+3m+single+storey+extension+planning&num=100&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjn19CgzZ_dAhWHA8AKHddaC1wQ_AUICigB&biw=1707&bih=809&dpr=1.13

although I didn't see anything that useful!

 

When someone instructs a professional to design a house/extension the normal copyright agreement is that the design ownership remains with the designer, and the client has a license to build it at the defined address. Anyone who uses someone else's designs/drawings without knowing the copyright status could potentially leave themselves liable. The sharer would also be liable for distribution under the same rules as used to prosecute music sharing etc. online.

 

It just wouldnt work. Every extension is entirely bespoke, from architecture, planning and building regs, even if the scheme is similar.

You couldnt cut n paste buildjng regs spec from one job to another, b'regs arent static rules and each job has its own specifics. For example, 1 project may be in a radon gas area, another might have foul drain complications.

 

Perhaps editing existing drawings and messing around trying to gather information about the rules is just too much of a hassle for most people given that they may only go through the process once only, but as with many of these types of things, the initial consumers would probably be professionals looking to speed up their workflows by using boilerplate materials that

I did notice the restrictive default contract terms for an architect we used so would not be giving away anything I did not create myself or own the rights to. Funnily enough, the contract was almost certainly a copy of somebody elses contract...

From an outsiders point of view, it sounds like the people on this forum who know the industry are quite happy with the situation where small building changes seem to sit in an odd area where homeowners must try and build with good design, but have relatively small budgets which means that architects can only spend a trivial amount of time on most small builds... and then the designs which have little reuse value are protected with the most stringent of copyright clauses. From a homeowner’s point of view this system seems poorly thought out.

Alternatively, the designs do have good reuse value and should be protected since they are a valuable asset. If this is the case then sharing designs when you can would make sense for homeowners in general... do retiring independent architects just take all their designs to the grave then?

 

I read somewhere, possibly on here, that a builder had a few sets of drawings and calcs for eg - a 3 bed semi or a mid terrace for chimney breast removal or lounge/dining room knock through and he would tweak the drawings and submit the same calcs to building control.

 

If the house is different the calcs won't apply. So I wouldn't use that builder.

 

No. It just doesn’t work like that.

Every job is different.

For each planning application it needs an initial visit to meet a new client. A new quote. A new visit to carry out a new survey. A new set of existing and proposed plans/elevations etc. It’s all new and apart from cribbing some ‘administrative’ items such as title sheets, legends or maybe doors or windows or whatever its’s all drawn up and designed from scratch. When I draw up the existing drawings for a new job I start with a blank sheet of paper so to speak. To suggest that you can take a previous job and ‘use that design’ by stretching or shrinking it or whatever demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of the process.

Building Regs it’s not so clear cut as there are some muppets out there who do cut and paste and just stick a set of notes on the planning drawings but that’s not how I roll. I tap into a lifetimes worth of details/knowledge I’ve honed over the years and to suggest I or God forbid one of my clients should shove that on some free website for all and sundry to tap into is also daft.

 

for my extension I didn't bother with doing the building control plans, we just used ready made roof trusses that came with calcs, everything else the builder took care of direct. This was suggested by an architect I contacted to do the building control drawings!

 

I have a steady stream of architects and other plan drawers who hand over the job for me to do the building regs drawings for because they know **** all about drawing up regs drawings. That's more often the truth when an architect or similar says you don't need regs drawings. And there's nothing wrong with that approach, provided your builder is well clued up/honourable!

 

in my case it was a pretty simple extension - 3 walls and a roof essentially. Apart from measuring depth of foundations, drainage and things like wall ties, lintels and insulation, there isn't really much other than the roof that needs calculations is there? I did have full engineering drawings once for another extension (previous house) - about 30 pages of details about forces applied to walls etc, but ultimately, the walls were still normal walls with padstones - knowing the force applied to them didn't mean they had to built any differently. In fact, I don't think the builder or inspector paid a lot of attention to all those details I paid for!

 

Not sure whether this has been spelt out so--

The rear-most extension will need Prior Approval or planning permission as the combined depth of 6m applies.

The 'infill' extension will need planning permission if its width is more than 1/2 that of the main house.


See the relevant Government guidance here

See p18, The example diagram shows your situation.-

Where a new extension is joined to an existing extension, under paragraph (ja) (see page 29) the limits in (f) apply to the size of the total enlargement (being the proposed enlargement together with the existing enlargement). The following example, showing a side view of a detached house, would not be permitted development. If a detached house has an existing, single storey, ground floor extension that was not part of the original house, and which extended beyond the rear wall by 3 metres, then it would not be possible to add an additional single storey, ground floor extension of 3 metres without an application for planning permission - because the enlarged part of the house would then extend beyond a rear wall by more than 4 metres.




The side wall / side extension issue is dealt with at p23, again with diagrams to assist-

(j) the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse would extend beyond a wall forming a side elevation of the original dwellinghouse, and would –
(i) exceed 4 metres in height,
(ii) have more than a single storey, or
(iii) have a width greater than half the width of the original dwellinghouse

A wall forming a side elevation of a house will be any wall that cannot be identified as being a front wall or a rear wall. Houses will often have more than two side elevation walls.

Where an extension is beyond any side wall, the restrictions in (j) will apply. Any extension can only be a single storey, must be less than 4 metres in height and can only These are all walls forming a side elevation This is the width of the original house (measured at widest point) for the purpose of calculating the “half width” limit for the extension 24 be half the width of the original house. The width of the original house should be calculated at its widest point. Under paragraph (ja) (see page 29) if the proposed extension is being joined to a previous enlargement, it will not be permitted development if the size of the total enlargement (being the proposed enlargement together with any previous enlargement) exceeds these limitations. For example, if a proposed extension of 3 metres in height is added to an existing extension which exceeds 4 metres in height, or if the proposed extension creates a total enlargement which has a width greater than half the width of the original dwellinghouse, it would not be permitted development.

 

The frustrating thing about this is that any house with even a small original outrigger /extension on the back and which is less than one-half the width of the house, cannot have a rear extension under PD.