|
Home > Archive > Building and Construction > June 2007 > Please help! Extension costs, Urgent!!
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Please help! Extension costs, Urgent!!
|
|
| Stuart Holmes 2007-06-24, 9:25 am |
| Hi,
We saw a house on an open day yesterday. If we did an extension it could be
perfect for us, but the EA says they want all offers in by 11am Monday! We
need a ball-park figure (all in, architect, fees etc) for what we would want
to do so we know if we can afford it! it is a 1930s 3 bed detached in
Woking, Surrey.
We were thinking a two storey extension on side (3m x 7m) and single across
back of extension and half of original building(7m x 2m). This could give us
an integrated garage, new bedroom with ensuite and enlarge kitchen and
include a downstairs cloakroom. This would be with a pitched roof to match
original.
Heres the house
And a rough sketch of my ideas!
http://www.flickr.com/photos/9245762@N02/609051212/
Please help!! Could this be done for under £50k??
| |
|
| On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 09:27:47 GMT, "Stuart Holmes" <me@here.com> wrote:
>Hi,
>We saw a house on an open day yesterday. If we did an extension it could be
>perfect for us, but the EA says they want all offers in by 11am Monday! We
>need a ball-park figure (all in, architect, fees etc) for what we would want
>to do so we know if we can afford it! it is a 1930s 3 bed detached in
>Woking, Surrey.
>
The EA wanbts the best price for their client - they don't care if it
is right for you.
Asking you to rush is madness if you're considering such a huge thing
as an extension.
What if you can't get planning permission? What if you can't have such
an extension there? Would you still want the house?
I'd tell the EA to go whistle.
If someone else wants the house enough to overbid on it then let them.
These "open days" are designed to make you feel like you're desperate
to buy. I expect half the people there were EA's own friends and
family.
>We were thinking a two storey extension on side (3m x 7m) and single across
>back of extension and half of original building(7m x 2m). This could give us
>an integrated garage, new bedroom with ensuite and enlarge kitchen and
>include a downstairs cloakroom. This would be with a pitched roof to match
>original.
>
>Heres the house
>
>And a rough sketch of my ideas!
>http://www.flickr.com/photos/9245762@N02/609051212/
>
>Please help!! Could this be done for under £50k??
>
--
http://www.orderonlinepickupinstore.co.uk
Ah fetch it yourself if you can't wait for delivery
http://www.freedeliveryuk.co.uk
Or get it delivered for free
| |
| Roger Mills 2007-06-24, 9:25 am |
| In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
Stuart Holmes <me@here.com> wrote:
> Hi,
> We saw a house on an open day yesterday. If we did an extension it
> could be perfect for us, but the EA says they want all offers in by
> 11am Monday! We need a ball-park figure (all in, architect, fees etc)
> for what we would want to do so we know if we can afford it! it is a
> 1930s 3 bed detached in Woking, Surrey.
>
> We were thinking a two storey extension on side (3m x 7m) and single
> across back of extension and half of original building(7m x 2m). This
> could give us an integrated garage, new bedroom with ensuite and
> enlarge kitchen and include a downstairs cloakroom. This would be
> with a pitched roof to match original.
>
> Heres the house
>
> And a rough sketch of my ideas!
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/9245762@N02/609051212/
>
> Please help!! Could this be done for under £50k??
Judging by work which I have had done in the last few years, I think that
you'd be extremely lucky to get what you want for £50k. You could be looking
at £70k or £80k.
You may also struggle to get planning permission for what is a fairly large
change to the status quo. There's no way I would make a *binding* offer
before investigating the planning and cost issues fairly thoroughly.
--
Cheers,
Roger
______
Email address maintained for newsgroup use only, and not regularly
monitored.. Messages sent to it may not be read for several weeks.
PLEASE REPLY TO NEWSGROUP!
| |
|
|
| CWatters 2007-06-24, 9:25 am |
|
"Stuart Holmes" <me@here.com> wrote in message
news:nOqfi.1203$KE1.952@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...
> Hi,
> We saw a house on an open day yesterday. If we did an extension it could
be
> perfect for us, but the EA says they want all offers in by 11am Monday! We
> need a ball-park figure (all in, architect, fees etc) for what we would
want
> to do so we know if we can afford it! it is a 1930s 3 bed detached in
> Woking, Surrey.
>
> We were thinking a two storey extension on side (3m x 7m) and single
across
> back of extension and half of original building(7m x 2m). This could give
us
> an integrated garage, new bedroom with ensuite and enlarge kitchen and
> include a downstairs cloakroom. This would be with a pitched roof to match
> original.
>
> Heres the house
>
> And a rough sketch of my ideas!
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/9245762@N02/609051212/
>
> Please help!! Could this be done for under £50k??
>
I think it could well be more. The area of the extension would be (3 x 7 x
2) plus (7 x 2) = 56 sqm. At say £1,000 per sqm that would mean £56,000
+/-20%...but I'm not a pro builder just a self builder. That figure would
not include the kitchen units etc unless you go for bargin basement.. You
might get it built slightly cheaper if you have a builder do the shell and
you do the plastering and electrics using subcontractors yourself.
Planning permission will definitly be needed if the area of the extension is
more than 24 sq metres or 20% of the floor area of original house. If there
has already been an extension that extension does not count towards the area
of the original house. Your sketches suggest the area will be more than 20%
so you definitly will need PP. You might also need PP for other reasons.
Planners tend not to like very big extensions either. They may accept an
extension but not one that big.
In brief.. I would ask the agent on monday if there is any planning history
(eg has the owner tried to get PP for an extension and had it refused?). If
not then ask yourself if you could you afford to live in it for a year while
you negotiate the planning minefield? Would a smaller extension be
acceptable to you?
One other option would be to make an offer subject to contract. If that's
accepted then you have a few weeks to check out the planning situation
before exchange of contracts makes it a done deal. The problem will be
getting an answer from the planning office. Sometimes it can take two weeks
just to get an appointment with the planning officer. Then it takes around 8
weeks to get a formal approval and that's from the date you make a formal
application. Compiling the drawings for the application will take at least 4
weeks in my view - so 12-16 weeks to get PP might not be unrealistic even if
the planning officer supports the proposal. It took us 18 months!. The
existing owner would also need to be involved if you make a formal
application and that might give the game away.
You could try just turning up at the planning office on monday at 9.00am.
Ask at recieption if you can have 5 mins with the planning officer who
covers that area to answer a quick question. He might be able to give you an
informal opinion but I suspect he won't commit himself one way or the other.
Good luck.
See you over at http://www.ebuild.co.uk/cgi-bin/forums/discus.pl
Colin Watters
| |
|
|
"Stuart Holmes" <me@here.com> wrote in message
news:nOqfi.1203$KE1.952@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...
> Heres the house
>
> And a rough sketch of my ideas!
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/9245762@N02/609051212/
>
> Please help!! Could this be done for under £50k??
get a $50,000 home entertainment center
when you are dead, they can bury you in it
I like buying things that don't need any work on them.
Didn't they fix disney land over there yet? I mean.. dollar per dollar, you
make more money restoring an old automobile than you do real estate. so why
spend your days hammering nails.
how is the place situated? is it worth the work and cost
go with entertainment center
Posted Via mcse.ms Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.mcse.ms
| |
|
|
| Martin Pentreath 2007-06-24, 9:25 am |
| I agree that these tactics are unreasonable and designed to rush you
into making an unsuitable offer. Unfortunately they're very common at
the moment. The only way to deal with them is not to fall in love with
a house, and to try to treat the whole thing initially as a business
transaction rather than an emotional one (not easy I know) and perhaps
to make offers on several houses and see what comes out of it.
If the estate agent insists on sealed bids within 48 hours and you're
interested then by all means make an offer, but explain the basis upon
which you've made it, and that it's conditional upon being able to
obtain estimates for the building work of no more than =A350,000 (or
whatever figure you settle on). And try not to be too keen, there will
be another house along shortly.
Personally I think selling a house in this way is asking for the
purchaser to pull out or revise their offer later after some sober
consideration. As ever you have no obligation whatsoever until
exchange of contracts, and although usually I would say that there is
some moral obligation to keep your word, I think that the moral
obligation begins to break down when these sorts of tactics are
applied.
| |
| Andy Hall 2007-06-24, 9:25 am |
| On 2007-06-24 10:27:47 +0100, "Stuart Holmes" <me@here.com> said:
> Hi,
> We saw a house on an open day yesterday. If we did an extension it could be
> perfect for us, but the EA says they want all offers in by 11am Monday! We
> need a ball-park figure (all in, architect, fees etc) for what we would want
> to do so we know if we can afford it! it is a 1930s 3 bed detached in
> Woking, Surrey.
>
> We were thinking a two storey extension on side (3m x 7m) and single across
> back of extension and half of original building(7m x 2m). This could give us
> an integrated garage, new bedroom with ensuite and enlarge kitchen and
> include a downstairs cloakroom. This would be with a pitched roof to match
> original.
>
> Heres the house
>
> And a rough sketch of my ideas!
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/9245762@N02/609051212/
>
> Please help!! Could this be done for under £50k??
This looks like a classic impulse buy.
Are there any other extensions of similar proportions close by? i.e. a
precedent for planning purposes..
Other than that, it's a high price for the type of house and the area.
| |
| r.bartlett 2007-06-24, 9:25 am |
|
> This looks like a classic impulse buy.
>
> Are there any other extensions of similar proportions close by? i.e. a
> precedent for planning purposes..
>
> Other than that, it's a high price for the type of house and the area.
>
>
You really think so? depending upon the area in question then Newbury is in
a similar band for this kind of house and quite a bit further from town..
Cheers
Richard
| |
| Andy Hall 2007-06-24, 1:25 pm |
| On 2007-06-24 14:22:55 +0100, "r.bartlett" <r.bartlett@spam.virgin.net> said:
>
>
> You really think so? depending upon the area in question then Newbury is in
> a similar band for this kind of house and quite a bit further from town..
>
> Cheers
>
> Richard
Yes I do. Take a look at sale prices derived from the public records.
| |
| John Rumm 2007-06-24, 1:25 pm |
| Andy Hall wrote:
> On 2007-06-24 14:22:55 +0100, "r.bartlett" <r.bartlett@spam.virgin.net>
> said:
>
>
> Yes I do. Take a look at sale prices derived from the public records.
Sale and asking price are not the same thing though.
(A property similar to that shown would probably have an asking price of
£450 - £550 in these parts!)
--
Cheers,
John.
/=================================================================\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\=================================================================/
| |
| The Wanderer 2007-06-24, 1:25 pm |
| On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 09:27:47 GMT, Stuart Holmes wrote:
<snip>
> Please help!! Could this be done for under £50k??
As a rule of thumb, for DIY alterations, think of a figure and double it
for the final cost.......
--
the dot wanderer at tesco dot net
| |
| PeterD 2007-06-24, 1:25 pm |
| On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 09:27:47 GMT, "Stuart Holmes" <me@here.com> wrote:
>Hi,
>We saw a house on an open day yesterday. If we did an extension it could be
>perfect for us, but the EA says they want all offers in by 11am Monday! We
>need a ball-park figure (all in, architect, fees etc) for what we would want
>to do so we know if we can afford it! it is a 1930s 3 bed detached in
>Woking, Surrey.
>
>We were thinking a two storey extension on side (3m x 7m) and single across
>back of extension and half of original building(7m x 2m). This could give us
>an integrated garage, new bedroom with ensuite and enlarge kitchen and
>include a downstairs cloakroom. This would be with a pitched roof to match
>original.
>
>Heres the house
>
>And a rough sketch of my ideas!
>http://www.flickr.com/photos/9245762@N02/609051212/
>
>Please help!! Could this be done for under £50k??
>
IMHO, there will always be another (house) in the future. Only fools
rush in... If the EA expects offers all in by 11 AM monday, then I
suspect there are many potential buyers, and the odds you would be
happy with the results becomes more remote.
| |
| Andy Hall 2007-06-24, 1:25 pm |
| On 2007-06-24 15:56:15 +0100, John Rumm <see.my.signature@nowhere.null> said:
> Andy Hall wrote:
>
> Sale and asking price are not the same thing though.
Quite. Hence the generation of excitement and urgency using the open
house and sealed bid approach.
This is similar to the U.S. method, but people put their contingencies
in with the bid.
>
> (A property similar to that shown would probably have an asking price
> of £450 - £550 in these parts!)
More than that, surely?
| |
|
|
| John Rumm 2007-06-24, 1:25 pm |
| Mogga wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 15:56:15 +0100, John Rumm
> <see.my.signature@nowhere.null> wrote:
>
>
> http://www.nethouseprices.com/index...ostcode=GU212RH
by "these parts" I was referring to where I lived rather than GU12
--
Cheers,
John.
/=================================================================\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\=================================================================/
| |
|
| > >> Yes I do. Take a look at sale prices derived from the public records.
>
> http://www.nethouseprices.com/index...treet&cCode=3D=
..=2E.
>
This road has a really wide variety of properties, one end is ex-
council and the cheaper prices would have been there. The opposite end
is more desirable and a one of those sold for =A3375k in 2005! So just
looking at the Land registry data is not helpful.
Other houses have had similar extensions so I think Planning
permission should be OK.
| |
| The Natural Philosopher 2007-06-24, 1:25 pm |
| Stuart Holmes wrote:
> Hi,
> We saw a house on an open day yesterday. If we did an extension it could be
> perfect for us, but the EA says they want all offers in by 11am Monday! We
> need a ball-park figure (all in, architect, fees etc) for what we would want
> to do so we know if we can afford it! it is a 1930s 3 bed detached in
> Woking, Surrey.
>
> We were thinking a two storey extension on side (3m x 7m) and single across
> back of extension and half of original building(7m x 2m). This could give us
> an integrated garage, new bedroom with ensuite and enlarge kitchen and
> include a downstairs cloakroom. This would be with a pitched roof to match
> original.
>
> Heres the house
>
> And a rough sketch of my ideas!
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/9245762@N02/609051212/
>
> Please help!! Could this be done for under £50k??
>
>
between 30k and 60k.
Depending on issues, quality, and the cowboy who does it.
| |
|
|
|
| What location? "No Properties were found on this street"
| |
|
|
"Stu" <stu.holmes@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:1182716547.109051.281480@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> What location? "No Properties were found on this street"
>
are you sure? look again!
use both hands this time
Posted Via mcse.ms Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.mcse.ms
| |
|
| On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 10:04:54 -0700, Stu <stu.holmes@ntlworld.com>
wrote:
>
>This road has a really wide variety of properties, one end is ex-
>council and the cheaper prices would have been there. The opposite end
>is more desirable and a one of those sold for £375k in 2005! So just
>looking at the Land registry data is not helpful.
>
>Other houses have had similar extensions so I think Planning
>permission should be OK.
Talking to a developer the other day. Some planners have clamped down
on extensions so even though others on the street might have one,
doesn't mean you will get permission.
--
http://www.orderonlinepickupinstore.co.uk
Ah fetch it yourself if you can't wait for delivery
http://www.freedeliveryuk.co.uk
Or get it delivered for free
| |
| Roger Mills 2007-06-24, 5:25 pm |
| In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
Mogga <di@nospamohpleasenospammogga.com> wrote:
>
> Talking to a developer the other day. Some planners have clamped down
> on extensions so even though others on the street might have one,
> doesn't mean you will get permission.
Except that the comedians in Whitehall are about to exempt a lot of things
which currently need PP.
--
Cheers,
Roger
______
Email address maintained for newsgroup use only, and not regularly
monitored.. Messages sent to it may not be read for several weeks.
PLEASE REPLY TO NEWSGROUP!
| |
|
|
Stu <stu.holmes@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:1182716547.109051.281480@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> What location? "No Properties were found on this street"
>
Strange thing house prices v location
why anyone would choose to live at this location at this price is
it wrap ed try this
http://www.nethouseprices.com/index...t_detail&locali
ty=WANDSWORTH&town=LONDON&street=CLAPHAM+COMMON+WEST+SIDE&postcode=SW49AY&se
arch_radius=500&cCode=EW&year=&house_style=D&house_age=&house_type=&find_pos
tcode=&find_locality=&find_town=&find_street=&eastingToSearch=52810&northing
ToSearch=17480&pcsaCode=SW4
or
http://tinyurl.com/2ox7oh
-
| |
| Tournifreak 2007-06-25, 3:25 am |
| On 24 Jun, 10:27, "Stuart Holmes" <m...@here.com> wrote:
> Hi,
> We saw a house on an open day yesterday. If we did an extension it could =
be
> perfect for us, but the EA says they want all offers in by 11am Monday! We
> need a ball-park figure (all in, architect, fees etc) for what we would w=
ant
> to do so we know if we can afford it! it is a 1930s 3 bed detached in
> Woking, Surrey.
>
> We were thinking a two storey extension on side (3m x 7m) and single acro=
ss
> back of extension and half of original building(7m x 2m). This could give=
us
> an integrated garage, new bedroom with ensuite and enlarge kitchen and
> include a downstairs cloakroom. This would be with a pitched roof to match
> original.
>
> Heres the house
>
> And a rough sketch of my ideas!http://www.flickr.com/photos/9245762@N02/6=
09051212/
>
> Please help!! Could this be done for under =A350k??
No chance.
It's very similar to what we did a couple of years back. 2 storey side
extension + rear extenstion. Ours cost about =A378K all in. BUT, I did
all the plumbing and electrics. My neighbour has just been quoted
=A3140K for something similar.
50K? No way.
Jon.
| |
|
| OK, so 11am has been and gone. We didn't put an offer in. Bit
dissappointed but get the impression from people on here, other forums
and also collegues that I have spoken to this morning that the work we
wanted was going to easily be over =A3100k which is too much. It would
have been a fabulous house, but in an average street. We're now
looking at an average house in a very desirable road! (Needs no work,
not even the potential to do anything).
Many many thanks for everyones input!
| |
| CWatters 2007-06-25, 8:25 pm |
|
"Roger Mills" <watt.tyler@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:5e85q8F37fievU1@mid.individual.net...
> In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
> Mogga <di@nospamohpleasenospammogga.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Except that the comedians in Whitehall are about to exempt a lot of things
> which currently need PP.
Did you believe them? Take a look at the plans for loft conversions.
Currently you can do a lot under PDR as long as you don't go _above the
existing ridge height_. The new rules mean you will require PP if a new
dormer or new ridge is higher than 1 meter _below the existing ridge_. You
will also need PP if the bottom of the dormer/ridge is lower than 1 meter
above the eaves - so a new dormer has to fit between two new limit lines and
new gables will now need PP. Sounds like a tightening not a relaxation.
| |
| Roger Mills 2007-06-26, 9:25 am |
| In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
CWatters <colin.watters@turnersNOSPAMoak.plus.com> wrote:
> "Roger Mills" <watt.tyler@googlemail.com> wrote in message
> news:5e85q8F37fievU1@mid.individual.net...
>
> Did you believe them? Take a look at the plans for loft conversions.
> Currently you can do a lot under PDR as long as you don't go _above
> the existing ridge height_. The new rules mean you will require PP if
> a new dormer or new ridge is higher than 1 meter _below the existing
> ridge_. You will also need PP if the bottom of the dormer/ridge is
> lower than 1 meter above the eaves - so a new dormer has to fit
> between two new limit lines and new gables will now need PP. Sounds
> like a tightening not a relaxation.
I haven't seen that one! Is that in the *same* announcement where they said
they were going to simplify planning and exempt most things which didn't
have much impact on your neighbours? [It was also the one where they said
that major schemes - like airports - would be taken away from local planners
and would be dealt with centrally.]
--
Cheers,
Roger
______
Email address maintained for newsgroup use only, and not regularly
monitored.. Messages sent to it may not be read for several weeks.
PLEASE REPLY TO NEWSGROUP!
| |
| CWatters 2007-06-26, 5:25 pm |
|
"Roger Mills" <watt.tyler@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:5ec2jhF37a5gaU1@mid.individual.net...
> I haven't seen that one! Is that in the *same* announcement where they
said
> they were going to simplify planning and exempt most things which didn't
> have much impact on your neighbours? [It was also the one where they said
> that major schemes - like airports - would be taken away from local
planners
> and would be dealt with centrally.]
There was a white paper released on the same day that the government
announced a "relaxation" of the planning laws. Hapened around end of may..
More ...
http://www.findaproperty.com/displa...0&storyid=20386
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/property...4/lpsemi114.xml
| |
| Roger Mills 2007-06-26, 5:25 pm |
| In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
CWatters <colin.watters@turnersNOSPAMoak.plus.com> wrote:
> and here is an FAQ on the white paper with more details of the
> rules...
>
> http://www.homeplans4all.co.uk/hpfaqwhitepaper.html
Yes, I see what you mean! The restrictions for loft conversions certainly
didn't appear in the headlines!
It looks as if a lot of other types of extension *will* be easier, though.
Whether or not that's a good thing probably depends on whether you're the
one doing it - or the neighbour who feels impacted by it but is powerless to
stop it.
--
Cheers,
Roger
______
Email address maintained for newsgroup use only, and not regularly
monitored.. Messages sent to it may not be read for several weeks.
PLEASE REPLY TO NEWSGROUP!
| |
| John Rumm 2007-06-26, 8:25 pm |
| CWatters wrote:
> There was a white paper released on the same day that the government
> announced a "relaxation" of the planning laws. Hapened around end of may..
> More ...
>
> http://www.findaproperty.com/displa...0&storyid=20386
I like: "Bear in mind, though, that the White Paper is a consultation
document, and the legislation that finally emerges from the process will
probably have come to terms with these issues."
i.e. a decision already made, just needs rubber stamping.
--
Cheers,
John.
/=================================================================\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\=================================================================/
| |
| Tony Bryer 2007-06-27, 9:25 am |
| On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 22:33:03 +0100 Roger Mills wrote :
> It looks as if a lot of other types of extension *will* be easier, though.
> Whether or not that's a good thing probably depends on whether you're the
> one doing it - or the neighbour who feels impacted by it but is powerless
> to stop it.
The 4m rule for back extensions is a significant relaxation on the 3m limit
imposed by our local planners, and lots would not currently allow any
rearward 2-storey extension.
The 1m from the ridge rule would cut out a lot of loft conversions: in past
years I've done more than a few where the builder may have been tempted to
raise the ridge slightly on terrace houses with parapet party walls: on
elevation it looks wrong, but from pavement level you don't really notice.
--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk
| |
| manatbandq@hotmail.com 2007-06-27, 9:25 am |
| On Jun 26, 10:33 pm, "Roger Mills" <watt.ty...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
>
> CWatters <colin.watt...@turnersNOSPAMoak.plus.com> wrote:
>
>
> Yes, I see what you mean! The restrictions for loft conversions certainly
> didn't appear in the headlines!
They did, either on the BBC or in one of the national daily papers.
IMHO, Not a bad thing considering some of the hideous dormers I've
seen. I say that even though we would be caught by requiring PP for a
loft conversion we have been considering.
MBQ
| |
| Tony Bryer 2007-06-27, 9:25 am |
| On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 22:33:03 +0100 Roger Mills wrote :
> It looks as if a lot of other types of extension *will* be easier, though.
> Whether or not that's a good thing probably depends on whether you're the
> one doing it - or the neighbour who feels impacted by it but is powerless
> to stop it.
The 4m rule for back extensions is a significant relaxation on the 3m limit
imposed by our local planners, and lots would not currently allow any
rearward 2-storey extension.
The 1m from the ridge rule would cut out a lot of loft conversions: in past
years I've done more than a few where the builder may have been tempted to
raise the ridge slightly on terrace houses with parapet party walls: on
elevation it looks wrong, but from pavement level you don't really notice.
--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk
| |
| sm_jamieson 2007-06-27, 9:25 am |
| On 27 Jun, 13:31, Tony Bryer <t...@delme.sda.co.uk> wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 22:33:03 +0100 Roger Mills wrote :
>
>
> The 4m rule for back extensions is a significant relaxation on the 3m limit
> imposed by our local planners, and lots would not currently allow any
> rearward 2-storey extension.
>
> The 1m from the ridge rule would cut out a lot of loft conversions: in past
> years I've done more than a few where the builder may have been tempted to
> raise the ridge slightly on terrace houses with parapet party walls: on
> elevation it looks wrong, but from pavement level you don't really notice.
>
> --
> Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk
This 1m from the ridge - is it diagonally along the roof, or in the
vertical plane ?
It seems stupid. The common 1m from the eaves rule is to stop
overlooking, which seems fair enough. Loft extensions are very common
especially in smaller or terraced houses, and the planners will be
inondated with extra requests, since these houses may struggle with
headroom anyway. Although, often a loft conversion is done later than
a rear extension, in which case the permitted development may have
been used up, and PP required anyway.
I think most planners are reasonably, but you get the odd power maniac
who decrees that even though nearly all the houses in your street have
the same extension, you cannot have it ! Since some of their powers on
rear extensions will be removed, such planners might impose their
dictat with even more ferocity.
Simon.
| |
| Tony Bryer 2007-06-27, 1:25 pm |
| On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 05:18:42 -0700 Sm_jamieson wrote :
> This 1m from the ridge - is it diagonally along the roof, or in
> the vertical plane ?
I read it as being in the plane of the roof (i.e measure along the
slope)
> It seems stupid. The common 1m from the eaves rule is to stop
> overlooking, which seems fair enough. Loft extensions are very
> common especially in smaller or terraced houses, and the planners
> will be inondated with extra requests, since these houses may
> struggle with headroom anyway. Although, often a loft conversion
> is done later than a rear extension, in which case the permitted
> development may have been used up, and PP required anyway.
My reading of the proposals is that there won't be a 50/70m3 limit
so it won't matter which you do first. Currently if you want to do
two things (e.g loft + extension) and one might be problematic, you
need to make sure you do the problematic one first as PD if
possible.
--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk
| |
| CWatters 2007-06-27, 5:25 pm |
| I forgot to mention that I believe they are also doing away with all
Permitted Development Rights. eg the new rules replace PDR as well.
| |
| CWatters 2007-06-27, 5:25 pm |
|
"CWatters" <colin.watters@turnersNOSPAMoak.plus.com> wrote in message
news:4682d967$0$8713$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net...
> I forgot to mention that I believe they are also doing away with all
> Permitted Development Rights. eg the new rules replace PDR as well.
>
Sorry I meant the 15% rule.
|
|
|
|
|