Rachel B

I'm aware that there are no PD rights to build forward of the principle elevation, but what about with planning permission? I am looking at building a new house on a side plot that is on an outward corner. The new house would therefore be forward of the principle elevation of the house next to it, further around the corner. Is this likely to cause issues? There are no problems with loss of light. I've attached a plan to explain better. Thank you

I am looking for development sites for single dwellings in my local area but its tricky as our area is heavily within the green belt and even the outskirts of towns fall in the green belt in many places. I've identified several sites that have large gardens (domestic curtilage I believe) that would be perfect for new single homes. Our road is a long country lane with large spaced out houses. Its 3/4 mile from the village centre and well outside the area the council have designated for infill development within villages but in the last few years, two properties have been given planning permission for new dwellings to the sides of them as a sort of infill, in the domestic curtilage. I can't find anything in the local plan that would justify why they would have been granted permission. I've tried to educate myself but it seems that green belt means no development. So I'm wondering if I'm missing something regarding planning within the domestic curtilage in the green belt? What justification could they have been granted planning under? Any ideas please?

We are applying to build a semi detached house on the side of an existing detached house. Because the houses are to be linked together we're limited to ceiling heights by the heights of the existing rooms as the new house will be a mirror of the existing one. We'd like to build loft rooms in the new house roof when we build it but the existing house only has a roof space height of 2260mm which would give a finished ceiling height of only about 2000mm. The house is a victorian style detached with a front and back gable (so the roof slopes from side to side) and the plan was to do dormers on the roof sides just from the middle to the rear to give a large dormer room, then have another room in the front section that would have a roof that slopes on both sides so only the centre portion would have a high enough ceiling to be usable. I've become aware of national space standards which designate that minimum floor to ceiling height needs to be 2.3m over 75% of the house. But I also find references here and there that this only applies 'if your council enforce it'. I'm struggling to find out if this is true or whether my council (Reigate and Banstead) enforce it, or whether there are any circumstances where it is more subject to interpretation? There doesn't appear to be any reference to it on their planning website. I also don't know whether loft rooms when built as part of a new build also count in this calculation (even though they don't for conversions). My question is, if the space standards are enforceable and we convert the loft including the double sloped roof section, is there an area of roof height under which rooms are not counted as habitable and are therefore excluded from calculations? I'm also a landlord, and I know on some of my properties in London where I have to conform to minimum space standards, I am not able to count any floor space with a ceiling height under 1500mm as usable space for instance. So this could work in my favour as if this space doesn't count as usable rooms for planning purposes, but we can still add velux windows and we can list it as storage and then the remaining dormer room would only be about 20% of the house and therefore would bring the calculations into the right percentages. We're conscious that a new build very likely will have its PD rights removed so we wish to maximise the space at time of the initial planning application. Thank you

Hi, sorry to be a bother but would anyone be able to answer my other question above please? Thanks so much.

Thank you. A couple more questions please. A new dwelling under 100m2 is still liable, am I correct? Or only over 100m2? And if over, is it all the whole dwelling once it goes over or just the portion over 100m2? I'm also a bit confused about the in-use building exemption. I am retaining 100 m2, but then adding a further 96 m2 (so retaining a house and adding another house). The guidance states demolished or retained existing buildings are taken into account but is very unclear. When it states 'retained' does this mean for the sake of conversion, not retained as a dwelling and then added onto? Thanks

First question: I'm aware that sub-dividing a detached house is not liable for CIL. I am currently buying a detached house with the intention of applying for PP to build a semi detached house on the side. At the time of building the houses will be on the same title, and the title won't be split until much later when works are finished and the houses sold on. I'm assuming the new house will be liable for CIL, but though it a good idea to check whether this would come under the sub-division rule? The house currently has PP in place for a large extension of the same size, shape and location as the semi I'd like to build but work hasn't started yet. Secondly, we would like to build loft rooms in the new house. They don't require dormers. Without them the new house is under 100m2. If we don't build the stairs until after the house is finished, but add them in later (so no planning permission or PD required), would this break any rules? How long would we need to leave after completing? Thanks. :-)

I'm buying a house that has a planning application approved for a large two storey side extension. I don't want to build the proposed extension as its too expensive, but instead just want to do a normal 3m single storey rear extension and loft conversion that would both come under PD. Can I still build the PD loft and rear extension even though there is a planning application and will it still get a CLD? And if I do, will the approved planning still be valid for the future if we did decide to also build the proposed side extension at a later date?