Planning Permission - makes no sense?

edgex

nixinixi wrote: »

Could you put up a conservatory that spans both properties?

Just a thought, if you open up the garden by removing fence panels, you could then have a conservatory linking both properties..if you know a clever builder they may be able to design it so it can then be spilt in two in 5 years time relatively easily so then you will have two properties each with a conservatory. Obviously there is quite a cost implication in this, but it somehow seems less drastic than opening up the two properties if it is only short term. Even if you worked out you had to throw it away at the end it means you haven't had to mess with the structure of the property and you would know the costs now...and worse case scenario you can still lock each other out!

yep, much better idea
as the OP 'owns' both properties, there shouldnt be any objections to them having a wall put in the conservatory on the boundry line, & they could have an opening left in it to be infilled later.
still need to check with the building coontrol/planning etc, but if allowable would be a much easier way of doing it.


or, as ive already posted
take out a fence panel & put up a veranda

wallbash wrote: »

There must have been cases in the past when two houses have been knocked into one. In fact I saw Tommy Walsash do I one tv. Also small farm labourers cottage get the once over , whats the difference.

Two kitchens ?? , but some larger Jewish Homes have two kitchens , makes keeping dietary laws easier.

As I first posted .... love this forum:rotfl:

but the OP dosnt want to knock 2 houses into 1
they want to keep 2 seperate houses, & have some method of moving between them.

wallbash

but the OP dosnt want to knock 2 houses into 1
they want to keep 2 seperate houses, & have some method of moving between them.

You lost my point .
If its legal and possible to knock thru to convert 2 into 1 ( not that I suggested that the OP wanted to ) it must be legal and possible to walk between, on a temp ( five years)

edgex

wallbash wrote: »

You lost my point .
If its legal and possible to knock thru to convert 2 into 1 ( not that I suggested that the OP wanted to ) it must be legal and possible to walk between, on a temp ( five years)

er, no

2 into 1 = 1 dwelling
so for building/fire regs, insurance, planning etc, there is only 1 dwelling

in the OP's case, they want 2 dwellings
so for all the above, there is still 2 dwellings
2 dwellings = some sort of barrier/seperation between the 2

building/fire regs will be based on that barrier, so will the insurance policies


it dosnt matter how 'temporary' or not that it is, its still having a hole put through a fire barrier that is to seperate 2 dwellings
(it isnt there to seperate 1 into seperate rooms)
(also, i wouldnt consider structural alterations to be temporary)




in fact, take it to its extreme
what if it had to be classed as a HMO?
that would then mean having to fit fire doors to protect escape routes, fire alarm system etc etc

wallbash

Are you saying the problem is impossible

Yes , take down the fence is very cheap
I like the idea of the conservatory that spans both properties?

But the OP question is ... is it possible?

edgex

wallbash wrote: »

Are you saying the problem is impossible

Yes , take down the fence is very cheap
I like the idea of the conservatory that spans both properties?

But the OP question is ... is it possible?

I dont know if its possible or not, im not their council or their insurance companies

i have however pointed out where there are major issues, & that there are much much easier ways of achieving what the OP wishes to achieve.



what they want to achieve is not 'put a hole in the wall'
it is 'have an easier method of moving between 2 adjacent properties for a short period of time'


taking down a fence panel achieves that 100%, & at no cost, & with no impact on anything

if they want some protection from the elements, then put up a veranda
again, it achieves what they want, with little cost, & again with no impact

want more protection?
as another poster has suggested, have a conservatory



so
there are already 3 methods that can & should be investigated properly before jumping into 'put a hole in the wall'

Doozergirl

Most of this entire thread is just a bizarre conversation. Building a conservatory to link the two? Why don't you just get building regs involved and do what you wanted to do in the first place, it's cheaper?!

As soon as you knock through between two houses they become one so therefore fire regulations between buildings do not count if the property is being treated as one property - you know the buildings are linked and the precautions you need to take. Building Control would only want to be interested for the support to the structural wll in this instance, nothing to do with fire - it is one dwelling, no longer two. If it has three storeys then the protected stairwells with firedoors will suffice for safety. As long as the knock-through is supported safely, using a structural engineer for calcs etc. there is no common sense need to start involving building control and planning if it is all going to be put back for sale.

Building regs will apply when you close the gap for the purposes of fire-safety between two dwellings, because you would be putting it from one dwelling into two, so therefore it would be only fair that when you block that opening back up, you conform to the current building regs in the way that you carry out the work and brick that opening back up so the new neighbours don't get any nasty surprises further down the line.

It's not the correct, paperwork way to go about things but it is common sense and safe - if you do it all correctly then your conscience should be clear.

As far as insurance, it would be difficult to get an online quote but speaking directly to an insurer and them checking with their underwriters shouldn't be too much of a problem with insuring the two buildings as one, provided they know about the knock-through and it is acknowledged in the policy. I would check this however before you carry out the work.

Love the idea of there being several things to try before resorting to the thing that you actually want to do :rolleyes:

wallbash

Most of this entire thread is just a bizarre conversation

And the problem with that??









:rotfl:

PasturesNew

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.html?p=25574099&postcount=6

"You don't need planning permission to convert two houses into one, as it is not 'development'. However, if you come to reinstate them back into 2 in the future, that will require planning permission, as that is 'development."

edgex

Doozergirl wrote: »

Most of this entire thread is just a bizarre conversation. Building a conservatory to link the two? Why don't you just get building regs involved and do what you wanted to do in the first place, it's cheaper?!

As soon as you knock through between two houses they become one so therefore fire regulations between buildings do not count if the property is being treated as one property - you know the buildings are linked and the precautions you need to take. Building Control would only want to be interested for the support to the structural wll in this instance, nothing to do with fire - it is one dwelling, no longer two. If it has three storeys then the protected stairwells with firedoors will suffice for safety. As long as the knock-through is supported safely, using a structural engineer for calcs etc. there is no common sense need to start involving building control and planning if it is all going to be put back for sale.

Building regs will apply when you close the gap for the purposes of fire-safety between two dwellings, because you would be putting it from one dwelling into two, so therefore it would be only fair that when you block that opening back up, you conform to the current building regs in the way that you carry out the work and brick that opening back up so the new neighbours don't get any nasty surprises further down the line.

It's not the correct, paperwork way to go about things but it is common sense and safe - if you do it all correctly then your conscience should be clear.

As far as insurance, it would be difficult to get an online quote but speaking directly to an insurer and them checking with their underwriters shouldn't be too much of a problem with insuring the two buildings as one, provided they know about the knock-through and it is acknowledged in the policy. I would check this however before you carry out the work.

Love the idea of there being several things to try before resorting to the thing that you actually want to do :rolleyes:

er, the OP dosnt want 1 property :rolleyes:
they want 2, but with an easy way of moving between them, & for a relatively short period of time, 5 years



is making major structural alterations, then putting it all back after 5 years, really going to be cheaper than the alternatives listed?


taking out a fence panel & putting up a veranda would involve no one else, how much simpler & cheaper could that be?

PasturesNew wrote: »

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.html?p=25574099&postcount=6

"You don't need planning permission to convert two houses into one, as it is not 'development'. However, if you come to reinstate them back into 2 in the future, that will require planning permission, as that is 'development."

so, another reason not to go knocking holes in walls

Doozergirl

edgex wrote: »

er, the OP dosnt want 1 property :rolleyes:
they want 2, but with an easy way of moving between them, & for a relatively short period of time, 5 years

er, the OP wants to use two properties as one for five years whilst maintaining them officially as two. You can rolleyes at me but I can actually grasp the point here and why it might be, in practice, easier to knock a hole than walk outside :rolleyes:

If they were to do that officially, building control would want to see the support for the structural wall. They would not in this instance be interested in fire regs because they would see the building being created into one property, no longer two. You are telling us they would be interested in maintaining the fire break between two dwellings when in actual fact it will be viewed by them as knocking through to create one dwelling. You are therefore wrong saying that a fire door would need to be in place between the two existing rooms. If they are three storey buildings then they would want to see the stairwell protected - it sounds like they already are.

Yes the OP wants to keep them as two houses in the long term which means not involving BC or Planning for fear of Planning rejecting the application to turn it back into two houses. For the sake of common sense they should carry out any building work to meet Building Regulations for their own safety - that is supporting the wall - nothing to do with maintaining a fire break. (A fire door would not be sufficient fire-break between two separate houses anyway )

BR would be interested at the point of bringing the property back to two dwellings (ie. closing the gap) because they would want to see an adequate fire break. This would need to be at least a brick wall.

Building Regs would be taking a common sense approach - it's Planning that would not. Seeing as you can't really involving BC without involving Planning then it's simply best to adhere to Building Regulations without actually involving the paperwork.

If you genuinely believe that you would prefer to go outside in order to put your dinner on the table and genuinely believe this is a common sense option then you just carry on and do it in your own house. :rolleyes: What I'm suggesting is not the "right" way to do things but it serves the purpose in a practical, warm and safe way. The other option is to simply to get certificates for building regs and obtain planning permission for the conversion back to two houses. It's not that expensive to knock a wall through and it seems to be something the OP was prepared to do in the first place. BR & PP wouldn't cost more than a few hundred pounds. Slightly more attractive than a lean-to and not really much more expensive.