Extension to existing railway building

[Andymsa]

Just a survey if to start a post on my possible addition to my existing railway building. I seen questions on this subject from time to time and I thought it could be interesting or help to others to record the build from foundation to completion of the build, subject to planning. So I’m Interested if anyone could gain anything from record of the build. 

Edited September 2, 2022 by Andymsa

[Barclay]

11 hours ago, Andymsa said:

Just a survey if to start a post on my possible addition to my existing railway building. I seen questions on this subject from time to time and I thought it could be interesting or help to others to record the build from foundation to completion of the build, subject to planning. So I’m Interested if anyone could gain anything from record of the build. 

I find threads like this just as interesting as the modelling ones, so go for it I say!

[Hal Nail]

I think you'd probably get more interest changing the title to railway room construction or something like that. The forum tips point out that vague titles tend to get ignored.

 

Just start a thread and if no one responds or follows stop posting.

 

[DCB]

I think you need to get the title sorted out first.  If it is a railway room in your house, then  "Extension to existing railway room"   is fine,   But if it's a shed "Extension to existing railway shed"   or  "Extension to existing railway building" would be more helpful.

If its a domestic room, planning and building regs will be your major topic,    Shed /  Stable  or purpose built railway structure then you can probably just get and do it.

I have been thinking of adding a "Conservatory" to the house to house a layout,  building a shed, buying a prefabricated stable, widening our existing garage,  buying a caravan to house the layout and moving somewhere more railway friendly as getting in the loft gets harder by the day so I'm all ears.

[WIMorrison]

Andy, I want to see the updates and pictures. Hopefully you will use this as a blog of your progress

[Michael Hodgson]

1 hour ago, Hal Nail said:

I think you'd probably get more interest changing the title to railway room construction or something like that. The forum tips point out that vague titles tend to get ignored.

 

Just start a thread and if no one responds or follows stop posting.

 

 

Ah, now I understand what this thread is about !

 

Planning consent seems to be arbitrary and as unpredictable as the national lottery.  I had plans drawn up professionally by a firm specialising in extensions so that it looked OK and got them to apply for me.  They advised me not tell them it was for a model railway because of  "anorak" prejudice.  It's a granny annexe, games room or something, but what you put in it once it's built is up to you.

 

Rejected first time, my bureaucrats didn't like the idea of a long single storey extension.  I had to re-apply, pointing out that it was following the outline of an existing 6' fence, and even then it had to be sunk partly (increasing cost) and use a flat roof and to bring the height down to about that of the fence.  It also wasn't allowed to incorporate the garage - separate brick building at the bottom of the garden, and there had to be a gap (6") between the two.

 

I was working away from home quite a bit at the time, so got a builder in who managed the work and he hired specialists like brickies & plasterer, though I did the electrics myself (you probably can't do that now).

[Andymsa]

11 minutes ago, Michael Hodgson said:

 

Ah, now I understand what this thread is about !

 

Planning consent seems to be arbitrary and as unpredictable as the national lottery.  I had plans drawn up professionally by a firm specialising in extensions so that it looked OK and got them to apply for me.  They advised me not tell them it was for a model railway because of  "anorak" prejudice.  It's a granny annexe, games room or something, but what you put in it once it's built is up to you.

 

Rejected first time, my bureaucrats didn't like the idea of a long single storey extension.  I had to re-apply, pointing out that it was following the outline of an existing 6' fence, and even then it had to be sunk partly (increasing cost) and use a flat roof and to bring the height down to about that of the fence.  It also wasn't allowed to incorporate the garage - separate brick building at the bottom of the garden, and there had to be a gap (6") between the two.

 

I was working away from home quite a bit at the time, so got a builder in who managed the work and he hired specialists like brickies & plasterer, though I did the electrics myself (you probably can't do that now).

A somewhat interesting point about not to tell them about using it for a model railway, I have had the opposite reaction, the concerns so far was the building would be used for residential use, once a site visit was conducted and it’s very apparent to its current use and why I want to extend,  the planning inspector seemed happy.  As to electrics I will be doing any that’s needed, which will be only be for additional lighting and moving maybe a socket or two.

Edited September 2, 2022 by Andymsa

[DCB]

Planning is arbitrary,  I was on a planning committee for 12 years.   Honesty is the best policy, Sincerity, and if you can fake those you have it made.     Seriously if you document your application with  plans and photos of similar layouts to that which you plan, why it needs to be X meters long and wide, Minimum radii etc, and  make a case in the relevant  "Design and access" section,   Tell them you are saving the planet by giving up your old hobby of flying round the world to Climate Change Protests,  saving the fish by giving up Fly fishing, etc and Vitally important employ a local firm of planning agents who used be employees of your local planing department and know the local policies and the planners involved you have a sporting chance.

 

Better still sod the planners just build it,  Retrospective applications almost always succeed, if not and you are my age, you can stall them till you don't need a railway any more.

[RobinofLoxley]

lol David, you have just advanced the argument why retrospective planning permission should never be granted

[Andymsa]

3 hours ago, RobinofLoxley said:

lol David, you have just advanced the argument why retrospective planning permission should never be granted

although a fair point about seeking retrospective permission, one difficulty I encountered was did I need planning or not, could I build under permitted development. My council does not give pre planning advice except to big developers which I feel is very unfair. So I can see why there are times someone has to go the retrospective route because of honest ignorance. But then there are those who are just trying it on. But I guess councils have to give fair weight to all retrospective applications even if they know someone is takin the p**s . Councils don’t make it very easy to do the right thing, well my one certainly doesn’t.

Edited September 3, 2022 by Andymsa

[chris p bacon]

1 hour ago, Andymsa said:

My council does not give pre planning advice except to big developers which I feel is very unfair.

 

It is because Householders don't want to pay for pre-application advice but developers will. The local authority where I lived until last year used to give householders free advice but had to curtail that as they were spending too much time on day dreamers at the expense of those that had live applications. They will still answer simple question if you write in but don't go into great detail. 

 

On any application describe it as a 'Hobby room' as this indicates that a sound and secure building is required, but it won't be used for extra residential space. Whereas putting 'Granny Annexe' is opening up a can of worms as to whether the rest of the house can accommodate extra people sharing the communal areas. Granny annexes cannot be self supporting as they must share some services with the main house such as a kitchen, if they didn't they could easily be sold off or rented out as a separate apartment which is not the idea behind the permission.

 

[WIMorrison]

I woudl be wary of just building and going for retrospective permission later, especially if you have had any contact with the Planning Authority in respect of what you intend to do. They will use this prior contact as confirmation that you are not ignorant of the rules and retrospective permission becomes harder, and in a couple of cases near me - refused and the owner forced to deconstruct the 'sheds' that he placed in his garden.

[Andymsa]

49 minutes ago, chris p bacon said:

 

It is because Householders don't want to pay for pre-application advice but developers will. The local authority where I lived until last year used to give householders free advice but had to curtail that as they were spending too much time on day dreamers at the expense of those that had live applications. They will still answer simple question if you write in but don't go into great detail. 

 

On any application describe it as a 'Hobby room' as this indicates that a sound and secure building is required, but it won't be used for extra residential space. Whereas putting 'Granny Annexe' is opening up a can of worms as to whether the rest of the house can accommodate extra people sharing the communal areas. Granny annexes cannot be self supporting as they must share some services with the main house such as a kitchen, if they didn't they could easily be sold off or rented out as a separate apartment which is not the idea behind the permission.

 

my council wouldnt even give simple advice the best they advised was lawful development certificate. I see the point about daydreamers but I wasn’t even offered the pre plan advice route as a private person as it’s not offered to a local council tax payer, only the big boys as the say money talks.

Edited September 3, 2022 by Andymsa

[DCB]

An awful lot of development is now permitted development,  PD.  If you use the latest on line planning advice, check if you are in an area of outstanding natural beauty (AONB) or Conservation Area, neither is rocket science to work out and if you aren't in either then pretty much anything behind the rear elevation of your residence is fair game.     Essential advice do not p155 off the neighbours.  Our local council bought a 34 X 10 usable floor area Stable as a storage shed last year for around £8K including a concrete base.  If I had eno8gh garden behind my house I would be looking to buy one for a railway room myself.  Similar floor area bricks and mortar I reckon on that X5 at least, and building regulations and all that jobsworth malarky.

[Andymsa]

57 minutes ago, DCB said:

An awful lot of development is now permitted development,  PD.  If you use the latest on line planning advice, check if you are in an area of outstanding natural beauty (AONB) or Conservation Area, neither is rocket science to work out and if you aren't in either then pretty much anything behind the rear elevation of your residence is fair game.     Essential advice do not p155 off the neighbours.  Our local council bought a 34 X 10 usable floor area Stable as a storage shed last year for around £8K including a concrete base.  If I had eno8gh garden behind my house I would be looking to buy one for a railway room myself.  Similar floor area bricks and mortar I reckon on that X5 at least, and building regulations and all that jobsworth malarky.

the problem for me was that when I first built the part of the shed I want to extend it  was permitted development, I wanted to know if the extension fell also within that remit. Unfortunately this was one of those times things fell between the cracks of the rules and was not obvious as to the rules for PD were apparent or not, that was what I wanted to know from the council. The problem with PD is a set of rules apply and there is no flexibility. With full planning the planners can show some flexibility. So in my case the existing was PD but as it was to be extended with a change of rules the whole is now considered as PD and does not comply under todays regs.

Edited September 3, 2022 by Andymsa

[melmerby]

If you live in Worcestershire you can get away with practically anything. The council are not prepared to challenge illegal development on individual plots.

They will however reject plans, if submitted, that don't meet the regs.

 

An example was a bungalow that wanted a loft conversion, all pretty basic, and no increase in footprint - rejected.

However the builder who worked on another bungalow without planning permission, converted it into a house by raising the roof to get full size first floor rooms, added an extension that went closer to the next property than allowed and also added another 30% extension on another elevation. The total floor area probably doubled but although not to regs under permitted development, the only thing the council enforced was a reduction in the height of the boundary wall to the public highway from 2.5m to the regulation 2m

 

According to the local planning officer, the development only digressed by a "small" amount. The mind boggles what a large amount might be.

Edited September 3, 2022 by melmerby

[DCB]

58 minutes ago, Andymsa said:

the problem for me was that when I first built the part of the shed I want to extend it  was permitted development, I wanted to know if the extension fell also within that remit. Unfortunately this was one of those times things fell between the cracks of the rules and was not obvious as to the rules for PD were apparent or not, that was what I wanted to know from the council. The problem with PD is a set of rules apply and there is no flexibility. With full planning the planners can show some flexibility. So in my case the existing was PD but as it was to be extended with a change of rules the whole is now considered as PD and does not comply under todays regs.

How about a sketch of the floorplan of what you are planning.   maybe scribble on a Screenshot of a Googlemap image?      If it's not PD there is no reason you can't make a planning application, threatening to paint the existing shed with 08 class wasp stripes on the end if you don't get permission might gee the planners up a bit.

[Andymsa]

7 hours ago, DCB said:

How about a sketch of the floorplan of what you are planning.   maybe scribble on a Screenshot of a Googlemap image?      If it's not PD there is no reason you can't make a planning application, threatening to paint the existing shed with 08 class wasp stripes on the end if you don't get permission might gee the planners up a bit.

As part of the theme of the thread Im going to upload the plan submitted with the procedure followed for planning

[Andymsa]

7 hours ago, DCB said:

How about a sketch of the floorplan of what you are planning.   maybe scribble on a Screenshot of a Googlemap image?      If it's not PD there is no reason you can't make a planning application, threatening to paint the existing shed with 08 class wasp stripes on the end if you don't get permission might gee the planners up a bit.

As part of the theme of the thread Im going to upload the plan submitted with the procedure followed for planning

[Andymsa]

 

these are part of the actual plans submitted,

 

Initially I applied for lawful development, although what I was adding complied the problem was the existing building being close to the boundaries. I then have now applied for full planning and should have the decision soon. It will be a delegated decision, the only concern was possible habitual use, on the site visit from the inspector they were more than satisfied as to existing use and why I want to extend. The plans slightly differ in regard to window door placement as the layout plan will dictate where doors will go as I get a better plan by doing this.

 

 

[WIMorrison]

Andy,

 

This would appear to be infill and as such I believe would come under PD, as long as the height is low enough, and as you are not going above the existing pitch then there cannot be an objection under PD.

Edited September 4, 2022 by WIMorrison

[Andymsa]

18 minutes ago, WIMorrison said:

Andy,

 

This would appear to be infill and as such I believe would come under PD, as long as the height is low enough, and as you are not going above the existing pitch then there cannot be an objection under PD.

that’s what I thought, but the council look at the whole overall footprint, which is unfair as the existing is complying with the regs back then when built but are applying exsisting regs to everything now. That’s why I wanted the initial advice as things like this are not clear cut on the planning portal. 

Edited September 4, 2022 by Andymsa

[Andymsa]

Update,

 

good news I have got planning permission so it’s full steam ahead, sorry for the pun.

 

building control yet to be done

[Andymsa]

Work has now started, the first thing is to clear the ground for the foundation work. This requires bushes removed and paving slabs removed, I shall try to salvage as many as I can. A lesson learnt from transportation of the bushes to the council tip, don’t put them in a car, I have had to evict several large spiders from the car 😬

 

Edited September 29, 2022 by Andymsa

[RobinofLoxley]

Those japanese anemones can be a nightmare. Although they flower late when not much else may be going on, they can be a real thug and get everywhere.