Planners insisting on a cold bridge with a new extension
Eric Branse-Instone
posted on 03-02-07
I have submitted plans for a house extension which covers up the entire gable wall of a solid walled house. The planners want me to drop the ridge line of the extension which will effectively introduce an unnecessary cold bridge as well as complicate the construction (as we are re-roofing at the same time). Part L1B Bldg Regs paragraph 52 states that "the building fabric should be constructed so that there are no avoidable thermal bridges..." but does any one know anything else official that we could quote to argue for a continuous roof over house & extension?
Thanks
Can we assume you will be bringing the old part of the house up to modern insulation standards - i.e. walls of U=0.3W/m2K or better? If not your argument will be rather weakened....
The planners demands are based on making the history of the building obvious and making the older part dominant. The break in roof line says 'built in different phases' and the new bit being lower and often also set back from the front makes it subservient to the orignal. The way to approach this argument is not really from thermal standards, it is by arguing that for example the building is not of sufficient historical value to need this treatment. Precedents in your area and of similar type would be helpful too.
Mike George
posted on 04-02-07
Highwayman, I am sure you are right about the planners thinking on this. Perhaps the new guidance on Sustainable development only refers to new build, I have not had chance to read it all yet!
I still think that they could be encouraged to consider thermal upgrades,if they refuse, they should be named and shamed as far as I am concerned.
It will also be interesting to see how the new PPG affects the turnover of refusals. I read somewhere that 40% of planning refusals are subsequently approved on appeal, I would like to see this figure go higher and then perhaps we will have some more green building
highwayman
posted on 04-02-07
Mike,
Planners and Building Control are very separate! But in most cases you'd hope they would open to the argument of this thread. I think appeal success is rather lower than 40% - I've not seen recent figures, but the last time a I spoke to a planning officer on the subject I'm sure they said more like 10% success rate for small scale domestic appeals.
Mike George
posted on 04-02-07
Yes, they are vey separate, but there may soon be a policy change which will bring them closer together, even joined.
Maybe the 40% I read about covers all appeals not just domestic ones, sorry I cannot remember offhand where I read it
I stand by my opinion though, planning decision should not just be based on aesthetics and highways etc. The carbon footprint should also be considered whether new or retrofit.
