We are in the process of building a large extension. We got the original permission for a 2 storey side extension and a garage loft conversion. We then submitted an nma to add another dormer on the garage (so it now has 2) and to remove a doof from side extension which was grantec.
We then found out we couldn't exactly match the bricks, but they are close and planning accepted them. When they arrived on site they do look much paler. The house has a bkue engineering brick seperating the storeys and the plans show that continuing on tge extension, but not on the garage. The builder has said that the gable end will look much better if we carry the engineering brick right round as it will split the new bricks from old, so won't be so obvious.
Yesterday the roof trusses arrived and they werent as per tthe plan, they were attic trusses and we exoected bobtail, but they meant we would have had a much narrower room. The builder has agreed, it was a misunderstanding and is replacing them. The original design had 60cm brickwork above the garage, but he is now suggesting raising this to 1.2m as it will give us a lot more useable space. He says he can do this without raising tbe ridge height, the dormers will be the same, the difference will be a shallower ridge.
so I dont think the planners could object, but shoud we just build it and see if anyone notices and then go for retrospective if they do, go for retrospective anyway, or do an nma which we couldnt wait for an answer on anyway as everything is exposed so we need to get a roof on pdq.
it strikes me that throught the build we might want minor adjustments (patio dooes rather than french, a light tunnel etc) so it might be best just to wait?
coukd they make us pull it down for not applying before we did it? Are they likely to?
The 1.2m walks above the garage would be the same as another simikar style house has built (builder measured it!) so I guess theres a precedent and our neighbour whose kitchen looks at the gable end has already told us he is really please about the engineering brick line as he wasnt looking forward to the musmatched bricks showjng the original garage line so he is unlikely to report or object?
We then found out we couldn't exactly match the bricks, but they are close and planning accepted them. When they arrived on site they do look much paler. The house has a bkue engineering brick seperating the storeys and the plans show that continuing on tge extension, but not on the garage. The builder has said that the gable end will look much better if we carry the engineering brick right round as it will split the new bricks from old, so won't be so obvious.
Yesterday the roof trusses arrived and they werent as per tthe plan, they were attic trusses and we exoected bobtail, but they meant we would have had a much narrower room. The builder has agreed, it was a misunderstanding and is replacing them. The original design had 60cm brickwork above the garage, but he is now suggesting raising this to 1.2m as it will give us a lot more useable space. He says he can do this without raising tbe ridge height, the dormers will be the same, the difference will be a shallower ridge.
so I dont think the planners could object, but shoud we just build it and see if anyone notices and then go for retrospective if they do, go for retrospective anyway, or do an nma which we couldnt wait for an answer on anyway as everything is exposed so we need to get a roof on pdq.
it strikes me that throught the build we might want minor adjustments (patio dooes rather than french, a light tunnel etc) so it might be best just to wait?
coukd they make us pull it down for not applying before we did it? Are they likely to?
The 1.2m walks above the garage would be the same as another simikar style house has built (builder measured it!) so I guess theres a precedent and our neighbour whose kitchen looks at the gable end has already told us he is really please about the engineering brick line as he wasnt looking forward to the musmatched bricks showjng the original garage line so he is unlikely to report or object?
