From: Chris Arden [mailto:[email protected]

From: Chris Arden [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: 27 November 2012 13:43
To: David Johnson
Cc: 'Phil Greenaway'
Subject: 8 Lynwood Crescent SL5 0BL - Appn 12/02826
Dear David,
Following our telephone conversation yesterday about the boundary with number 7 I have
carried out some further investigations on site.
The original application drawings were based on the assumption that the wall between the
conservatory at number 7 and the single storey rear extension at number 8 was a double skin
cavity wall astride the boundary. This had been deduced from the drawings for the previous
planning applications 02/82083 (number 7) and 03/84192 (number 8). The intention was to
simply extend this cavity wall vertically to form part of the new first floor. Having examined the
existing arrangement on site in some detail it appears that the construction of the
conservatory at number 7 differs from what was indicated on the application drawings. It looks
as though a 275 cavity wall was built as part of the conservatory construction but entirely on
the number 7 side of the boundary with the outer face of the cavity wall on the boundary line.
When the extension to number 8 was built a year or so later a further single skin was
constructed with a cavity between the new skin and the cavity wall. What appears to exist
now therefore is a dividing wall with three skins and two cavities.
The dimension across the width of the existing single storey extension to number 8 between
the outer face of the inner side wall and the boundary/outer face of number 7 cavity wall is
3.7m and I have marked this on the revised drawings AP10A and AP11A. It is intended that
the overall width of the new first floor will match this dimension and I have indicated this on
revised drawings AP20B and AP21B. The new side wall facing number seven will therefore
be built entirely on the number 8 side of the boundary and the existing cavity wall and coping
on the number 7 side will remain untouched apart from replicating the existing weatherproof
lead flashing to the coping. I have also revised drawing AP22B to indicate the amended
arrangement.
I have retained the overhanging eaves with the gutter connected to the existing first floor
gutter so Certificate B is still applicable. Technically it would be possible to build the new first
floor entirely on the number 8 side by constructing an asymmetrical gable with an inset gutter
behind an upstand parapet similar to the existing single storey arrangement. However it was
felt that whilst an asymmetrical gable might be acceptable on a single storey (particularly
where some of it is hidden by a hedge), it would be much more prominent and less visually
acceptable on a first floor extension. In addition there would be a very visible clumsy junction
where the upstand parapet met the rear wall and eaves of the main house. It is intended that
the overhanging eaves and gutter connection will be dealt with as part of a party wall
agreement.
I have attached copies of the revised drawings. Please let me know if you need anything
further.
Regards
Chris Arden
01344 624758