Temp

Yes normally if you are handing the plot over to a builder and he's doing everything then you check he has his own insurance policy. If you are retaining control of the site and just hiring him to build the shell with you hiring trades to do other work then you would take out a policy, however you would still expect the builder to have a policy to cover his staff and any contractors he hires.

If the breather membrane is vapour permeable you can usually get away without ventilation below it (eg no need for the normal 50mm ventilated void). However you should allow a small void to allow the membrane to "drape" between the rafters. This is to avoid pressing the membrane to the underside of the tile/slate battens. The drape allows water blown under the slates to run down the membrane into the gutter. If you don't do this it can pool above the batten causing the batten to rot. (Edit: I'm not clear how the spray foam companies avoid this issue or even if they try to). The plastic sheet VCL stops water vapour caused by people inside the house getting through gaps in the insulation to the cold membrane where it might condense. So essential to do good job of the VCL. Not so essential to tape the joints in the insulation as well. Seal any big gaps with squirty cream foam. If you fit insulated plasterboard the VCL will be _in_ the insulation layer rather than entirely on the warm side of the insulation layer. That's should be OK provided the VCL isn't too far towards the cold side of the combined insulation. I think the usual rule of thumb is to ensure that 2/3rds of the insulation is outside the VCL with only 1/3rd on the inside. Ideally you would get an interstitial condensation risk analysis done on the proposed make up to ensure the VCL wasn't too far towards the cold side. Perhaps run your make up past the company that will be supplying the insulation. Some insulated plasterboard may also include a VCL?

Google found huge list of price rises with dates here... http://www.encon.co.uk/price-changes

+1 I'm sure they were referring to changes to their standard wording for such conditions not changes to the condition imposed on this application/grant.

Re: your not allowed to speak to her I'm wondering if the company you paid subcontracts out the actual work to self employed solicitors. They may not want you talking direct in case the solicitor steals "their" customer.

Sounds like they messed up. My guess is they knew you were close to roman remains and would need to impose a watching brief condition but the Planning Officer used their standard wording for such a condition rather than wording specific to your site. The reply you got from the planners even mentions that "The condition has been amended recently" meaning they have amended their standard wording. If you wanted to appeal it you would have to show it failed one of the tests I mentioned above. It's important to separate the requirements of the condition from the reason given. If the planners decided to fight an appeal they are likely to argue the condition is valid even if the reason given isn't. necessary - The planners will argue the watching brief is necessary to protect possible Roman remain. They might call an Archaeologist to give evidence. Relevant to planning - This sort of condition has been used many times before. and to the development to be permitted - This is the debatable bit. You would be arguing that "Areas of Archaeological Importance" was capitalised so must refer to areas defined in the local plan not just any old area of archaeological importance. Since you aren't in an AAI the reason given is invalid. The planners would argue that even if the reason given isn't valid the condition itself passes all the tests (1 to 6) due to the "nearby" Roman remains. You would have to argue the remains were too far from your site to be relevant. Ideally find an archaeologist prepared to say it's unlikely there is anything under your site. enforceable - Such conditions have been applied before. precise - What's the exact wording of the condition? Must you get the brief agreed by the planners before work starts etc? reasonable in all other respects. - Again you can try arguing it's not reasonable but if you loose on point 3 then you are likely to loose on point 6. I think Appeal Inspectors can change the wording of a condition. They don't have to choose between upholding it or deleting it. Might be worth finding out what Archeologists think of your site.

Before you speak to the planners make sure you are aware of the grounds under which you can appeal a condition. If they know you are serious about appealing the condition then they may back down and remove it without you having to appeal. Not sure if this is up to date but see... https://www.gov.uk/guidance/use-of-planning-conditions

I have 5 Hikvision POE network cameras on a Synology NAS and hub that provides the POE. Works well. Issues to think about: If you want to view video from the cameras while away from home you may need to have a reasonably good broadband connection (good upload speeds). However some cameras/systems can support two video streams at different resolution. That allows you to record the hi-definition on the server and watch the low-def on your phone from the beach. Spiders are an issue. They are attracted by the IR LEDs in the camera. Their webs cause IR light to bounce back into the camera spoiling the good night vision the cameras have. Make sure you can easily clean the area around the cameras. So called spider repellants don't last long if at all. Another option would be to have separate IR LED illuminators and turn off those in the camera? It can be difficult to set up motion detection to trigger recording. I have issues with sunlight and moving shadows due to wind/trees and the bloody spiders webs. I get 100's of recordings a day but if I turn down the sensitivity it fails to detect a person. I've tried loads of things and have come to the conclusion that motion detection in the camera or the server is not the best approach. The best solution would be to use a camera with a separate Alarm input and connect it to a good quality PIR sensor. This would give you far fewer false alarm recordings. Unfortunately my cams don't have an alarm input or I'd switch to using it. Meanwhile if we got robbed while on a two week holiday I would probably have to wade through a few thousand recordings if I can't narrow it down. I got some cameras from China at a bargain price. They arrived with Chinese firmware but rather than send them back I able to flash them with latest English firmware. If you order from abroad check what you are getting. Some camera recording programs require browser plug-ins not supported by MS Edge.

Read the planning policy document carefully and measure the plot carefully. Do the maths to figure out what the density rules mean. Only on any gain in value not the whole value of the plot. Say the plot costs £300K and you sell off 1/3rd of it for £100K. You could argue there was no capital gain. You also have your CGT allowance of £11,300 each. Figure out if the density policy would allow two detached houses - say one on 2/3rds of the land and one on 1/3rd of the land? Another option might be to apply for planning for two semi detached and one detached house that look the same. eg the two semis are the same size and shape as the one detached house, just the interior is different. A lot depends on the size of the plot.

I had a look at 73 para 5 here which appears to be the bit that stops you applying to change a time limit in England. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/8/section/73?view=extent but there is a huge list of amendments not yet edited into the act one of which is this which mentions Wales in (4) http://www.legislation.gov.uk/anaw/2015/4/section/35#section-35-7 It needs more brain power than I currently have available to fully digest the meaning but these lines look like the important bits... So in England it appears you can't change the condition if it applies a time limit on the start of development. However in Wales it looks like any time limit in the original must be applied to the new one. I'll need a few beers to figure out the difference :-)

You need PP for "separate use" but not "use incidental to the main dwelling". Renting it out as a totally separate dwelling needs PP. Renting it out as a room with shared use of the kitchen in the main house would be incidental use not needing PP. That said see the last two paragraphs down here... http://www.planningresource.co.uk/article/1209098/conversion-garages-outbuildings-ancillary-residential-use-q---dcp-section-104

One of the items thrown up by that search is this one that mentions bearings. Worth giving them a call. http://shop.aeg.co.uk/product/4055191383/Washing+Machine+Plastic+Pulley+Kit

Don't know about the AEG but some tubs are welded together making it hard to replace the bearings. There are some vids on youtube..

I'm a bit late to this thread but I suggest reading "How to get Planning Permission" by Roy Speer and others. Try for latest edition. Typically it takes two weeks for them to check the drawing package is complete and send them off to be scanned into pdf form for the web site. Can take longer. Anything major missing and they will usually contact you. Officially they have 8 weeks to approve or reject your application but only very simple applications manage that. In my area they write to you stating that unless you object they will assume you are waiving your right to an 8 week determination. I suggest a carefully worded reply stating that you won't hold them to the 8 week deadline but you reserve the right to appeal for non-determination should that become necessary. If it does drag on keep an eye on the timescales as you have a limited timescale in which to appeal for non-determination. After that you loose the right. Once live on the web site the planning officer will write to all the neighbours giving them the required statutory period time period to comment. These comments will also be scanned and put on the web site with a delay. He will also visit the site and write a report recommending approval or rejection to the Planning Committee. The Committee meets either every 4 or 8 weeks so you can see that an 8 week target is difficult for that reason alone. It's possible to get site of the planning officers report before the meeting and ask to speak at the meeting but you will need to be pro-active in keeping track of progress without making a nuisance of yourself. Sometimes the agenda for the meeting is published a week or two in advance on the council web site. Sometimes not until a day or two before. Some applications are determined not at committee but by the planning officer using his delegated powers. The Planning officer might start out intending to approve or reject using his delegated powers but if there are any objections or if the planning officer thinks it's controversial he will refer it to the committee. After the committee makes a decision the planning officer has to write a letter detailing the reason for refusal or any conditions if approved. Do not celebrate too much until you get that letter. Sometimes the committee reject an application for reasons that aren't entirely consistent with planning law and the planning officer has to think up more valid planning reasons for rejection. Do NOT start any work on site until you have sorted out all the CIL exemption paperwork or you may loose the exception costing you £thousands.

Insulation will increase the temperature of the UFH pipe and screed and reduce the temperature in the island units. I suppose there might be a small risk that the screed and tiles will crack due to differing rate of expansion? We omitted the UFH under our island and had no issues with the screed and tiles there. With bare feet we can definitely tell where the UFH was omitted at an internal doorway so I'm not so sure the heat spreading effect always occurs.

Outside the SPA zone or outside a 400m zone around the SPA?

No curtains on the window either :-)

I would see what the council say. I doubt they will send you a formal grant of approval, most likely they will confirm that Planning Permission isn't required for the change and hopefully that will satisfy the HMRC. To get a formal grant you might have to submit an application for a non-material amendment with drawings and a £28 (?) fee. That can take some time to be processed. I'm not sure how the HMRC would respond to you removing the additional items. I think you would have to admit that it appears the additional shower/wc was not formally approved prior to completion and explain that you have deleted these from your claim. Back in 2015 HMRC were turning the screw on DIY builders.. I realise the three cases here are different to yours but you get the idea... http://www.landmarkpt.com/blog/2015/11/16/hmrc-under-pressure-over-new-penalty-regime-for-diy-builders

When the receipts are inconsistent with the drawings. eg you claim for 2 garage door when there is only one on the elevation drawings.

I think at least try for some sort of wording that allows or better still mandates installation on the building before completion.

I checked the reclaim form and it says.. "Has Planning Permission been granted for your new build? To obtain a VAT refund you must provide evidence that the works are lawful and send us a copy of the planning permission" So you might get away with a letter from the council stating "Planning Permission is not required for the additional shower/wc" and you reminding them that it was done prior to completion. However HMRC were really pedantic they could say that although PP isn't required _now_ it was when the house was completed. You would hope they would see sense.

Get that metal detector/magnet going to see if that narrows it down to either a or b... a) Middle bowed out - no screws in the middle? b) Joints bowed in - no studs or screws near the cracks? If you have one of those USB cameras it would be interesting to look down into the wall from above. Most cement boards have some sort of marking on them at least on one side.

That effectively means you don't have PDR until the house is complete.

Work on the inside of your house is covered by Permitted Development Rights (PDR) but I think you only get PDR when a house is complete. If I'm correct then technically your house wasn't built "exactly as approved". The planners will take a pragmatic approach - they won't take enforcement action because it would be a waste of time and money. They know you could have added the shower/toiler after completion under PDR. The HMRC are being picky and unfair but they could well be legally correct. You should have completed the house "as approved" and then added the shower/WC. As they see it the house was either built "not as approved" (eg unlawful) or you added the shower/toiler after completion (which isn't claimable). I'm not sure of the way out of this one. You could try asking the planners to confirm that the house was "built as approved" but they might be reluctant to do that. If they aren't very co-operative you might have to try for a retrospective certificate of lawful development. You would get a certificate but I'm not sure if they would agree to it being retrospective. It depends when you get PDR. Depending on the outcome you would then resubmit the VAT reclaim or modify it to remove the shower/WC and resubmit it. Beware the time limit! It might take too long to get a certificate. Others should consider not claiming for anything that's not on the approved plans.