kandgmitchell

Well now the "have you had a car finance deal in the last five years then you could be owned thousands in compensation" adverts are fading I suppose we'll have the "have you bought a new house in the last ten years" adverts offering to claim back all that money on your behalf. At present the radio has "did you buy a park home and find a) it's not worth much now and b) the service charges are now extortionate, then you may have been mis-sold (or just gullible)" adverts. The claims industry has to keep looking for the next golden egg to keep it in business.....

Ah, sorry hadn't noticed the "Highland" location. Can't really say what the Scottish Building Standards say about access, but I agree it's a regs concern rather than planning.

From experience, planning enforcement only tends to get involved when someone makes a complaint and draws things to their attention. Even then it has to be sufficiently serious for it to be worth them getting involved. Let's face it, I doubt if many on this forum have actually built their houses exactly in accordance with every requirement of their planning permission and there are very few enforcement cases raised on here. The Council have confirmed the case is shut and my view is to let that very sleepy dog lie and steer well clear of it............................

I'm sure they don't but Building Control who have to sign the building off as compliant with the Building Regulations might... Access and facilities for the fire service B5. (1) The building shall be designed and constructed so as to provide reasonable facilities to assist fire fighters in the protection of life. (2) Reasonable provision shall be made within the site of the building to enable fire appliances to gain access to the building

It is really frustrating when a planning authority requires things that other legislation already obliges you to do. Why screw down the water use to 120l/pppd with a Section 106 agreement when Regulation 36 of the Building Regulations - which you will have to comply with says: Water efficiency of new dwellings 36.— (1) The potential consumption of wholesome water by persons occupying a new dwelling must not exceed the requirement in paragraph (2). (2) The requirement referred to in paragraph (1) is either— (a) 125 litres per person per day; or (b) in a case to which paragraph (3) applies, the optional requirement of 110 litres per person per day, as measured in either case in accordance with a methodology approved by the Secretary of State. 3) This paragraph applies where the planning permission under which the building work is carried out—      (a) specifies the optional requirement in paragraph (2)(b); and (b) makes it a condition that that requirement must be complied with. (4) In this Part, “new dwelling” does not include a dwelling that is formed by a material change of use of a building within the meaning of regulation 5(g) So rather than all the time and cost of a legal agreement they just have to place a condition on the approval requiring the optional 110litres figure and Building Control will check it on site where a planning officer will never tread.

This is the "intention" behind the requirement for broadband connections: Intention 1.1 In the Secretary of State’s view, requirement RA1 for gigabit-ready physical infrastructure will be met by installing physical infrastructure or installations, including elements under joint ownership, to host wired or fixed wireless access networks that can do all of the following. a. Facilitate a functioning connection to a gigabit capable public electronic communications network to each new dwelling. b. Connect the building access point or common access point (where a building contains more than one dwelling) with a network termination point at each individual dwelling. c. Connect the network termination point with the physical point at which the network operator’s spine or core network ends (the network distribution point), or as close as is reasonably practicable where the developer has no right to install such infrastructure in land required to reach the distribution point. NOTE: The network distribution point could be in a cabinet, a box mounted on a wall or on a telegraph pole. It may or may not be on the development site. If your existing arrangement on site satisfies the above then BC should not have a problem with it. As said above just explain that this is a replacement dwelling with existing connections retained that meet requirements.

Agree with all the above. An individual officer has no authority to vary a planning permission. The permission is given by the Planning Authority either through their planning committee or by a specific designated officer (usually the chief planning officer) via a proper scheme of delegation. If you've complied with the planning permission requirements then that is that, they can't have a second informal go.

Well no-one asked for my "commissioning plan". I'd submit the application and see if BC ask for it. If so then list what systems you are installing - heat pump, MVHR etc and set against them "to be tested by installer upon installation to ensure the system meets requirement minimum standards and results to be provided to BC upon completion" and see if that works.

As Temp says above: the window needs an opening which is at least 450mm in either direction as well as being at least 0.33m2 in area - so that negates 450mm x 450mm. The dimensions relate to the opening which is why some upvc window hinges do not comply as they do not allow the window to swing fully open. The bottom edge of the opening should not be more than 1100mm off the floor. The idea is to allow someone to climb out of the window, hang from the bottom edge and drop to the ground outside - hence only being allowed for first floor windows.

Ah OK, well let's hope your local authority has a positive attitude to tourism in their district. Hope you're successful.

If you are building a shepherds hut would it be mobile? If it is, it could be a "chatte"l and hence not a planning matter. What are you going to use it for? I have a touring caravan on my property, that doesn't need planning permission, nor would a boat or my cars. If it's fixed would it be permitted development? Assuming it's use is incidental to that of the host dwelling, then subject to height and location it could well be PD. Just thinking........

Not easy to reconcile "don't want" and "unable to" with compliance with Part K. I hear what Mr Punter has to say, but BC will want proof that these rooflights will be capable of sustaining the loads imposed by a falling person and how do you do that? A very cautious BCO may say "what if the rooflights are open?". Walk on glass may be an option but can you be sure the rooflight frames and fixings are suitable for foot traffic? I would have thought one of the many available fully glazed modular systems available on line is your only option, but fixing down adequately and ensuring good waterproofing at this late stage are going to be the issues.

No reason at all why you can't make an application for a certificate of lawful development for a PD extension to the roof of the dwelling despite having an extant approval for a ground floor extension. The limit on volume created relates to the roof of the building not the building as a whole. The two issues are completely separate. Of course you are not obliged to obtain a certificate before carrying out PD works as long as you are confident you comply fully with the provisions of Part B in Schedule 2 of the PD rules.

LABC warranty manual suggests no more than 15mm for walls over 5m long. See this: https://www.labcwarranty.co.uk/hubfs/Technical Manual v10 Files and Images/Manual Sections/Section 1 Tolerances.pdf#:~:text=A 10mm deviation is suggested,over 5m long. It's frustrating about leaving lintels out etc. Our groundworker had a tendency to say "that's close enough". I always countered with "what the frame erectors want they must have, so stick to their requirements please otherwise I'll get the blame". For instance we had set places for rainwater drains so the associated downpipes could be located over studs in the frame for fixing. I had to have the first gulley moved because it had to be 1645mm from the corner and he put it at 1800mm odd. "They'll just move the downpipe" was the reply, but why not just put it where the drawing said in the first place!!! I found blaming others for "being awkward" came in useful and maintained a working relationship until we got there......

When you say building warrant I presume you mean building regulation consent as per the English/Wales system rather than Scotland. So your project can't use the simplified method of showing compliance then? A thermal dynamic modelling report can be got from many of the firms that supply SAP calculations. If you google Thermal Dynamic Modelling - Part O there are several companies offering a free quote. Perhaps see what is being charged and come back here to ask if anyone has used that particular firm.