kandgmitchell

Well you're not in England so can't comment on your regs but here if you add a further storey then you have to upgrade fire precautions etc. the regs do not clarify what use that storey is to be put to. In more general terms that's going to be a lot of work and expense to get from the upper picture to the lower, would it be worth it for less than 5 years..... and those slates look old.....

I'd say that depends on the building. For a simple rear extension say,he BC drawings would expect to show the foundation arrangement, floor and wall construction and the roof structure and covering with a lot of that covered by specification notes and probably one or two sections. Most builders would know what to build to meet the regulations but would expect to be told beam sizes and any unusual requirements. Otherwise they probably wouldn't bother with the drawings once the extension layout had been agreed so construction drawings would be rare. For a more complex building BC may ask for more details but again quite a lot would be covered by a written specification that showed how the building would comply. However, if the client wanted say fancy brickwork details then construction drawings would be needed to show to whoever was building it, how those details needed to be set out. In a similar way construction drawings may be needed to illustrate a complex structural layout which is beyond what the average builder would be expected to know. So, in short BC drawings would cover the basics; showing how the proposal would comply with the Building Regulations. Construction drawings would go that bit further into the detail of how the building is to be put together to get what the client wants. In either case I would expect the blockwork to be specified in order to show a) it's use in external walls met the thermal regulations and b) it's use was appropriate for the loadings expected from the structure.

Do it yourself - it's not difficult just a bit tedious and as @cjsparkey says you do discover some of the paperwork you've been keeping is a bit dog eared and maybe not entirely clear. However, they did reduce our claim stating they were missing invoices (but we had uploaded them), we uploaded them again and they paid those out without question.

Exactly, we're one of two houses along a length of farm road so who's going to worry/even know the ridge height is a bit higher than approved. It's about being aware of what impact any unauthorised change will have and even if it does have net curtains wobbling, whether the planners will be p...d off enough to take any action.

I was thinking this myself over the weekend when we travelled down to Stamford to see friends, there were potholes everywhere on all classes of roads. At least during the day you can weave around them but at night on unlit country roads it's just dangerous as per the OP's experience.

I doubt if the height one would even get noticed. Not easy for a planner/man in the street to measure to the ridge when completed. I got planning with stated height of 7580mm, the final design when engineered out was nigh on 7900mm. I didn't go back to revise. It's been 18 months since completion and no-one has commented, indeed everyone has been complimentary. As for pulling the corner forward I'd probably just do it and say you were supporting the neighbour by doing it. I think one has to consider the circumstances carefully. Would there be a reasonable objection to either of these minor changes that if proposed originally would have jeopardized the approval of the scheme? If not then in the worst case a revised application should deal with it. If it might, then I would be more circumspect. My detached garage for instance was approved with a pitched roof. We thought of buying a kit which my wife liked but it was a modern style (as the house is) and had a flat roof. Since it sat close to the road and may have raised a few eyebrows in this rural parish, I varied the condition that said build as per the approval so as to include the flat roof design just to be cautious. @DevilDamo will rightly say that by not complying with the condition to build as per the approved drawings, could put the approval at risk but what's life without a little jeopardy?

Just checking - is this a loft conversion of an existing two storey dwelling?

Does look like wood fibre board to me also.

That's the joy of planning! No-one is able to say exactly what will get approved but some may well take the easy route and direct you down the path of least resistance. That's fine if you get what you want but you will do this only once on this site. If the architect you like is in tune with your ideas and is easy to work with then that goes a long way. Don't get bullied into engaging a planning consultant if the architect is confident in their grasp of local policies and can justify their design complies. I'd like to think most of this is common sense. Coming up with an outrageous scheme that doesn't suit the location, is patently overdeveloping the site and impacts on all the neighbours should be obvious to most people as being a potential problem. From what you describe this is not going to be a matter of planning principle as there is a dwelling there already, so this is likely to be a design led application rather than having to argue technical points of planning policy where a planning consultant would have a place.

Ah, always a bit of an issue on BuildHub when discussing building standards as they do vary across the home countries. It would be useful if OP's state which country legislation they'd be subject to. I'd admit to know nothing about the regs in other parts of the UK. England alone is hard enough!

I'd agree with @torre a planning consultant's demolition statement isn't going to contain any technical information about the actual process. They are going to explain why this particular building is justified in being taken down and replaced with your proposal. Planning consultants can be a bonus particularly in connection with contentious sites. Is your one of those? If you are knocking down a bog standard building that no-one would care about and propose a sensible well designed replacement that is unlikely to stretch the boundaries of the LA's policies, then your architect ought to be able to proceed with a planning application without additional help. If I recall correctly there is a requirement under Section 80 of the Building Act 1984 to give notice to the local authority of intended demolition as well as copying said notice to neighbours and the local electric and gas suppliers. The notice needs to state the method of demolition and you have to wait for a counter notice from the LA or six weeks have passed before you can start. But that would be after you have your other approvals in place.

I think this needs a step back. Cavities are concealed spaces within a building, a cavity within an external wall is simply one example of a cavity, there are many other types. So, the regulations say that you do not need to provide cavity barriers with the specific fire resistance stated within para 5.20 within an external wall if it meets the criteria set out in the diagram 5.3, i.e that the cavity is closed around openings in the wall and at the head if the cavity is not filled completely with insulation. There is no requirement for the closers around the window to be fire resisting. However, I do agree that the guidance is confusing, if the space between the two masonry leaves is filled with insulation then there is no "cavity" and thus the perimeter to openings does not need to be closed with any additional material at all. Furthermore I believe there was a mention above of fitting self closers to the internal fire doors leading onto the protected stairway. They are not required. The only door in a normal three storey dwelling house that needs a closer is a door between the dwelling and an integral garage.

I agree with @Gus Potter ,what was causing the leak in the first place? - I guess a missing cavity tray over the lintel. I certainly wouldn't accept a quick re-paint, it's their fault letting this run on for two years, causing so much damage to the plaster finish. Get them to do the job properly.

@saveasteading I think it was the disconnect between what was designed to be compliant on paper and what could well have been executed on site, sometimes in ignorance and occasionally to save a few pounds. Most of this being done out of sight between inspections. I would suggest that is why the requirement to photograph areas of construction was brought in. Hopefully builders are coming around to the idea that you just can't swap types of insulation/services etc without checking first. The OP's didn't.

Well that's a relief!