kandgmitchell

Building notices still exist and even under the "old" system BC could ask for specific drawings if they needed then to understand a specific issue although that was rarely done. For domestic work the client can be both designer and contractor (Reg11D (5)). Realistically I can't see BC being awkward for small domestic projects. They may ask a bit more if you were building a house. Even then a brief "CV" of previous projects should be sufficient but then you really shouldn't be building a house on a notice these days, keep it for simple straightforward jobs.

Ok looks like I'll have to get a definitive answer as to what was used then.

Thanks, I did look all through that thread but couldn't see any mention of mixing different makes. One wonders if the additional inhibitors etc are happy to intermix.

Had the first annual service today on my Vaillant ASHP. Glycol level checked and it's fine. However, the service engineer asked what glycol it was as they can't be mixed and to find out what it was for future reference should topping up be required. Having called the original installer they believe alphi 11 was used but it was certainly a propylene glycol. As long as any "top up" in the future is also a propylene product, is it likely to be an issue or do I need to nail down the exact product used in the system?

Have a look at paragraphs 2.41 to 2.45 of the Approved Document to Part H (it'll be online). Since you are under the minimum depth of 0.9m in a "light road" then para 2.44 says: 2.44 Where pipes have less than the minimum recommended cover in Table 8, 9 or 10, the pipes should, where necessary, be protected from damage by a reinforced concrete cover slab with a flexible filler and at least 75mm of granular material between the top of the pipe and the underside of the flexible filler below the slabs (see Diagram 11 and paragraphs 2.28, 2.42 and 2.43). However, just be aware of where vehicle wheels will run on a driveway and if no loading is going to be put on the drain then less protection will be needed.

Don't think BC are concerned about noise either - it's more about thermal efficiency and heating controls in Part L. The only reference is to selecting fans and compressors "to minimise disturbance to neighbours whilst remaining in compliance with planning requirements". So if you have planning approval for the location then I can't see why BC would ask for a "noise certificate" - there are no standards I can find in the Approved Document to measure against.

They certainly have a Redland 49 look about them. but as @Mr Punter says, find a roofing supplier and take a sample along to match up.

@BigBub makes a fair comment. We rarely get the whole picture here, and if the OP has built a massive concrete block of a thing then it gets harder to argue. But in "normal" circumstances, rely on Part 4 and ignore Part 1, was what I was trying to get across.

Temporary refers to a limited amount of time not to the construction of a building. Merely using a concrete base to impart stability and a degree of weather resistance and convenience doesn't make anything permanent. It is up to the OP to decide how much they want to invest in their building which is on site for a limited time, more effort might be required to ensure security for instance. It will still be lawful. It will only cease to be lawful when the works it is being used in conjunction with cease and it is not removed. At that point the LA may well have an issue but that is not the case as it stands is it? Reading the planning permission documents will tell the OP nothing about what rights they have under the legislation, merely what they have permission to do. If there is a condition imposing a restriction on permitted development rights (and that in itself has to be justifiable) it will refer almost certainly to Part 1 rights and define the Classes within that Part that may not be relied on. Part 4 rights stand entirely separate and once again, a building may be provided for the period of time it is required in connection with other works being carried out which have been granted planning approval

No, as I mentioned above we are not talking about Part 1 Class E rights here, land has other permitted development rights that has nothing whatsoever to do with dwellings. As a landowner I can use my land as a caravan site subject to criteria because I would have Part 5 PD rights, as a farmer I have different PD rights contained within Part 6, I could extend my warehouse using Part 7 Class H PD rights. Don't get hung up on one part of the Schedule of Permitted Development Rights. You are right that there are no Part 1 rights because there is no dwelling but Part 4 rights apply to temporary uses of any land and the provision of a building in connection with authorised works is allowed because builders need buildings whilst they are building other things, be that bridges, roads, offices or dwellings and the OP needs their building whilst they build their house, it is therefore covered by that provision and has nothing whatsoever to do with "normal" Part 1 domestic permitted development rights. Here it is again... PART 4Temporary buildings and uses Class A – temporary buildings and structures Permitted development A. The provision on land of buildings, moveable structures, works, plant or machinery required temporarily in connection with and for the duration of operations being or to be carried out on, in, under or over that land or on land adjoining that land. Development not permitted A.1 Development is not permitted by Class A if— (a)the operations referred to are mining operations, or (b)planning permission is required for those operations but is not granted or deemed to be granted. Conditions A.2 Development is permitted by Class A subject to the conditions that, when the operations have been carried out— (a)any building, structure, works, plant or machinery permitted by Class A is removed, and (b)any adjoining land on which development permitted by Class A has been carried out is, as soon as reasonably practicable, reinstated to its condition before that development was carried out.

Write back, drawing their attention to the legislation {Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015} and ask politely why they do not think you do not have Part 4 Class A PD rights for the duration of the house build. It does not matter what it is built of, it is a "temporary" building being used in conjunction with authorised works that are being carried out on site. Tell them that it is the intention to remove said building at completion of the works. Then look again at the situation when you are complete. If it meets the domestic PD rights then apply for a certificate of lawfullness at that stage if you want certainty. First things first, get them off your back.... We had containers, a static caravan and a shed during the build and not a peep from the LA. The shed was repositioned so as to be definately PD (and has been added to with a second), the static and contaners removed and everyone is happy.

You aren't going to get as far as building out the house only to be refused a completion certificate. The problem with the access will be identified by building control as part of your full plans application, if you ignore a private BC then they will withdraw and the project will revert to the local authority, if you still keep building they then will eventually serve a compliance notice or a stop notice. In short you will not get ten years of occupation with or without insurance, I can't see a mortgage company wanting to get involved either. Your planning application will be speculative, fine, to an extent every planning application is speculative so you are committed to spending some money. No doubt most of the design/layout for the dwelling will be done for that application. As soon as you get planning then develop the scheme further, enough to be able to make a building regulation submission, it doesn't have to be fully done because you are testing the access issue. Choose your building control supplier and get an application submitted, it doesn't matter if it's ultimately rejected for say lack of structural details, you can always come back with those later, it's that access you want to get engaged with. If a solution can be agreed then finish the detailed work and press on. If no agreement can be found and the access is deemed not to comply then at least you know.

Protection against sound within a dwelling-house etc. E2. Dwelling-houses, flats and rooms for residential purposes shall be designed and constructed in such a way that: (a) internal walls between a bedroom or a room containing a water closet, and other rooms; and (b) internal floors provide reasonable resistance to sound. Requirement E2 does not apply to: (a) an internal wall which contains a door; (b) an internal wall which separates an en suite toilet from the associated bedroom; (c) existing walls and floors in a building which is subject to a material change of use.

Sliding doors or hinged doors aren't mentioned specifically but you have to consider what the door has to do as well as just close off the opening. Is it required to have fire resistance for instance, or provide access for disabled persons. If it has additional functions then a door can be sliding or hinged as long as it still performs those functions. The door you illustrate would obviously not work as a fire door for instance. Difficult to judge without more information but if it's between two rooms in a conversion, then odds on it's not doing any specific task and can be any sort of door that you like.

You will find that the planners will be ambivalent. They will consult highways who will say that this is a private track and as long as the vehicle movements from it do not impact their highway network they will have no comment to make. Environmental health may flag up the refuse situation but will basically say the occupants will have to store their bins within so many metres of the highway for collection otherwise it will not be picked up. Apart from that they are unlikely to be interested. They aren't the problem. It will be Part B of the Building Regulations which sets out access for firefighting that is. Fire appliances only carry so much hose so need to get close to the building in the first instance. They want to get hose access to all parts of the building within 45m of their appliance. It is Building Control therefore that you will need to convince that your fire mitigation proposals will still meet the requirement which is: 1) The building shall be designed and constructed so as to provide reasonable facilities to assist firefighters 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. The problem these days is that competition between local authorities and the private sector means finding someone to consult with prior to making an application is not easy. Why would a private BC contractor spend time with you going through proposals only for you to engage the local authority and visa versa. I fear you will not get a definitive answer with respect to building control until you are a way down this route (excuse the pun). Have a good look at requirement B5 and see how close you can get to the guidance as you may have to take a calculated risk on gaining BC approval. Finally, remember that post Grenfell and now with the new Building Safety Act there is not much appetite out there for regulators to take risks on interpretation of these sort of life critical matters on your behalf.....