kandgmitchell

Well these things happen! What's important now is to convince BC that the raised decking is permanent enough to be regarded as the ground level thus reducing your first floor height to less than 4.5m.

Because getting an application registered is subject to meeting certain criteria and one of the boxes that needs ticking when demolition is involved is a survey. This is an administrative function - "does it involve demolition" - yes, "does it have a bat survey" - no - then ask for one. Nobody is thinking "hah we've seen this before and that scheme had a bat survey so we don't need it here." If the extant approval has all it's pre-commencement conditions satisfied, couldn't you just implement the approval, change your mind after demolition and make a new application for the revised design?

I agree with Mr Punter go back to the SE and ask them how the external leaf is supported. I just love a set of computer generated calculations which mean very little to the average builder and lack any "constructional" details which explain how the designed beam interacts with the building.

Can we presume you have approved drawings for this project. Did they show the wc connection? Isn't the roof construction shown on them?

I can see where you are coming from, however, drawings do not always show the full picture and the outside ground level may not have been clear... but given the "average" GL to FFL is say 3.0m, for it then to end up at more than 4.5m and not to have flagged a potential concern at an earlier stage is a shame.

A agree Part B isn't always the clearest. However, Diagram 2.1b refers to escape from dwellinghouses with a storey no higher than 4.5m from ground level. The dimension arrows are confusing as they seem to suggest a window cill but that is not the case as other diagrams use the same form of measurement when physical escape from windows is not relevant (eg cavity barriers). It must refer to the floor height. Diagram D6 in Appendix D measures storey height from the upper surface of the floor to external ground level. This reinforces the assumption that "storey height" is measured from floor level not window or ceiling level. The issue for the OP is that the height of the first floor storey is more than 4.5m because storey height is measured to the lowest ground level and so having a storey over 4.5m high triggers the requirement shown in Diagram 2.1c. I would argue therefore any upper floor habitable room requires a protected escape route and building control are correct. It's a pity this wasn't determined at plans stage. Now having started from that position, it's sensible to look at the actual situation. If you have rooms where the ground outside any escape window is less than 4.5m from floor level then realistically they are no worse off than a "normal" two storey house. Others that rely on a decking to reduce that height to 4.5m are different. I think that depends on the decking. If it's substantial structural floor that is perhaps partially supported by the house well that's one thing. If it's a skimpy timber patio deck then that's another. The OP is going to have to convince BC that the deck is a permanent structure that would just as improbable to remove as digging out the ground outside the compliant windows at a later date would be.

Just for reference the A1 rating is a reflection of the spread of flame characteristic of the aluminium i.e it doesn't promote flame spread across it's surface nor create droplets. It would not confirm that material's ability to resist fire for a set period when incorporated in a specific construction. Glad you got a straightforward solution agreed

So how far can you get away from the house to start with if the underground pipe went through the flower bed? That will determine if a soakaway is even practicable. Then how large is the roof area that the downpipe drains. Arguably that ought to be the additional area as you are not meant to make an existing non-compliant situation any worse than it is. Presumably the original pipe didn't run to a soakaway so the extension is what is causing the problem.

So more of a semi then? Really interesting website. We went Danwood so we have a German style house and can see our style in some of the versions on show (although by other manufacturers, neither Danwoods are typical of their UK range). You are right about "what you don't like" and I must say there is quite a bit of that in there! Down to what we see as "normal" for houses over here probably.

Maisonettes? Semi's? Flats?

Given the increase in extreme weather we seem to be getting now, a small amount on extra strapping would be a good investment, but I agree it's not easy to do with air tightness requirements as they are.

More like this sort of thing with the short bit nailed to the stud in the gable at mid-point in gable and the long section nailed to the adjacent rafters and a noggin set between them (overall length of strap is 1 or 1.2m) to suit. I guess that the strap will be to the underside of the rafter/noggin rather than the top as shown, since the stud will have stopped short of the top edge of the rafter.

Front downpipes tend to be a pain as often there's insufficient depth of garden to get a soakaway far enough from the building. I am anti putting any more rainwater through an existing combined sewer but sometimes there simply isn't another solution. However, before that, as mentioned above can't you utilise the soft dig through the flower bed to a traditional soakaway or agree a filtration solution using perforated pipe within that bed if the area of roof isn't too big?

Baltic? you must be in the first balmy part of caravan life, early days, wait until it gets Yellowknife like (minus 32 tonight...)

Going back to the OP's question. Can you clarify, when referring to a downpipe going to a flower bed - is that an existing one or the one off the new extension? Not sure why you would need to dig up a driveway if there is access to a soft area such as a flowerbed.