kandgmitchell

Our supplier gave us this specification - we had 3ph so laid the 125mm dia duct from the cabinet to the plot boundary. They went from the boundary to their supply cable in the road bringing their own ductwork. I positioned the kiosk as close as I could to the boundary to reduce my work and used the pre-formed slow bend to pass through the base and into the cabinet. Ducting specifications (002).pdf

Knowing some self builds take a while, when did you start work? Before 15/6/2023?

The other evening I was reading about the 12th century Bishop of Hereford having gallons of wine made from his vineyards around Hereford during the "warm" decades, then we have the ice fairs on the Thames as late as 1814. There is obviously some natural fluctuation in climate even without the impact we are having. Trouble these days is finding balanced, impartial views when the mainstream media is forecasting disaster for the planet at every turn.

I'd echo Temp's comments. Volume 1 applies to new dwellings and this is not a new dwelling but is ancillary to an existing one. With no paying guests BC shouldn't try to apply Part M Volume 2, so you should not have a problem.

Presumably the actual condition is more detailed and refers to Classes A, B and E of Part 1 of the order which basically covers extending the dwelling, altering the roof and adding outbuildings. You could still do a porch (Class D), hardstanding (Class F), roof light (Class C) and a couple of minor things such as chimneys, soil pipes etc. Fences come under Part 2: Minor operations so shouldn't be affected. You would need to apply to have the condition varied, the council are unlikely to lift everything for everyone so perhaps give specific reasons why your particular plot should not be restricted; size orientation, lack of neighbours etc. If the portal is gibberish you're better off getting someone who knows the system to make the application for you.

Well this is what s55 sub para (2)of the Town and Country Planning Act says with respect to what constitutes development: 2)The following operations or uses of land shall not be taken for the purposes of this Act to involve development of the land— (a)the carrying out for the maintenance, improvement or other alteration of any building of works which— (i)affect only the interior of the building, or (ii)do not materially affect the external appearance of the building, and are not works for making good war damage or works begun after 5th December 1968 for the alteration of a building by providing additional space in it underground; It would seem bizarre that you could be made to build the house exactly as per the approved plans and then having done so, entirely change the internal layout without needing permission. Now that would be one approach perhaps - build the house and then use the £100K saved to change it all again! I would suggest that internal layout is therefore not on the planners' highest list of priorities and I can't see how such changes during construction would constitute a material alteration. However, materially change the external appearance of what has been approved is another matter and you don't seem to make it clear whether you need to do this to achieve your internal changes.....

Not sure about 0.5m, Anglian Water specify 3.0m as do Thames Water and most if not all other WC's. If you measure that as a radius then you should include works within 3.0m of where the lateral drain becomes public , i.e at the boundary crossing point. However, as I say, your neighbour is potentially impacting only their own services and I can't see a problem developing to such a point where you may be impacted without things already becoming extremely unpleasant for them.........

I'm not sure this will be the case. Drains normally block at junctions, bends or manholes unless there is a pipe dislodgement which is rare. A blockage anywhere from your common manhole up the lateral drain and into their property would result in them suffering the result. Hopefully they would have an outside gully which overflows. Worst case is there is no gully and the first they are aware of a problem is when the kitchen sink backs up. If that sink is connected to a soil pipe then they really have a problem because that's quite a head of effluent sitting above a very full manhole...... All that effluent is shut inside their part of the drainage system and it will not impact you. If the blockage is within the common manhole or below, then that is a joint problem and yes being lower you will detect the issue first. The WC are responsible for dealing with that and you should call them asap. In that scenario both you and your neighbour are contributing to the contents of the drain and this could have happened whether or not they built an extension.

Just to clarify it's Part H of the Approved Documents which cover drainage in England and Wales - G covers hot and cold water, sanitary facilities etc. Internal manholes are not uncommon - most large commercial buildings will have them. Building over a private inspection chamber is also not uncommon and this is covered by Para 2.54 which requires internal manholes to have screwed down airtight covers. Presumably this is what your neighbour will have below the trap door access. Building control will no doubt check this. I'm not saying it's a nice thing to have but that's their problem. All this is being done on a private drain for which the Water Company have no responsibility. When that drain crosses onto your property then they do have a responsibility to maintain it as a lateral drain until it reaches your manhole where it become public from there. Where this enters a grey area is "building over" includes "building within 3.0m of". Now if that extension is more than 3.0m from where the pipe crosses the boundary then clearly they are not affecting the lateral drain at all and what they do under the extension is purely between them and building control. However, if the extension is within the 3.0m then technically it may need a build over agreement. It will depend very much on which WC it is - some are more relaxed than others. In any case though it is probably unlikely that they will object to an enclosed manhole on the private part particularly if the only affected party is the one that's done the work and it doesn't directly impact the structure of the pipe they maintain. The best place to check is your WC website and look under "developers". Their policy towards build overs is to be found there.

So from what tree does "Decwood" come from? The most elaborate at a sensible price, that's easy to get is going to be the tall ovolo type stuff held by most builder's merchants. At least you can easily get extra when you're two feet short of it in the last room.

Well it's patently an inspection cover installed to give access to whatever is under it. That could be a drain, soakaway or secret nuclear bunker.............. Lift it to find out......

But both Building Control Guidance notes 1 and 16 clearly say that only permanent restrictors are acceptable as ways of preventing falling, and in respect of windows used as escape routes BCA Note 16 says: Window restrictors. Window restrictors are not considered to be an alternative to a permanent guard in any of the diagrams in this guide. Reference should be made to BCA Guidance Note 1 - Glass guarding and restrictors to low level windows above ground floor level in dwellings and then BCA Note 1 says: Openable low level glazing as Escape windows. Where low level windows are also designed as escape windows, “permanent” restrictors would not be suitable as they would prevent the window opening wide enough to allow escape. Low level windows fitted with restrictors that can be easily released, would be acceptable but only where suitable guarding is also provided. To be suitable for means of escape, the top of the guarding should be between 800mm and 1100mm above the floor level and the minimum dimension (450mm) and area of the opening (0. 3m2 ) should be measured from the top of the guarding up to the top of the opening. (My emphasis). If your BC provider decides to follow this guidance (which echo's Part K) in order to avoid risk, then so be it. Departing from such technical guidance would be at the discretion of the person signing off the work, some may allow releasable restrictors only but there would be many that wouldn't.

Like this stuff: https://decoramouldings.com/product-category/egg-dart/ Must say never seen it as a skirting but who knows...............

So new joists have been added to beef up the original joist which acts as a trimmer for the new opening. Probably not critical that the new joist bears onto the brickwork as it's shear forces at the bearing that becomes important and it always surprises me how joists turn out to be very capable when you think they shouldn't. However, it's simply good practice to have all the members properly packed up off the loadbearing walls so get some shims into those gaps. What is not clear is how the new and existing trimmer joists are joined along their length - there appears to be a gap between them. If they are going to share the loading imposed by the trimming joists, then they need to be properly connected. I'd be bolting those together with spiked disc washers between so they acted as a single unit, simply bunging a few screws or nails in at random is just not enough. And echo comments above, this is a very risky cold roof arrangement.

Something like this? https://mdfskirtingworld.co.uk/vienna-mdf-skirting-board/