kandgmitchell

The planners would not have considered FB access to the same degree as Building Control. Look up Requirement B5 in Approved Document B Volume 1 on line - that sets out the basic Building Regulation requirements.

I have to say that would be my concern as well. Out of the 8 surrounding properties only 1 is two storey, all the others are 1.5 or single storey. Planning is always a game of tactics, you have to push your opponent as far as you think they will go. However I've never found the approach of "ask for far more than you want in the first place" to be very successful, it usually ends up costing more in time and money and can create issues if refusals close off useful directions of design. As an aside we have full height, nearly full width glazing in the second bedroom overlooking the lane. Great views, but that's in as well as out and I've noticed guests tend to leave the curtains closed most of the time.......

If the steel is or supports an element of structure then it needs protection. See para's 5.1 - 5.3 in AD B Part 1. Well in England anyway.

G4 which requires the provision of wc and hand washing facilities only requires that a gravity WC is available and doesn't mention a washbasin. G5 in contrast mentions a sanitary appliance used for personal washing should be available other than through a macerator. I would suggest therefore that "personal washing" goes above and beyond a washbasin and requires a bath or fixed shower. By all means try the argument that the Key Term "sanitary appliance" includes a washbasin and you could carry out personal washing at such a basin during the period a macerator was out of use. Just don't be surprised if BC don't agree

Is there much "structural stuff" in a garage conversion? At worst just dig a new foundation to match the existing so as to fill in the gap. The rest is sensible damp proofing and insulation. Save the SE's fees and put them towards the carpet!

This is about competancy for designing building regulation compliant work rather than CDM. The new Building Safety Act requires those designing work to be competant. This is really to try and prevent another Grenfell situation and to make sure complex buildings are designed by those who understand them. This however is a house. I presume your architect has done the building regulation drawings and got approval? If so then the design work is done and they were the competant designer. Since you have done two self-builds before I would suggest that you are competant to organise the build using competant contractors. At the end of the job your BCO will ask you to sign a form confirming who were the competant persons - the architect was the designer and you were the contractor. Ultimately unless the whole thing collapses around your ears no-one will be interested in any of this after 12 months. Recent experience suggests that unless you are building an 18 storey block of flats, life is going on very much like it was just with more paperwork to sign.

This is what Aproved Document B - Fire Safety says for ground floor flats: Escape from the ground storey 3.15 All habitable rooms (excluding kitchens) should have either of the following. a. An opening directly onto a hall leading to a final exit. b. An emergency escape window or door, as described in paragraph 3.6. Which pretty much covers your proposed layout

Different mortgage providers have different rules so ask your chosen company.

In the GDPO regulations the legislation itself says: (2) Unless the context otherwise requires, any reference in this Order to the height of a building or of plant or machinery is to be construed as a reference to its height when measured from ground level; and for the purposes of this paragraph “ground level” means the level of the surface of the ground immediately adjacent to the building or plant or machinery in question or, where the level of the surface of the ground on which it is situated or is to be situated is not uniform, the level of the highest part of the surface of the ground adjacent to it.

I'd say the principal elevation is the one facing highway B. I'd use the yellow dimension to assess the width of the house for the side extension. No side extension would be PD facing Highway A - it's a highway. Yes prior approval needed for an 8m rear extension and yes the 4m height is to the ridge of a pitched roof. The type of roof is not a problem - it's PD. Be aware the section of roof that runs back from the plan of the extension onto the existing building would be dealt with under Class B because it's an extension to the existing roof. A dormer would be allowable on the rear subject to the total volume of roof extension (some used by the extensions as mentioned) and the other requirements regarding height and position etc. Finally it's not 50% of the house area, it's 50% of the curtilage minus the house area. Your extensions and other buildings (garage etc) should not use up more than 50% of that figure.

Ditto, we used roddable bottle gulleys on the rainwater, lift off the grating, pull out the plastic plug in the side and you can get a rod down the connecting drain, simples!

Ditto. Come up with a (any) design using all your permitted development rights and get them agreed with an application for a certificate of lawful development then negotiate what you actually want. Although of course you may find you can achieve close to what you want using PD anyway.

You have started something on site to keep that approval if it is 3 years old? If the works in the approved application are started then there is no time limit on completing them. I'd be surprised if land banking regulations would apply to only two houses, well one if you had built the other one, but then nothing would surprise me in the planning field these days!

You would be relying on Part 2 Class A surely? - erection, construction, maintenance, improvement, or alteration of a gate, fence, wall, or other means of enclosure. Now back in Paragraph 2 - Interpretation, we have sub- paragraph 2: (2) Unless the context otherwise requires, any reference in this Order to the height of a building or of plant or machinery is to be construed as a reference to its height when measured from ground level; and for the purposes of this paragraph “ground level” means the level of the surface of the ground immediately adjacent to the building or plant or machinery in question or, where the level of the surface of the ground on which it is situated or is to be situated is not uniform, the level of the highest part of the surface of the ground adjacent to it. Now I accept we have a fence here rather than "building" "plant" or "machinery" it would seem to be perverse to deal with a fence differently to a building in terms of height.

Well you'll be ok whilst the first plot is being developed because you could use Part 4 of the Schedule to the Permitted Development Regulations viz: 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. However, once work is completed and it is clear you are not proceeding with the second plot it becomes more difficult. The caravan will not be within the first plot's curtilage so you can't use the normal PD for a domestic caravan. You could always reapply for planning to delete the second plot and extend the curtilage to include what was the second plot. Personally I'd hate to lose the potential for another dwelling so perhaps a revised application to formally station a caravan on the second plot so that any future application to erect a house would have a head start as the plot was being used as separate residential accommodation. Planners and locals may not like a permanent caravan though.