kandgmitchell

Don't forget Part O of the Bldg Regs - Overheating. That requires rooms to be provided with sufficient opening areas for ventilation. If a window is required to be open more than 100mm for that purpose then it'll have to be guarded if the bottom edge of the opening is less than 1100mm off floor level. That's a simplistic summary of course so the document itself needs looking at.

Well you could build on the boundary subject to : not building on or over another owners' land, planning permission, building regulation consent and the party wall act plus actually being able to physically being able to build the structure.

The use of the window is immaterial but the compartmentation would make a difference; allowing the allocation of unprotected area to individual compartments rather than the whole wall.

Just being fussy, you don't need to highlight "the opposition to our application" - it alerts councillors to that opposition and makes it sound controversial . May I suggest " some concerns have been raised about this being a two storey dwelling.....

I must admit that if this was me I'd attend and ask to speak in support. I've been to many a committee and councillors are a bit like sheep. Where one leads others follow. Present yourself as a reasonable person and connect with the committee personally. Then it becomes "your" application they are discussing. Keep the presentation short, explain that it is the same footprint as previously approved schemes, how you have considered the local area with your design etc. By all means mention in passing some "local concerns" but try to pick out something that shows you have considered this or be able to refute their "confusion" about heights or whatever. Remember, even if recommended for approval objectors may be able to get a councillor to propose a condition that may be awkward for you. If you are there, the chairperson may ask for your response before putting that to the vote, if you're not then well...... Obviously if the planner has recommended a refusal then it's very, very hard to turn that around at committee, not impossible - I've seen it done but in that circumstance I'd be considering withdrawing the application to avoid a firm refusal and work to address the reasons before re-applying. First job - get the planners recommendation from them. Oh and no free goes any more....

With no defined boundary BC use a "Notional Boundary" between the buildings setting it first from one that complies and checking the other. If both are new then a compromise is worked out between them to ensure both comply. Am I right in thinking you have a design with windows and a door facing a boundary only 600mm away when the regulations limit openings to no more than 1m2 within 4m of each other?

Last year ours was £260/m2 (i.e £26K for 100m2) for stone, then 150mm XPS, 250mm r/c slab and 100mm perimeter XPS plus 4 No. 100mm drains to outside slab area ready for onward connection.

Mmmm, despite this being a UU I think I would push back a little perhaps giving Warrington's UU as an example and pointing out whilst you intend to live in the self-build, those situations in LnP's post could happen and where would you be then? Well stuck in the self -build obvously......

Sounds like a good pragmatic solution - well done.

As far as building regulations go if the work was done years ago then there be no action from the local authority. It's hard to know why the conversion didn't get approval at the time. Did it not comply and the owner knew it didn't or did they not realise approval was required? In what way doesn't the work comply? Is it structurally sound or are the fire precautions inadequate? If you are going to rent the property out your obligations as a landlord will be different to those to yourself as the owner/occupier so things like fire precautions could be an issue. If the conversion was done "decades ago" then I would have thought any structural issues would have shown themselves.

Sadly this is the leverage that some planning authorities use to get their own way even if it is a bit doubtful legally......

Bit confused with this last post. "Southern Water" suggests the plot is in England (stating the country on Bldg Reg queries would be useful as requirements differ between them) but you mention "no recommendation at panel". So is this a planning or building regulation objection?

The s106 will be dealt with by the Council's legal department and the planners will be their "clients". Have you known lawyers to do anything quickly? I'd sort out the BNG and avoid the s106 altogether.

Why bother with an application to get the condition removed (they will not do it informally) when you seem confident that you can comply? If, and it's a big if, anyone ever queries it then be prepared to peg it out again to demonstrate compliance.

Well D has to be the easiest to achieve with the flat roof covering taken up under the existing tiles and a simple abutment flashing against the house (plus cavity tray if applicable). A probably the worst as it's a stepped flashing against the house and a central gutter to form amd maintain. B and C are variations of the same thing with a secret gutter against the house. Myself I've always thought getting the rainwater off over the edge of the building straight away is the best option rather than collect it and rely on transporting it across the building. Looks wise I'd say B and C but for ease go A.