kandgmitchell

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.

Have you considered bird spikes? They tend to be slightly longer and can't be easy to climb over, Cut to length and add to top of posts as well.

Ah, there's always full height balustrading at the end of the access gangways as there is no fixed seating at this location.

If the balustrade is no further than 530mm from fixed seating then the minimum height is 800mm in assembly buildings. Presumably it's that height for the very reason that sitting persons would have to look through the normal 1100mm height balustrade.

We're going through our claim at the moment. We have just had their response and they raised a list of 15 invoices to be copied to them, they just happen to be the highest vat invoices in size order downwards. They also want to see proof of payment for any invoice we listed that wasn't in our name ( so all the B&Q ones basically). Lot of scanning to do......

Normally any uplift would only kick in if you did anything above and beyond the DPP which came with the land. If you haven't done this then there shouldn't be anything to worry about (subject to seeing the actual wording).

Both these will almost certainly need to be presented by a fire consultant to BC

You want the highway terrier - this lists the classification of the roads maintained by Wiltshire County Council.... https://www.wiltshire.gov.uk/media/8218/adopted-roads-january-2022/pdf/adopted_roads_january_2022.pdf