kandgmitchell

I've never had much faith in the NMA application approach for that very reason. You wait ages and ages and then the answer comes back - it's material, make an application, and the whole process starts over again....

If the OP had a condition requiring adherance to specific drawings illustrating the design to be built, they may need a s73 application to vary that condition. For example we had approval for a house and detached garage which had a condition listing the relevant drawings which showed a pitched roof on the garage. We then submitted a s73 to vary that condition to substitute a drawing reference that showed a flat roof. The application consisted of the original "as approved" drawings and the revised "as proposed" drawings. Mind you it them just as long to approve that as it did the original scheme!

Just to get this clear. It's your house which has just been completed by a builder who installed a soakaway 2m from the building. Has Building Control signed the work off as complete or is the final inspection still outstanding? Frankly if the BC inspection regime has gone beyond that point and nothing has been raised then I'd let sleeping dogs lie. If the rainwater backs up then I'd deal with this as a private issue after all the official inspection/certification has been done.

Will anyone from the defunct company ever know?? Or care??

Don't forget that the older houses would not have been subject to the requirements of Part B when they were built. I doubt there is any "strategy" for dealing with a fire in those houses other than the ingenuity of the fire crews attending the situation.

It's not "windows in walls" per se but "glazing in buildings" and the dimension given in Diagram 3.1 gives a minimum dimension floor to cill of 800mm. That would be the minimum height of the bottom of the rooflight measured vertically to the floor. Replacing your roof lights requires you not to make the means of escape any worse than it was. It sounds like the lower sited windows would be an improvement and certainly better than 1.2m which would be too high to get out of. Bear in mind you don't need escape windows if you have a protected escape route down the stairs to a final exit.

This actually is not an unusual approach in gaining approval for an additional dwelling. Obtain planning approval for a large two storey side extension first. This establishes the mass, scale and appearance is acceptable to the planners. Then a second application to create a new dwelling from that extension potentially faces fewer objections by the planners. As DevilDamo says, the Council will have specific policies for new dwellings which need to be considered as regards, amenity space, living space parking etc but it's worth seeing if you can get it to comply. Building Regulations are more complicated for new dwellings than extensions but then you don't get anything for nothing!

Which is exactly what the BCA guidance said. A lot of the LABC guidance has evolved from the same position that the BCA took, indeed the current LABC guidance on this is the BCA document.

Attached is the Guidance Note from the Building Control Alliance which BCO's would normally take note of. I think the BCA has now disbanded after the recent changes in the Building Control process but the technical advice remains relevant. See the final paragraph on Page 2. bca_guidance_note_16_guarding_to_windows_with_low_cills.pdf

If I recall correctly the Fire Services Act requires Fire and Rescue services to provide advice to the public on how to prevent fires, means of escape etc etc. It can't be too much of a stretch for them to advise here. I've found the individual officers very helpful in the past and I'd certainly start there.

Yes you will. Start with the 45m dimension, can a fire appliance get close enough without using the track? If not then contact the local fire service and get some advice about the access. As Table 13.1 says not all fire service vehicles are standardised so if the Fire Service are satisfied with the arrangements then BC aren't going to argue.

Firstly, there is limited experience of the attitude of Council's to extending Part Q conversions. Usually getting the conversion itself can be very difficult let alone then extending it. This makes it hard to judge what the usual approach of a Council may be. Secondly there is a feeling that if a Council fought tooth and nail to prevent the conversion in the first place, it is unlikely to welcome extending it. To some extent that's what I meant about how the Council viewed the original conversion application. If you are in deepest greenbelt territory then any extension would be a hard win. On the contrary, if the Part Q conversion was simply the easiest statutory way of achieving an end and the Council were relaxed about it, even welcomed it as an additional dwelling unit in the area, an extension could be easier to get. I'd start with looking at the original conversion information on the Council's planning portal to get a feeling for the planners' attitude to it. I'd then try to get an informal chat about it with a planner but as I say that could be problematical with many Councils these days. I'm afraid no one is going to be able to guarantee that building can extended until a planning application is approved. Even a formal pre-application enquiry (which as mentioned above can take as long as an application to get back) carries a rider that it doesn't bind the Council to a later decision. In any of these scenarios you need a "what if" fall back position. If you really couldn't occupy the building without an extension what would you do if no extension was possible? Ask yourself that before committing.

Well there is no permitted development for extensions to Part Q conversions so if this is complete, signed off and is in effect now a dwelling house you will need planning permission for any extension. As to whether a proposal would be approved, that may depend on the attitude to the original conversion but it'll be difficult to second guess. You could try asking the local planners but most I'm afraid try to avoid talking to the public these days.

Caps would certainly help. Are those drains built into the walls? Can't see that there is a lintol between that brickwork course and the pipe.

You need to find Approved Document B Fire Safety Volume 1 - Dwellings on-line. Try the planning portal. Then read up Requirement B5 which sets out the criteria for access to the new dwelling for the Fire and Rescue service.