kandgmitchell

I agree with @Gus Potter ,what was causing the leak in the first place? - I guess a missing cavity tray over the lintel. I certainly wouldn't accept a quick re-paint, it's their fault letting this run on for two years, causing so much damage to the plaster finish. Get them to do the job properly.

@saveasteading I think it was the disconnect between what was designed to be compliant on paper and what could well have been executed on site, sometimes in ignorance and occasionally to save a few pounds. Most of this being done out of sight between inspections. I would suggest that is why the requirement to photograph areas of construction was brought in. Hopefully builders are coming around to the idea that you just can't swap types of insulation/services etc without checking first. The OP's didn't.

Well that's a relief!

I think this unfortunately illustrates what had been wrong with the BC system for quite some time. Get a design SAP passed and then the specification gets changed during construction with often those changes not even mentioned at the end and an "as built" SAP comes out of the sausage machine. The latest changes have tried to tighten this up with photographs etc and more attention paid to what actually happened on site. It is however still catching people out because some builders just don't think it through. I designed and spec'd two houses that had high efficiency gas boilers for a client. His contractor changed these to electric boilers because the gas connection was going to take longer than the electrical one. Didn't need the gas connection at all now......No one asked if that would be OK. That caused a hell of a fuss upon completion I can tell you.

Nope. Since the latest legislation changes the BCO will be putting their own name to decisions and they'll be following Requirement B5 of the Building Regulations. That BCO may well be private and have no relationship with local authority planners. You'll be expected to offer a decent technical alternative if you can't meet the guidance. At that stage the BCO may consult with the Fire Service but it'll be down to that individual to sign off the scheme on behalf of the company or LA.

Well these things happen! What's important now is to convince BC that the raised decking is permanent enough to be regarded as the ground level thus reducing your first floor height to less than 4.5m.

Because getting an application registered is subject to meeting certain criteria and one of the boxes that needs ticking when demolition is involved is a survey. This is an administrative function - "does it involve demolition" - yes, "does it have a bat survey" - no - then ask for one. Nobody is thinking "hah we've seen this before and that scheme had a bat survey so we don't need it here." If the extant approval has all it's pre-commencement conditions satisfied, couldn't you just implement the approval, change your mind after demolition and make a new application for the revised design?

I agree with Mr Punter go back to the SE and ask them how the external leaf is supported. I just love a set of computer generated calculations which mean very little to the average builder and lack any "constructional" details which explain how the designed beam interacts with the building.

Can we presume you have approved drawings for this project. Did they show the wc connection? Isn't the roof construction shown on them?

I can see where you are coming from, however, drawings do not always show the full picture and the outside ground level may not have been clear... but given the "average" GL to FFL is say 3.0m, for it then to end up at more than 4.5m and not to have flagged a potential concern at an earlier stage is a shame.

A agree Part B isn't always the clearest. However, Diagram 2.1b refers to escape from dwellinghouses with a storey no higher than 4.5m from ground level. The dimension arrows are confusing as they seem to suggest a window cill but that is not the case as other diagrams use the same form of measurement when physical escape from windows is not relevant (eg cavity barriers). It must refer to the floor height. Diagram D6 in Appendix D measures storey height from the upper surface of the floor to external ground level. This reinforces the assumption that "storey height" is measured from floor level not window or ceiling level. The issue for the OP is that the height of the first floor storey is more than 4.5m because storey height is measured to the lowest ground level and so having a storey over 4.5m high triggers the requirement shown in Diagram 2.1c. I would argue therefore any upper floor habitable room requires a protected escape route and building control are correct. It's a pity this wasn't determined at plans stage. Now having started from that position, it's sensible to look at the actual situation. If you have rooms where the ground outside any escape window is less than 4.5m from floor level then realistically they are no worse off than a "normal" two storey house. Others that rely on a decking to reduce that height to 4.5m are different. I think that depends on the decking. If it's substantial structural floor that is perhaps partially supported by the house well that's one thing. If it's a skimpy timber patio deck then that's another. The OP is going to have to convince BC that the deck is a permanent structure that would just as improbable to remove as digging out the ground outside the compliant windows at a later date would be.

Just for reference the A1 rating is a reflection of the spread of flame characteristic of the aluminium i.e it doesn't promote flame spread across it's surface nor create droplets. It would not confirm that material's ability to resist fire for a set period when incorporated in a specific construction. Glad you got a straightforward solution agreed

So how far can you get away from the house to start with if the underground pipe went through the flower bed? That will determine if a soakaway is even practicable. Then how large is the roof area that the downpipe drains. Arguably that ought to be the additional area as you are not meant to make an existing non-compliant situation any worse than it is. Presumably the original pipe didn't run to a soakaway so the extension is what is causing the problem.

So more of a semi then? Really interesting website. We went Danwood so we have a German style house and can see our style in some of the versions on show (although by other manufacturers, neither Danwoods are typical of their UK range). You are right about "what you don't like" and I must say there is quite a bit of that in there! Down to what we see as "normal" for houses over here probably.

Maisonettes? Semi's? Flats?

Given the increase in extreme weather we seem to be getting now, a small amount on extra strapping would be a good investment, but I agree it's not easy to do with air tightness requirements as they are.

More like this sort of thing with the short bit nailed to the stud in the gable at mid-point in gable and the long section nailed to the adjacent rafters and a noggin set between them (overall length of strap is 1 or 1.2m) to suit. I guess that the strap will be to the underside of the rafter/noggin rather than the top as shown, since the stud will have stopped short of the top edge of the rafter.

Front downpipes tend to be a pain as often there's insufficient depth of garden to get a soakaway far enough from the building. I am anti putting any more rainwater through an existing combined sewer but sometimes there simply isn't another solution. However, before that, as mentioned above can't you utilise the soft dig through the flower bed to a traditional soakaway or agree a filtration solution using perforated pipe within that bed if the area of roof isn't too big?

Baltic? you must be in the first balmy part of caravan life, early days, wait until it gets Yellowknife like (minus 32 tonight...)

Going back to the OP's question. Can you clarify, when referring to a downpipe going to a flower bed - is that an existing one or the one off the new extension? Not sure why you would need to dig up a driveway if there is access to a soft area such as a flowerbed.

Go full plans, at present the rear extension is greater than 3.0m deep and more than one storey as well as being a side extension to the existing rear single storey part and is more than half the width of the original house. I'd rather not risk building that without a certificate of lawfulness to confirm it's PD and if you're doing that (and I think you would fail) you might as well go for full planning.

Firstly if you haven't got the bathroom fittings for those "nice to have" bits consider buying them up front so you can reclaim the vat on them. I believe (and I stand to be corrected) you can only make one vat claim. We bought as much of the materials for the garage as we could afford so we could put the vat paid into the claim. As to your BCO's attitude, you're going to have to enquire. Some may want to see those sanitary fittings installed to ensure the whole system is airtight. Others may be flexible, local authorities tend to be more relaxed about this sort of thing than private but you won't know unless you ask....

One point - our entire house was spray painted white by danwood's guys. The finish was great but it has a specific texture. I recently had to touch up a scuffed area in the stairway (using their left over paint) but the brush/roller finish just doesn't match and you can see the join.....

My money is on: First floor joists spanning side to side i.e from coving to coving in the second picture A horizontal beam/lintel spanning from one pier up the side of the window to the other pier on the other side of the window. The upper floor front masonry built off that beam/lintel. The bay roof built as a frame and bolted to that facade masonry The solid bit above the window internally is framed out and clad in plasterboard to form the downstand.

For what it's worth we found Wiser quite useless. The central hub couldn't communicate with the "smart" thermostatic valves and "smart" plugs unless these were sited in the next room. It was nice idea being able to start the heating when on the way back from holiday say but beyond that it was hopeless. We ended up stripping it all out and selling the parts on ebay, going back to a simple time controller etc.