kandgmitchell

I'm sure I've seen some photo's but can't find them. They tend to show a forest of brand new screwjacks which I believe we have purchased. It's useful to have this sort of feedback as it demonstrates there are alternatives that need assessment before a design decision is made. Just to qualify my approach I'd say using foamed concrete would put an extra 3kN/m2 load on the existing basement floor/sub grade. I'd say that was pretty nominal in the great scheme of things and likewise, horizontal loading on the existing basement walls would be resisted by the existing external ground. Access to pump could be via one of the ground floor windows of the affected flat. Mind you if the costs come in too high it might be just as economic for leaseholders to club together and buy that flat leaseholder out. Remove the floor and put a simple steel stair behind the front door to give access into the basement. It's always worth thinking outside the box!

Only one basement - the building was mapped using radar. Yes the liability extends to the whole building under the lease so all leaseholders will need to contribute. The initial advice from a firm of consulting engineers was very brief, virtually along the lines of "the beams are severely corroded and should be provided with temporary support immediately". They obviously weren't asked to suggest remedial works. The building and presumably now the basement is owned by a management company which in turn is owned by all of us 25 leaseholders in equal shares. It's down to us. The previous managing agent (part of a national property consultancy) basically told us all at a meeting that the building was worthless. When a couple asked what that meant for their mortgage and investment in their home the advice was to "hand the mortgage company the keys and default. You'll only be credit blacklisted for about five years...." The company then announced it didn't want anymore to do with the building and resigned their position. As far as we are aware only this particular flat is affected as it sits entirely over the basement. Personally I'm not entirely convinced that mass fill isn't an option. The live loads from a domestic floor are small, the dead load from the concrete could be reduced by using foamed concrete and I would have thought the total distributed load across the existing basement floor and the ground below would be well within the ground bearing capacity. I'm not wedded to that approach, I was just gaining other opinions to test my theory. I just want to be sure we are not being led in a particular direction to suit a single beneficiary with the additional costs of that being carried by the majority.

We own a flat in the north-west in which our daughter lives. It's in an old red brick school built in the early 1900's and converted to flats about 25 years ago. Late last year a ground floor flat owner replaced some flooring and discovered a crack in the concrete which upon further investigation turned out to be a suspended slab over a basement no-one knew about. The developer had removed most of the external access stairs, levelled the ground and put a manhole cover over them. Roll on 25 years and when access is finally gained it is found the steel beams supporting the concrete slab have seriously corroded. So bad that emergency propping was required and the flat owner advised to move out. It appears the basement is entirely under that one flat. This has now blighted the whole building. Two sales have fallen through and no-one is able to move or re-mortgage. The managing agents bailed out as they felt the building was "too much of a risk". The insurers have wiped their hands of it saying it's a maintenance issue. That has been disputed with the ombudsman since the situation was hidden and no maintenance could therefore take place. A decision is awaited. The developer who was also the head landlord has gone into administration. That leaves us 25 leaseholders on the hook for repairs. I haven't been into the basement as yet but my first thought was to cut the beams out, drop the old concrete floor into the basement and then mass fill it with say foamed concrete topped with a slab. However, that suggestion has been poo pooed by the flat owner involved as they say they have been advised by surveyors and engineers not to do this as it would create "maintenance problems" (?) and cause damp in the affected flat, indeed no professional would be associated with any such proposal apparently......... As yet we await a formal suggestion as to how to deal with this but to be honest it has to be cost effective because we will all have to pay and some leaseholders are just young couples in their first home and we haven't got loads of spare cash lying about. Am I barking up the wrong tree with my idea (the volume is probably 4.5m x 5m x 3m) or are we looking at replacement steel beams with say block and beam and screed which involves much more labour?

Refer to Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development)(England) Order 2015 Schedule 2 Part 2 Class A - Erection,construction, maintenance, improvement or alteration of a fence, gate, wall or other means of enclosure. Para A.1 (b) says: [ development would not be permitted if] the height of any other gate, fence, wall or means of enclosure erected or constructed would exceed 2 metres above ground level; In the interpretation of the order it refers to height being from ground level and if not level then from the highest ground level. That would technically allow you to erect a 2m fence on the boundary but as mentioned above that could be overpowering for your new neighbours. Personally I would like to remain on good terms with my neighbours - it makes life so much more pleasant. Could you set any screening back from the line of the boundary so it lessens the impact?

We used GreenRaft for our build, helpful people and a good service. Supply only but using a straightforward, mostly mesh reinforced slab, we used local labour to cast it.

The Building Regulation requirement K5 Protection from collision with windows does not apply to dwellings so that's a non-starter for a bungalow. I'm surprised Highways have missed this at the planning stage, they are usually keen to avoid obstructions (of course it may have been a planning requirement that's been ignored). It's an obvious risk to people with a visual impairment. Assuming a 600mm wide casement this could reduce the pavement to 1.6m wide. Contact highways via their online reporting system and get them to require the change to inward/tilt opening windows as it should have been from day one.

A lot of land is still sitting unregistered, basically on paper deeds, doesn't mean it isn't owned by someone. As Mr Punter says you'll need to draw the application to the owner's attention viz:

I just filled in the name of the designer so that'll be architect (2) and the name of the contractor, signed the form myself and sent it back. Didn't hear anything else until the completion certificate dropped through the post.

The Council doesn't set the Band, it's the Valuation Office, an agency of the HMRC. The Council decides when Council Tax is due to start and they set you off on what they think it could be. They then re-adjust once the VO confirm the Band. They stuck us in E which compared to the large detached "executive" houses along the lane in the sane Band seemed unfair so we took it up with them. They sent us a basic form asking for details of the property but stuck to their guns saying the Band width of £88K-£120K based on 1991 values was sufficiently wide to include us near the bottom and the posh houses near the top.

Luckily not a park home but yes a flat a few years ago to provide a short term home for our daughter. That plan has gone a bit pear shaped and now it's worth two thirds of what we paid for it with ever rising service charges. I suppose we could wait until the compo industry finds a way to leverage that situation!

Well now the "have you had a car finance deal in the last five years then you could be owned thousands in compensation" adverts are fading I suppose we'll have the "have you bought a new house in the last ten years" adverts offering to claim back all that money on your behalf. At present the radio has "did you buy a park home and find a) it's not worth much now and b) the service charges are now extortionate, then you may have been mis-sold (or just gullible)" adverts. The claims industry has to keep looking for the next golden egg to keep it in business.....

Ah, sorry hadn't noticed the "Highland" location. Can't really say what the Scottish Building Standards say about access, but I agree it's a regs concern rather than planning.

From experience, planning enforcement only tends to get involved when someone makes a complaint and draws things to their attention. Even then it has to be sufficiently serious for it to be worth them getting involved. Let's face it, I doubt if many on this forum have actually built their houses exactly in accordance with every requirement of their planning permission and there are very few enforcement cases raised on here. The Council have confirmed the case is shut and my view is to let that very sleepy dog lie and steer well clear of it............................

I'm sure they don't but Building Control who have to sign the building off as compliant with the Building Regulations might... Access and facilities for the fire service B5. (1) The building shall be designed and constructed so as to provide reasonable facilities to assist fire fighters in the protection of life. (2) Reasonable provision shall be made within the site of the building to enable fire appliances to gain access to the building

It is really frustrating when a planning authority requires things that other legislation already obliges you to do. Why screw down the water use to 120l/pppd with a Section 106 agreement when Regulation 36 of the Building Regulations - which you will have to comply with says: Water efficiency of new dwellings 36.— (1) The potential consumption of wholesome water by persons occupying a new dwelling must not exceed the requirement in paragraph (2). (2) The requirement referred to in paragraph (1) is either— (a) 125 litres per person per day; or (b) in a case to which paragraph (3) applies, the optional requirement of 110 litres per person per day, as measured in either case in accordance with a methodology approved by the Secretary of State. 3) This paragraph applies where the planning permission under which the building work is carried out—      (a) specifies the optional requirement in paragraph (2)(b); and (b) makes it a condition that that requirement must be complied with. (4) In this Part, “new dwelling” does not include a dwelling that is formed by a material change of use of a building within the meaning of regulation 5(g) So rather than all the time and cost of a legal agreement they just have to place a condition on the approval requiring the optional 110litres figure and Building Control will check it on site where a planning officer will never tread.

This is the "intention" behind the requirement for broadband connections: Intention 1.1 In the Secretary of State’s view, requirement RA1 for gigabit-ready physical infrastructure will be met by installing physical infrastructure or installations, including elements under joint ownership, to host wired or fixed wireless access networks that can do all of the following. a. Facilitate a functioning connection to a gigabit capable public electronic communications network to each new dwelling. b. Connect the building access point or common access point (where a building contains more than one dwelling) with a network termination point at each individual dwelling. c. Connect the network termination point with the physical point at which the network operator’s spine or core network ends (the network distribution point), or as close as is reasonably practicable where the developer has no right to install such infrastructure in land required to reach the distribution point. NOTE: The network distribution point could be in a cabinet, a box mounted on a wall or on a telegraph pole. It may or may not be on the development site. If your existing arrangement on site satisfies the above then BC should not have a problem with it. As said above just explain that this is a replacement dwelling with existing connections retained that meet requirements.

Agree with all the above. An individual officer has no authority to vary a planning permission. The permission is given by the Planning Authority either through their planning committee or by a specific designated officer (usually the chief planning officer) via a proper scheme of delegation. If you've complied with the planning permission requirements then that is that, they can't have a second informal go.

Well no-one asked for my "commissioning plan". I'd submit the application and see if BC ask for it. If so then list what systems you are installing - heat pump, MVHR etc and set against them "to be tested by installer upon installation to ensure the system meets requirement minimum standards and results to be provided to BC upon completion" and see if that works.

As Temp says above: the window needs an opening which is at least 450mm in either direction as well as being at least 0.33m2 in area - so that negates 450mm x 450mm. The dimensions relate to the opening which is why some upvc window hinges do not comply as they do not allow the window to swing fully open. The bottom edge of the opening should not be more than 1100mm off the floor. The idea is to allow someone to climb out of the window, hang from the bottom edge and drop to the ground outside - hence only being allowed for first floor windows.

Ah OK, well let's hope your local authority has a positive attitude to tourism in their district. Hope you're successful.

If you are building a shepherds hut would it be mobile? If it is, it could be a "chatte"l and hence not a planning matter. What are you going to use it for? I have a touring caravan on my property, that doesn't need planning permission, nor would a boat or my cars. If it's fixed would it be permitted development? Assuming it's use is incidental to that of the host dwelling, then subject to height and location it could well be PD. Just thinking........

Not easy to reconcile "don't want" and "unable to" with compliance with Part K. I hear what Mr Punter has to say, but BC will want proof that these rooflights will be capable of sustaining the loads imposed by a falling person and how do you do that? A very cautious BCO may say "what if the rooflights are open?". Walk on glass may be an option but can you be sure the rooflight frames and fixings are suitable for foot traffic? I would have thought one of the many available fully glazed modular systems available on line is your only option, but fixing down adequately and ensuring good waterproofing at this late stage are going to be the issues.

No reason at all why you can't make an application for a certificate of lawful development for a PD extension to the roof of the dwelling despite having an extant approval for a ground floor extension. The limit on volume created relates to the roof of the building not the building as a whole. The two issues are completely separate. Of course you are not obliged to obtain a certificate before carrying out PD works as long as you are confident you comply fully with the provisions of Part B in Schedule 2 of the PD rules.

LABC warranty manual suggests no more than 15mm for walls over 5m long. See this: https://www.labcwarranty.co.uk/hubfs/Technical Manual v10 Files and Images/Manual Sections/Section 1 Tolerances.pdf#:~:text=A 10mm deviation is suggested,over 5m long. It's frustrating about leaving lintels out etc. Our groundworker had a tendency to say "that's close enough". I always countered with "what the frame erectors want they must have, so stick to their requirements please otherwise I'll get the blame". For instance we had set places for rainwater drains so the associated downpipes could be located over studs in the frame for fixing. I had to have the first gulley moved because it had to be 1645mm from the corner and he put it at 1800mm odd. "They'll just move the downpipe" was the reply, but why not just put it where the drawing said in the first place!!! I found blaming others for "being awkward" came in useful and maintained a working relationship until we got there......

When you say building warrant I presume you mean building regulation consent as per the English/Wales system rather than Scotland. So your project can't use the simplified method of showing compliance then? A thermal dynamic modelling report can be got from many of the firms that supply SAP calculations. If you google Thermal Dynamic Modelling - Part O there are several companies offering a free quote. Perhaps see what is being charged and come back here to ask if anyone has used that particular firm.