kandgmitchell

Just be a little cautious, I had an appeal against refusal of a CoL start in November 2022 and the decision issued in May 2024. They blamed this on needing particular Inspectors for CoL and enforcement appeals. The Inspector refused the appeal but for a different (and addressible) reason than the Council used. Hopefully they've caught up with their backlog.

Our vaillant emits so little noise it's hard to know it's running. The way to tell is to walk past it - the cold air flow is very cold!

You are carrying out a "material change of use" as per Regulation 5 of the Building Regulations, you appear to come within circumstance a) , i.e the building is used as a dwelling where previousy it was not. Regulation 6 sets out the various technical requirements of the Building Regulations that apply to the various types of change of use. Those technical requirements for circumstance a) do not include Part K - Protection from falling. Thus in your situation the minimum guarding heights etc do not apply, the building is as existing. That is not to say that if you feel some of these cill heights are too low that you should not deal with them but just that you will not be obliged to deal with them.

Well we were recommended to porcelain tiles as we were advised a local merchant was clearing out end of season stock and we did get a decent price for all the "black" colour they had left. 6 months on they are laid. When wet they are a deep blue/black with a sort of veining in them and look really good. When dry they're just flat dark grey with muddy cat paw prints backwards and forwards across them....... going to need a brush and squeegee to keep them looking clean I think............

Unprotected areas - they don't have the required fire resistance. No hope of either the north or south walls facing a road, river, canal or like? The relevant boundary then moves out to the centre of that feature and you may find the whole face may be UA. Wishful thinking probably. First stop would be the steel cladding manufacturer (or at least the one with the most technical stuff on their website). Look to see if they have any fire test reports for boundary wall situations, go to your timber frame supplier and ask them, - usually with a bit of hunting around you can find a certified detail that you can wave under BC's nose even if you have to add say a mineral cement board behind the steel to get a match.

So how close to the boundaries are those walls?

This has all come about after the Building Safety Act. These guys are individually registered building inspectors now with the emphasis on "inspector". They are being told they are not designers as that path leads to liabilities....... I would agree that doesn't help you but to be fair the regulations now expect a designer to be competant so you should be leaning on a design professional if you are unsure about the regulations. When you say your walls are of a standard construction - what is "standard"? It's difficult to judge what level of information you are giving this person, if it's little more than planning drawings then a plans check does result in some fairly vague queries I'm afraid because there's not much to go on. In the past I've seen some house photo's and a land registry location plan submitted as an application for converting the loft of a listed, converted barn to a habitable room. The plan check response was suitably sparse in response I can tell you.....

They may well get a copy of the original approval but imagine a house built say 10 years ago, I'd very surprised if a solicitor bothered to read through the approval notice for that house and raise a specific point with the purchasor about getting permission for what would be by then, alternative or additional outside lights. Most just chug through a paper exercise.

Can we reel this back a bit. The three issues with loft conversions are: 1) Does the existing stairway run down through a hallway to the front door? Otherwise means of escape may be an issue. 2) Where will the new stair go up from on the first floor? Is there space? It'll need 2.0m headroom (that can be reduced in certain configurations at 2nd floor level). 3) Given as mentioned above, the dormer roofs will need insulating, you will lose 300 - 350mm off the headroom plus you may need to improve the floor joist depth, squeezing the space between floor and ceiling even more. You'll need a minimum of 2.0m - see 2) above. Can this be done? If the answer is yes to all those then it's worth looking at in more detail. You will then need a professional to design it because loft conversions can be tricky as they involve structural, insulation and fire issues. As to planning permission the dormers may be permitted development if they are on the side or rear and add up to no more than 40m3 in volume and meet other minor requirements regarding placement on slope, materials and windows.

This is all well meaning and I can see the concerns about the impact of external lighting on wildlife etc. However, where this all falls down is; Alan builds his house (if he has the energy left) moves out after eight years due to nervous exhaustion. The new owner isn't aware of the condition because frankly who would be in the real world. Finds his patio is too dark so fits a 500W floodlight. The neighbours aren't interested and don't know about the condition either and the local badgers find it easier to find the hedgehogs because they can see them better. This type of condition goes with the landscaping one requiring detailed planting schemes for individual dwellings where despite fancy landscape designs and posh plants specified the new owner is going to do what they want in their garden and the planners never check. At least approvals are digital now, it saves the wasted paper spent on some lists of conditions..... Good luck - more expense!

1) Imposible to say. It would depend on whether the planning authority had a specific policy on extensions in the green belt. That may limit your design if planning approval was required but not if you chose the PD route, but then there are restrictions on PD extensions. It really does depend on what you want out of the extended dwelling. 2) Yes but only on the back, out to 3m and no less than 7m from the rear boundary. 3) Greenbelt is a land use classification which has more restrictions than normal land. It doesn't imply that there is a good view or indeed any view. I know a good few carparks and industrial estates that lay in what is now designated greenbelt.

The answer is to go to the relevant water company website. They will have a section on "build over" agreements. Most have a set of criteria for allowing extensions to be built over public sewers. If you meet those criteria (usually depth, size of sewer, manhole positions etc.) then some such as Anglian Water allow you to "self certify" that you comply and will allow you to build over. Then as mentioned above, source the latest information either from the water company itself or a company that supplies utilities information. You can then base your decision on the information available, although also as mentioned that information may not be perfect - our 150mm dia clay sewer at 1.7m depth was a 200mm dia pitch fibre at 2.0m........

Probably more a reflexion of their workload!

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.