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.

The Building Regulations control "building work". That is defined specifically in the Regulations. The definition that potentially applies to you is making a "material alteration to a building" since you are patently not erecting a building, installing a controlled fitting, underpinning etc etc (other actions included in the 9 definitions of building work). However, as above, an alteration is only "material" if it makes the situation worse than it was, either by creating a new contravention or making an existing contravention worse. Now at 1.5m from the boundary, odds on the wall doesn't have the correct fire resistance nor does the cladding have the correct spread of flame classification so there is an existing (and no doubt long standing) contravention. However, as long as you do not make it worse by your actions, perhaps by replacing the timber with cardboard for instance, the alteration; swapping one piece of timber with another would not be "material" and thus is not "building work". The roof tile issue is different because there would be a new contravention, in that the existing roof structure would not have been designed for that loading and thus additional work would be required to bring it back into compliance (i.e strengthening) and so that alteration is "material" and is thus "building work".

Get a fixed price from someone who draws building reg plans for a living then use those drawings to revise planning yourself.

Wells as regards Building Regulations: The building has a useful floor area of less than 50m2 and isn't a dwelling so the energy efficiency requirements don't apply so insulate it if you wish but that's your choice. As to the cladding, bear this in mind: An alteration is material for the purposes of these Regulations if the work, or any part of it, would at any stage result— (a)in a building or controlled service or fitting not complying with a relevant requirement where previously it did; or (b)in a building or controlled service or fitting which before the work commenced did not comply with a relevant requirement, being more unsatisfactory in relation to such a requirement. I would suggest that replacing the existing cladding like for like, one strip at a time say, would not make the building more unsatisfactory than it was. However, replace the felt roof covering with heavier tiles then you would be carrying out a material alteration as the roof structure would be taking a higher dead load than it previously did. From a practical point of view insulated metal sheeting would be a better bet than tiles given that the roof structure maybe a bit scant.

LA = Local Authority - i.e the body that will determine the planning application (could be a National Park Authority). An applicant is required to serve notice on the owner of the land, however owner includes a tenant with 7 or more years of lease unexpired, so presumably if you are a tenant with longer than 7 years left on your lease you don't need to serve notice on yourself. However, the lease may of course restrict a tenants ability to do what they want to do without the owners permission.

+2

Ditto, most requests for various repirts are driven by the Council's validation lists for applications. That becomes a tick box exercise in most cases with admin officers not registering the application without the appropriate specialist reports being supplied. You can try arguing these aren't needed again but usually their resistance just wears you down. By all means try but don't be surprised if "the computer says no".

Well not had a bird issue but will keep an eye on it. As for the foundations Dan Wood do have contacts but they also supply all the structural calculations and foundation loads. So we used our own SE for the slab design and found a local builder for the job.

As an addition, if you don't own the land you'll have to serve a notice on the owner telling them what you are doing.

As I mentioned, car parks and some other specific uses such as casino's do not fall into the usual groups of uses and thus are treated separately on a case by case basis. The planning fee will be determined by the site area and the application would be for the change of use of land to car parking or some such form of words (the LA may change your description to one they think better fits). It'll take at least 8 weeks and you'll have to check the Council's website to see what information they would expect to see submitted with the application as that time period doesn't start until they have all they require.

You would need planning permission because there would be a change of use of land from what it is at present, which is probably nothing as the workshop use ceased 20 years ago, to car parking. Car parking is a stand alone use (what planners call sui generis) and thus always needs planning approval if the land has a different use. Of course it takes the wheels of an LA a while to get turning. Several years ago people made considerable sums from using vacant land near Stansted Airport for car parking without permission before Uttlesford Council could commence enforcement action and then changing locations to thwart such action. If I remember correctly I think the Council resorted to issuing Article 4 orders for large areas to prevent rogue operators playing the system. This is not an encouragement to do this here however.