kandgmitchell

My wife's laundry room when we were in the static was a cheap 6'x4' shed with just the cold water supply insulated. We went through a full winter including some snow with no issues other than a bit of complaining about going outside to visit it.

Congratulations - worth sticking with it.

Done properly, making sure the pipe is protected and the foundations are kept clear and founded below then the pipe should be at no more risk than lying quietly in your garden. Hence why the likes of Wessex and other WCs regard these things as low risk.

Presumably the diversion costs are less than adding a 0.75m-0.8m strip of extension to the build?

I'd say there's quite a lot of difference between diverting and building over. Building over - depending on Water Company if you meet their standard criteria you may not have to contact them for a formal build-over agreement. Wessex for instance lists six criteria, meet them and you just carry on (subject to BC) keeping photographic records. Diverting - you will need to submit a design, pay a fee, have the sewer CCTV'd before and after. Build manholes on the change of direction ensuring there is still enough fall between the two diversion points. Do it all within your property and have it inspected by the WC. If the sewer is less than say 1.5m deep and you can extend to at least 500mm beyond the furthest point out from the house my vote would be for building over for simplicity ( assuming no internal manholes). This is subject of course to the limited information provided.....

How far out were you expecting to extend?

Really? We had the choice of two Marley types. We found Danwood were very good at dealing with all the snags at the end of the year defects period. We haven't so far needed to make a warranty claim but I guess being Poland based any visit has to fit in with current builds nearby.

Surprised that a bathroom door is catching on the floor. There should be a decent clearance under it for MVHR airflow into the bathroom and out via the extract duct. Are you the first owner or a later purchaser? Could someone have re-tiled the floor? Either way they are a European composite door with a rebate in the edge of the door itself that closes against the face of the lining rather than sitting inside it like UK doors tend to. If I recall the hinges look like this but on a larger scale. Perhaps they are adjusted by screwing in or out either of the two parts? Others may be able to help.....

All the OP needs is an email to the adjoining owner saying " is it ok to deal with this matter by email and is this the email address you want me to use?". Then use email. That will satisfy the requirements of the order. As for witnessed signatures and using registered post, therein lies it no longer being a sensible negotiation between neighbours and becomes much more of an issue leading to involvement of expensive professionals. The OP needs to cover themselves by following the requirements of the PW Act properly but in a way that does not encourage the adjoining owner to become over concerned about what is after all, minor work. As for using post over email it would still be available to an unscrupulous person to post a letter the Friday before their neighbour goes on a two week holiday and still claim they didn't object, although of course a dispute occurs if there is no actual agreement to the works within the Act's timescales. The benefit of email is that you can check it from all over the world and I'm afraid it is being for everyday correspondence rather than just being confined to the workplace.

So this is a new dwelling that replaces one that is now demolished. Who prepared your building regulation drawings for the new dwelling and what did they propose in order to satisfy the building regulation requirements which say: (3) Rainwater from a system provided pursuant to sub- paragraphs (1) (roofs) or (2) (paved areas) shall discharge to one of the following, listed in order of priority: (a) an adequate soakaway or some other adequate infiltration system; or, where that is not reasonably practicable, (b) a watercourse; or, where that is not reasonably practicable, (c) a sewer. That is the starting point. If building control have approved your proposal then provide those details to the planners as your surface water strategy. It would be unusual for planners to say "aha, we don't agree, we think you ought to be doing x" because they know nothing about the technicalities so should go along with what building control thinks is suitable.

So first things first. What is your proposal for dealing with rainwater from the dwelling? If work is underway what did building control agree?

If the adjoining owner consents to your proposals then there is no "dispute". If there is no dispute then no party wall agreement is required. However, you are obliged to act in a reasonable manner and not cause undue inconvenience. If you do then a dispute can arise during the works and then it all kicks off. Be aware also that the adjoining owner may have rights to support from your land in common law which are above and beyond the Party Wall Act so don't undermine his foundations or garden. Since the Electronic Communications Order 2016, email is an acceptable way of dealing with party wall matters. Negotiation is the key here and for all such small works otherwise you are just pouring money into surveyors pockets...

That was in reference to your trial holes not the main works - although if the garage founds are ok you wouldn't be excavating for the extension I guess.

From your sketch I can't see how you are not going to be excavating within 3m and below the neighbour's foundations. You will need to notify a minimum of a month before the work. You only need a party wall award if the neighbour either objects or fails to consent within 14 days of your notification. For such small work therefore you need to get them on board. Fully explain what you want to do as most people are reasonable and only want to be re-assured that their property isn't going to fall down. Explain that you need to formally notify them (but would have out of courtesy anyway) and when you do could they please just confirm back that they have no objection. If that happens then get on, do no more than you said you would and get the holes back filled asap.

The easiest is not to second guess BC. Get them around to do the final inspection and ask them what reports/certificates they will need to issue a completion certificate. It will include an as built SAP which needs a feed in figure from an airtightness test but some ask for flow rates from extracts etc, etc. Just get a list and tick them off as you collect them and forward the lot on as a job lot.

Building notices still exist and even under the "old" system BC could ask for specific drawings if they needed then to understand a specific issue although that was rarely done. For domestic work the client can be both designer and contractor (Reg11D (5)). Realistically I can't see BC being awkward for small domestic projects. They may ask a bit more if you were building a house. Even then a brief "CV" of previous projects should be sufficient but then you really shouldn't be building a house on a notice these days, keep it for simple straightforward jobs.

Ok looks like I'll have to get a definitive answer as to what was used then.

Thanks, I did look all through that thread but couldn't see any mention of mixing different makes. One wonders if the additional inhibitors etc are happy to intermix.

Had the first annual service today on my Vaillant ASHP. Glycol level checked and it's fine. However, the service engineer asked what glycol it was as they can't be mixed and to find out what it was for future reference should topping up be required. Having called the original installer they believe alphi 11 was used but it was certainly a propylene glycol. As long as any "top up" in the future is also a propylene product, is it likely to be an issue or do I need to nail down the exact product used in the system?

Have a look at paragraphs 2.41 to 2.45 of the Approved Document to Part H (it'll be online). Since you are under the minimum depth of 0.9m in a "light road" then para 2.44 says: 2.44 Where pipes have less than the minimum recommended cover in Table 8, 9 or 10, the pipes should, where necessary, be protected from damage by a reinforced concrete cover slab with a flexible filler and at least 75mm of granular material between the top of the pipe and the underside of the flexible filler below the slabs (see Diagram 11 and paragraphs 2.28, 2.42 and 2.43). However, just be aware of where vehicle wheels will run on a driveway and if no loading is going to be put on the drain then less protection will be needed.

Don't think BC are concerned about noise either - it's more about thermal efficiency and heating controls in Part L. The only reference is to selecting fans and compressors "to minimise disturbance to neighbours whilst remaining in compliance with planning requirements". So if you have planning approval for the location then I can't see why BC would ask for a "noise certificate" - there are no standards I can find in the Approved Document to measure against.

They certainly have a Redland 49 look about them. but as @Mr Punter says, find a roofing supplier and take a sample along to match up.

@BigBub makes a fair comment. We rarely get the whole picture here, and if the OP has built a massive concrete block of a thing then it gets harder to argue. But in "normal" circumstances, rely on Part 4 and ignore Part 1, was what I was trying to get across.

Temporary refers to a limited amount of time not to the construction of a building. Merely using a concrete base to impart stability and a degree of weather resistance and convenience doesn't make anything permanent. It is up to the OP to decide how much they want to invest in their building which is on site for a limited time, more effort might be required to ensure security for instance. It will still be lawful. It will only cease to be lawful when the works it is being used in conjunction with cease and it is not removed. At that point the LA may well have an issue but that is not the case as it stands is it? Reading the planning permission documents will tell the OP nothing about what rights they have under the legislation, merely what they have permission to do. If there is a condition imposing a restriction on permitted development rights (and that in itself has to be justifiable) it will refer almost certainly to Part 1 rights and define the Classes within that Part that may not be relied on. Part 4 rights stand entirely separate and once again, a building may be provided for the period of time it is required in connection with other works being carried out which have been granted planning approval

No, as I mentioned above we are not talking about Part 1 Class E rights here, land has other permitted development rights that has nothing whatsoever to do with dwellings. As a landowner I can use my land as a caravan site subject to criteria because I would have Part 5 PD rights, as a farmer I have different PD rights contained within Part 6, I could extend my warehouse using Part 7 Class H PD rights. Don't get hung up on one part of the Schedule of Permitted Development Rights. You are right that there are no Part 1 rights because there is no dwelling but Part 4 rights apply to temporary uses of any land and the provision of a building in connection with authorised works is allowed because builders need buildings whilst they are building other things, be that bridges, roads, offices or dwellings and the OP needs their building whilst they build their house, it is therefore covered by that provision and has nothing whatsoever to do with "normal" Part 1 domestic permitted development rights. Here it is again... PART 4Temporary buildings and uses Class A – temporary buildings and structures Permitted development A. The provision on land of buildings, moveable structures, works, plant or machinery required temporarily in connection with and for the duration of operations being or to be carried out on, in, under or over that land or on land adjoining that land. Development not permitted A.1 Development is not permitted by Class A if— (a)the operations referred to are mining operations, or (b)planning permission is required for those operations but is not granted or deemed to be granted. Conditions A.2 Development is permitted by Class A subject to the conditions that, when the operations have been carried out— (a)any building, structure, works, plant or machinery permitted by Class A is removed, and (b)any adjoining land on which development permitted by Class A has been carried out is, as soon as reasonably practicable, reinstated to its condition before that development was carried out.