kandgmitchell

I was thinking this myself over the weekend when we travelled down to Stamford to see friends, there were potholes everywhere on all classes of roads. At least during the day you can weave around them but at night on unlit country roads it's just dangerous as per the OP's experience.

I doubt if the height one would even get noticed. Not easy for a planner/man in the street to measure to the ridge when completed. I got planning with stated height of 7580mm, the final design when engineered out was nigh on 7900mm. I didn't go back to revise. It's been 18 months since completion and no-one has commented, indeed everyone has been complimentary. As for pulling the corner forward I'd probably just do it and say you were supporting the neighbour by doing it. I think one has to consider the circumstances carefully. Would there be a reasonable objection to either of these minor changes that if proposed originally would have jeopardized the approval of the scheme? If not then in the worst case a revised application should deal with it. If it might, then I would be more circumspect. My detached garage for instance was approved with a pitched roof. We thought of buying a kit which my wife liked but it was a modern style (as the house is) and had a flat roof. Since it sat close to the road and may have raised a few eyebrows in this rural parish, I varied the condition that said build as per the approval so as to include the flat roof design just to be cautious. @DevilDamo will rightly say that by not complying with the condition to build as per the approved drawings, could put the approval at risk but what's life without a little jeopardy?

Just checking - is this a loft conversion of an existing two storey dwelling?

Does look like wood fibre board to me also.

That's the joy of planning! No-one is able to say exactly what will get approved but some may well take the easy route and direct you down the path of least resistance. That's fine if you get what you want but you will do this only once on this site. If the architect you like is in tune with your ideas and is easy to work with then that goes a long way. Don't get bullied into engaging a planning consultant if the architect is confident in their grasp of local policies and can justify their design complies. I'd like to think most of this is common sense. Coming up with an outrageous scheme that doesn't suit the location, is patently overdeveloping the site and impacts on all the neighbours should be obvious to most people as being a potential problem. From what you describe this is not going to be a matter of planning principle as there is a dwelling there already, so this is likely to be a design led application rather than having to argue technical points of planning policy where a planning consultant would have a place.

Ah, always a bit of an issue on BuildHub when discussing building standards as they do vary across the home countries. It would be useful if OP's state which country legislation they'd be subject to. I'd admit to know nothing about the regs in other parts of the UK. England alone is hard enough!

I'd agree with @torre a planning consultant's demolition statement isn't going to contain any technical information about the actual process. They are going to explain why this particular building is justified in being taken down and replaced with your proposal. Planning consultants can be a bonus particularly in connection with contentious sites. Is your one of those? If you are knocking down a bog standard building that no-one would care about and propose a sensible well designed replacement that is unlikely to stretch the boundaries of the LA's policies, then your architect ought to be able to proceed with a planning application without additional help. If I recall correctly there is a requirement under Section 80 of the Building Act 1984 to give notice to the local authority of intended demolition as well as copying said notice to neighbours and the local electric and gas suppliers. The notice needs to state the method of demolition and you have to wait for a counter notice from the LA or six weeks have passed before you can start. But that would be after you have your other approvals in place.

I think this needs a step back. Cavities are concealed spaces within a building, a cavity within an external wall is simply one example of a cavity, there are many other types. So, the regulations say that you do not need to provide cavity barriers with the specific fire resistance stated within para 5.20 within an external wall if it meets the criteria set out in the diagram 5.3, i.e that the cavity is closed around openings in the wall and at the head if the cavity is not filled completely with insulation. There is no requirement for the closers around the window to be fire resisting. However, I do agree that the guidance is confusing, if the space between the two masonry leaves is filled with insulation then there is no "cavity" and thus the perimeter to openings does not need to be closed with any additional material at all. Furthermore I believe there was a mention above of fitting self closers to the internal fire doors leading onto the protected stairway. They are not required. The only door in a normal three storey dwelling house that needs a closer is a door between the dwelling and an integral garage.

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.