kandgmitchell

That is what Danwood do. They provide live real time drawings for the customer to locate electrical outlets for instance (whilst showing the impact on the original budget for all those extras you want). Sanitaryware gets planned, there's a lot of involvement at the planning stage until it gets frozen and sent to the factory. Then when panels arrive on site they have conduits and outlet boxes already fitted, waste pipes and hot and cold supplies installed etc. So when the kit arrives on site all the ductwork routes are known and there is no need for the odd additional holes here and there. Years of refining the product means many faults have been designed out, there is no mastic around windows as that fails so a hidden seal joins the window frame to the structural frame. Internal window sills are not timber or MDF but a quartz like material. These are the advantages of factory build over a one off job in the mud. Granted it means a lot of wild architectural ideas can't be realised but I would suggest there is still a lot more flexibility in layout/design than you'll get from a major housebuilder.

We have that same unit as pictured but in the services room. The ducts leave via the utility room which has a false ceiling with all ductwork hidden from view. We have found the MVHR system to be very good and we saw that as a positive in the Danwood offering. The one issue is the location of the outlets in the floors, could do with them nearer the walls but as they're placed under windows it's not that bad.

Well you could try arguing paragraph 3) of Regulation 4 which states: (3) Building work shall be carried out so that, after it has been completed— (a)any building which is extended or to which a material alteration is made; or (b)any building in, or in connection with, which a controlled service or fitting is provided, extended or materially altered; or (c)any controlled service or fitting, complies with the applicable requirements of Schedule 1 or, where it did not comply with any such requirement, is no more unsatisfactory in relation to that requirement than before the work was carried out. (my bold). So basically you would be saying that this new field is no worse than the original and with little alternative as to location, you do actually comply with the regulations. Hopefully BC will see this as a convenient way of closing the matter and moving on.....

Almost certainly. Remember to call them before concreting any foundations or covering any drains. The BC company will probably issue you a list of what and when they want to see things on site.

That's a pretty good start. The BC company will come back to you with any queries they have. Bit like an MOT - you hope you've got a well prepared car and then they find something you hadn't thought of! (Like the non-working hazard light switch - just saying..) Wait to see if they need any more info.

First of all a Class Q conversion refers to planning legislation so put that to one side for now. The Building Regulations are simpler - if a building now contains a dwelling where previously it did not, then a material change of use has occurred. In that case a suite of technical requirements are switched on (Regulation 6 lists them). Part L is included. However, SAP assessments apply to new dwellings that are erected. A conversion concerns a building that is already there and is not being erected as new. Instead this is reflected in applying specific limits on thermal elements such as walls and windows. If you look at the Approved Document Volume 1 for Part L on page 69 it gives guidance on what is expected. You can use a SAP calculation should you want more flexibility for a conversion, but that choice is down to the designer and is not a specific requirement.

So Ealing couldn't have used a section 36 notice (t remove or alter) as that is time limited as per paragraph (4) here: (4)A notice under subsection (1) or (2) above (called a “section 36 notice ”) shall not be given after the expiration of 12 months from the date of the completion of the work in question. So they must have gone for an injunction under section (6) not a "contravention notice" which proves we on build hub can "never say never" but someone complained and probably put them on the spot for them to spend money on that. If I remember correctly Ealing Borough were suffering a load of illegally converted garages etc which had people living in them to the point where it made the national news. Maybe they decided enough was enough and were on a mission....

You have in effect contracted out of using the Local Authority building control service so they will not be issuing any documentation other than to confirm the Initial Notice from your appointed building control provider is satisfactory. That is a simple administrative process and has no reference to the design. Your chosen private company will confirm their satisfaction with building control matters, probably directly to your architect if they submitted the scheme.

Under the old system the LA had a year to take enforcement action unless they applied for a High Court injunction. In all my years at an LA I'd never heard of that being done. It certainly is not going to happen for a 20 year old garage conversion I can tell you!

That reference in the first column - DEXBN I would assume to be Domestic Extension Building Notice. Thus there will be no deposited plans of the works and the site inspection notes of the officer/inspector involved would be the only formal records of what has been done. In your case I would echo the advice above, ask for the completion certificate although that conversion is 20 years old and if there are no obvious problems you may wish to take a view.... The chance of enforcement action after all this time is vanishingly small. How much do you want the property?

The opening post was about being told by a BCO that 120 minutes fire resistance was needed for battery storage. Since the purpose of the regulations is to secure the health, safety and welfare of persons using the building (extended somewhat by mission creep to Parts L, S, R etc.) then being required by using statutory powers to go beyond the usual 30 minutes FR for two storey dwellings would seem excessive without the authority to do so. The occupants should have evacuated and fire fighters would not have to be inside. However, that is not to say that the OP shouldn't consider upgrading the fire resistance for their own property protection but that is entirely up to them, not the whim of the BCO who may personally think it's a good idea (and I'm not necessarily arguing that it isn't).

The Regulation is Regulation 4 which says: (1) Subject to paragraph (2) building work shall be carried out so that— (a)it complies with the applicable requirements contained in Schedule 1; and (b)in complying with any such requirement there is no failure to comply with any other such requirement, except as may be provided for in paragraphs (1C) and (1D)]. The Requirement in Schedule 1 is repeated in the Approved Document B and is then interpreted in detail within the document. The requirement says; Internal fire spread (structure) B3. (1) The building shall be designed and constructed so that, in the event of fire, its stability will be maintained for a reasonable period (2) A wall common to two or more buildings shall be designed and constructed so that it adequately resists the spread of fire between those buildings. For the purposes of this sub-paragraph a house in a terrace and a semi-detached house are each to be treated as a separate building. (3) Where reasonably necessary to inhibit the spread of fire within the building, measures shall be taken, to an extent appropriate to the size and intended use of the building, comprising either or both of the following— (a) sub-division of the building with fire-resisting construction; (b) installation of suitable automatic fire suppression systems. Paragraph (3) seems to cover it but there is no specific mention of battery systems as things haven't caught up yet. However, since 30 minutes fire resistance for houses generally is regarded as "reasonable" I think 120 minutes would be hard to justify, given that that level of protection is only required to the largest of multi-storey buildings that also have sprinkler systems installed.

Just ask him where in Part B this is mentioned.......

Well you're not in England so can't comment on your regs but here if you add a further storey then you have to upgrade fire precautions etc. the regs do not clarify what use that storey is to be put to. In more general terms that's going to be a lot of work and expense to get from the upper picture to the lower, would it be worth it for less than 5 years..... and those slates look old.....

I'd say that depends on the building. For a simple rear extension say,he BC drawings would expect to show the foundation arrangement, floor and wall construction and the roof structure and covering with a lot of that covered by specification notes and probably one or two sections. Most builders would know what to build to meet the regulations but would expect to be told beam sizes and any unusual requirements. Otherwise they probably wouldn't bother with the drawings once the extension layout had been agreed so construction drawings would be rare. For a more complex building BC may ask for more details but again quite a lot would be covered by a written specification that showed how the building would comply. However, if the client wanted say fancy brickwork details then construction drawings would be needed to show to whoever was building it, how those details needed to be set out. In a similar way construction drawings may be needed to illustrate a complex structural layout which is beyond what the average builder would be expected to know. So, in short BC drawings would cover the basics; showing how the proposal would comply with the Building Regulations. Construction drawings would go that bit further into the detail of how the building is to be put together to get what the client wants. In either case I would expect the blockwork to be specified in order to show a) it's use in external walls met the thermal regulations and b) it's use was appropriate for the loadings expected from the structure.

Do it yourself - it's not difficult just a bit tedious and as @cjsparkey says you do discover some of the paperwork you've been keeping is a bit dog eared and maybe not entirely clear. However, they did reduce our claim stating they were missing invoices (but we had uploaded them), we uploaded them again and they paid those out without question.

Exactly, we're one of two houses along a length of farm road so who's going to worry/even know the ridge height is a bit higher than approved. It's about being aware of what impact any unauthorised change will have and even if it does have net curtains wobbling, whether the planners will be p...d off enough to take any action.

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.