kandgmitchell

That wouldn't work. The FENSA system works by the installing company serving a notice on the Council which effectively suspends their involvement in the work under the approved contractor scheme. The Council keeps a record of these notices. No notice then the OP would be responsible for the installation and thus open to enforcement. However, the risk of such enforcement is so low now that building control is so fragmented. It would take a lot of effort for a local authority BCo to notice the replacement windows in the first place then decide to check if a FENSA certificate/application had been lodged, then follow up with an investigation. After all that they would need to get authorisation for prosecution. With current staffing levels that just isn't going to happen. What may be an issue is when you come to sell and the buyer wants some proof of either an application or a FENSA certificate. If you're not selling in the near future then once several years pass, who cares? They are windows for heaven sake.

Well this is the ventilation requirements when replacing windows..... my bold Existing windows without background ventilators 3.15 Replacing the windows is likely to increase the airtightness of the dwelling. If ventilation is not provided via a mechanical ventilation with heat recovery system, then increasing the airtightness of the building may reduce beneficial ventilation in the building. In these circumstances, it is necessary to ensure that the ventilation provision in the dwelling is no worse than it was before the work was carried out. This may be demonstrated in any of the following ways. Building Regulations 2010 Approved Document F Volume 1, 2021 edition 25 F1(1) a. Incorporating background ventilators in the replacement windows equivalent to the following. i. Habitable rooms – minimum 8000mm2 equivalent area. ii. Kitchen – minimum 8000mm2 equivalent area. iii. Bathroom (with or without a toilet) – minimum 4000mm2 equivalent area. b. If the dwelling will have continuous mechanical extract ventilation, installing background ventilators in any replacement windows which are not in wet rooms, with a minimum equivalent area of 4000mm2 in each habitable room. c. Other ventilation provisions, if it can be demonstrated to a building control body that they comply with the requirements of paragraph 3.2. So paragraph 3.2 says..... 3.2 When other building work is carried out that will affect the ventilation of the existing dwelling, for example: a. replacing a window or door b. doing energy efficiency work the ventilation of the dwelling should either: a. meet the standards in the relevant approved document b. not be less satisfactory than before the work was carried out. NOTE: Ventilation through infiltration should be considered to be part of the ventilation provision of a dwelling. Reducing infiltration might reduce the indoor air quality of the dwelling below the standards given in Appendix B. Infiltration is defined as: Infiltration The uncontrolled exchange of air between the inside and outside of a building, through gaps and cracks. Given you are replacing existing upvc windows with more thermally efficient ones it is unlikely that you are going to make the ventilation arrangements any worse than they are now (unless the ex. have trickle vents).

Part O changes the traditional guarding rules though. If you need to keep a window open wider than 100mm in order to avoid overheating, then the cill height (to avoid falls) becomes 1100mm if there is no other guarding to the opening.

Nope: Schedule 2 of the Building Regulations...... CLASS 7 Extensions The extension of a building by the addition at ground level of— (a)a conservatory, porch, covered yard or covered way; or (b)a carport open on at least two sides; where the floor area of that extension does not exceed 30m2, provided that in the case of a conservatory or porch which is wholly or partly glazed, the glazing satisfies the requirements of F3[F4Part K4, K5.1, K5.2, K5.3, and K5.4] [F3Part N] of Schedule 1.

I think you mean a 3rd party country. I know the government is doing it's best to turn us into the former but be fair they've only had six months so far, give them a bit more time.................

Don't forget cowardice or political expediency. Councillors can vote against an application that has a lot of local opposition despite a recommendation for approval by officers - that way those nasty government Inspectors approve the scheme not us councillors who want your vote next election time to stay in post.

If it's a porch erected over a retained door and is less than 30m2 floor area then it's a Class 7 exempt building (note the need for the glazing to comply with safety requirements).

Well a door head is about 2.0m so use that as an idea of the headroom you'll get. I recall seeing such a loft conversion years ago. It was for the owners children so they offset leack of headroom for much needed floorspace.

2.3m was the old minimum before the re-casting of the 1985 regs so most new builds used that as a standard. 2.0m is tight and is the minimum over a stair under the current regs. It could be done at a pinch considering most of one's time in a bedroom is spent horizontal!

We have been living in our Danwood for six months now. Our design but adjusted for their construction methods. Very pleased - it's such a change to come home to a warm house where every room is comfortable, well almost. Just had their heating engineers out today to solve a poorly heated bedroom. This had been reported through their online reporting system and engineers were out within the week. They found the thermostat connections to the underfloor valves were mixed up and we were thus adjusting one bedroom and actually setting another. Still they were efficient and pleasant, soon fixed it and all going well. This is something we were pleased about with Danwood, very professional. Be aware though with the foundation requirement. They did spring a need to add our own additional floor insulation on us at the last moment. What they specified in December 2023 did not quite meet regulations which they claimed had recently changed (well actually June 2022 chaps...). We consequently did an insulated raft on medium shrinkage clay but with trees some distance away. No problem with BC - foundations were inspected then we provided photographs. The whole thing was done in 8 weeks. I think BC recognised that this was a factory assembled building made to a high standard. Fully designed out with full superstructure calcs by UK engineers. The construction is a well oiled machine and they didn't skimp as far as I could see (which was every evening after they'd left!). Be prepared for lots of left over timber, we still have a stack under cover for all those small jobs coming up in the garden.

Sorry to hear that, I'm afraid over the years I've learnt never to trust planners and to plan and obtain conformation of each stage with the appropriate approval notices. I was taught by an ex. senior planner turned consultant to "slowly, slowly catch your monkey".....

This was converting some substantial stable buildings within the client's domestic property into living accomodation for their daughter. The Council argued that this created a separate dwelling and thus required planning permission. I argued that all buildings within the planning unit had the same use i.e domestic and if the buildings were used by the family as an adjunct to the main house they weren't a separate dwelling. The Inspector agreed but picked up on something I (and the Council) missed - a lean-to shed used to house a lawn tractor was shown as demolished. The Inspector said this created a requirement for planning consent and thus the Certificate was refused. The client decided to convert the stables and leave the shed in place and ignore the Council.......

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!