kandgmitchell

It sure is. The trouble is most trades see a self build as being no different to a larger site. To us though it's our house set in our garden (or what will be a garden). It's frustrating then to find rubbish just lobbed into the bushes, buckets washed out wherever they want and as @Roundtuit says them treating anything on site as fair game for their use. Can't get over all those tools on display though - it looked like a dewalt showroom........

Those cill heights are high then. "Does anyone check..." That's a hard one because some BCO's may think of it and others may not - you're in the realms of an individual's attitude and interpretation. I could be more certain if the opening height was compliant. In your situation I'd submit a "full plans" application - you can do the drawings yourself as they'll only be floorplans of before and after. You'll need the SE's calcs for the beam (but you'll want them anyway). This would allow you to get BC's attitude to the situation on paper (i.e comments back as part of the checking process) rather than having done the work and getting any bad news on site which could be the case with a Building Notice.

The recently installed heat pump - a Vaillant arotherm plus, stopped working last Friday. A power cut covering half the village happened on Saturday for about an hour and it seems to have cleared the problem and everyting seems to be back to normal. However, it occurs that I know next to nothing about this installation and how any of it works. I can find the instructions for the sensocomfort controller and the pump itself but there is another box on the wall for which I can't track down the handbook and I'd like to know what it does. I'm still waiting for the installers service team to call me back after Friday's breakdown so I'm not holding out much hope there. I prefer to have at least a rudimentary understanding if only to recognise if things aren't right. The picture shows the unit displaying Friday's fault .

Because we were paying hundreds of pounds a month to hire the containers since we moved onto the site, it was all in one room and no it wasn't in their way for fixing skirtings. It isn't a building site - the kitchen's in, all the walls are painted, the bathrooms are plumbed, tiled and usable...... just need the skirtings and doors so it can be carpeted.

This is a DanWood house so the shell is complete, finished internally, plumbed etc. We didn't want their stairs as they were open riser and couldn't have their doors and skirtings as we didn't want their floor coverings either. So we have carpenters in fixing linings, hanging doors, architraves and skirtings, installing our stairs etc. whilst we are still in the static. Our furniture and other belongings had been in a container on site, but as soon as we got the house handed over we stacked everything into the living room and the study. The other day I found two of our decent dining room chairs had been fished out and were being used for break times. Today takes the biscuit.... On an expensive glass shelved display unit I found all his power tools - planer, drill, charger, nail gun etc etc nicely displayed and available for immediate use..... I politely pointed out that he really ought to clear them off before my wife came back from work at lunchtime 'cos she's a lot scarier than me! Talk about make yourself at home, I suppose we should be thankful the beds are at the back of the room!

The means of escape requirements of the Building Regulations say: Escape from upper storeys a maximum of 4.5m above ground level 2.2 See Diagram 2.1b. Where served by only one stair, all habitable rooms (excluding kitchens) should have either of the following. a. An emergency escape window or external door, as described in paragraph 2.10. b. Direct access to a protected stairway, as described in paragraph 2.5a. So hopefully the OP's first floor windows comply with a) above already. If they do then forming the through room will not have an impact whatever the ground floor room use. However, if the first floor windows do not comply, the OP's argument that they are not making the M of E situation any worse than it is at present (i.e neither escape windows nor a protected stair exists as is) could be countered by Building Control saying that the kitchen is a high risk room and the present stair is separated from it, despite not being protected. The risk must therefore increase and thus the proposal makes an existing non-compliant situation worse which contravenes Regulation 4(c). So check those first floor windows! Oh and the garage fire door needs to be an FD30S

That gutter edge is surely wrong? It depends on the individual system but some have a two piece trim that sandwiches the membrane. If I recall the system we used a few years ago on a porch roof had a mechanically fixed gutter edge membrane strip that the main sheet glued onto using contact adhesive. Whatever it should be it ought to be neater. Best way is to find out who makes the edpm and look up their standard installation detail on the web. That should illustrate how it's done.

It'll only be exempt Building Regulations if detached. Do the plans for planning approval yourself - it'll probably cost you for pre-application advice (although some Councils don't charge householders) and almost certainly they'll ask for the sort of drawings you'll need for an application anyway.

We didn't apply for specific planning permission for the static caravan as we were relying on Class A of Part 4 of the the Permitted Development regulations as being a building/movable structure required temporarily in connection with operations on land (i.e the approved house build). Patently the Council agreed with this as they charge us minimum council tax and have registered us here to vote.

Is that a drainage ditch or simply a boundary ditch and bank arrangement? Not an unusual feature in the countryside where owners wanted to define land boundaries cheaply, dig it out and pile it up and plant a hedge along the top. Probably not meant to be there to drain anything but just being lower lying collected run-off.

When we got planning approval for the plot we applied to have the site named and added to the postal address database. Our static, for all intents and purposes became that address. We got added to the council tax database as a caravan on site and had our bins delivered. We altered all our identitification to the site address, driving licences, bank details etc etc leaving out the caravan bit. As far as the outside world is concerned, we live at a property in the village known as xyz, Abc Lane. The only other database to query things was the electoral registration officer. When we applied to join the electoral register she actually queried whether the house was complete or were we still in the caravan. When we explained the house was nearly complete but we hadn't moved in yet, the entry came back "caravan at xyz". Why wouldn't you use the site as your permanent residence if you are living there? It hasn't caused us any problems so far. The only effective change when we move in is the valuation officer will no doubt move us from Band A to a much higher one and the Council will drop "caravan at" from the description, oh and the position of the letterbox will change but that is about it.

As long as that dpm comes up to dpc level as @JohnMo says then I can't see where the damp would be a problem. In a very old house without "proper" dpc arrangements, putting an impervious floor covering down can drive damp further up walls as it can no longer evaporate from across the floor surface but I assume we aren't talking historic here?

Ditto to the CIS/CITB tax situation. It's for the contractor to run his CIS system and deal with his sub-contractors within the scheme as they are obliged to do by HMRC. You as the client aren't involved in that nor the CITB levy (which I thought only applied to large companies).

Kitchen is now going in and my wife had decided on a Samsung american style fridge/freezer with ice and water plumbed in. Curry's had the one she liked in black at £900 ish Tuesday night, went back today and it's at £1400 odd. We didn't want to spend much more than £1K (and I think even that's enough- there's still all the finishing bits to do...) The alternative is a Haier but am I being Sino-phobic assuming all chinese stuff is rubbish. There were some comments in a post from 2019 but the world has moved on. Any one with more up to date experience of the brand?

The 2000 (ammended in 2002) Approved Document for Part B - Fire Safety had a specific requirement for self closers to all doors opening onto the escape stairway. The next full revision issued in 2006 had that requirement removed, restricting self closers to attached/intergral garages only.

Part of the problem when requirements drop out of the regulations, they don't get as much attention as when new requirements arrive. Unless specifically asked, a BCO isn't likely to point out that something isn't needed anymore, they'll just ignore it. Guys on site having got used to doing things in a particular way, usually plod on until told otherwise.

It used to be the case that when having a loft conversion all the doors opening onto the escape stair had to be fitted with self closers. That was dropped a while ago because quite honestly owners used to remove them. Perko's were quite capable of trapping kids fingers as they tended to snap doors shut quite hard. When I was a BCO (many years ago mind you), when asked about self closers in that situation I suggested they look at the gibralter arm type as they were easier to adjust. It was probably the open secret that owners took the closers off which was one reason why they were dropped and the situation is now as per garrymartins post.

Oh yes, fully agree, the two departments may even be in different buildings and in effect there is often little interaction. However, the OP is not a professional and from the outside as a member of the public they could be excused in thinking that if one officer suggests something it would be acceptable to all parts of the organisation. It is that approach which is likely to have the best result and although the planners will be unable to ignore the rules it is likely they will be more flexible in how to address this. Again speak to your councillor - that's what they are there for....

If you're fitting them yourself you'll need a building regulation application. Both Part L Thermal and Part F Ventilation allow a bit of leeway for houses in conservation areas but if you're replacing like for like in style and can achieve the minimum 1.4 U value you'll probably not going to need to plead "conservation area". Part F says this: 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. 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. NOTE: If it is not technically feasible to adopt the minimum equivalent areas set out in paragraph 3.15, the background ventilators should have equivalent areas as close to the minimum value as is feasible. I'm not sure that pleading "conservation area" for the purposes of Part F is going to get you a lot of leeway to omit background ventilation altogether (and should you?). This is going to be down to the opinion of the BCO on the day I'm afraid, based on what you present to them. Can't see you'll need PP for replacing windows which look much like they were before since they would not materially affect the exterior appearance of the building and thus this is not development (s55 T&C Planning Act)

Well the larch cladding will need to be no worse than ClassB-s3 d2 and the whole wall construction should have a fire resistance of 30 minutes (which with the cement board at 12mm if I recall correctly you will probably get).

Unfortunately changing to a building notice rather than full plans for building control purposes doesn't remove the obligation to follow the scheme given planning approval. However, there will be a level of embarassment here as one arm of the Council has inadvertently caused you to fall out with another. First of all you need to respond to the letter with a full explanation of why you changed the design and who suggested it. I would copy in the head of building control as well. I would also be tempted to ask your local councillor for help as it seems the Council itself, by it's own officers giving the wrong advice has put you in this situation. Hopefully a sensible solution can be found which could be just rectifying the matter by submitting a revised planning application showing the work as executed and getting that approved. The interest of your councillor in making sure such a sensible approach is recognised by the officers would be very useful. Let us know how you get on.

Firstly, was the BCO from the local authority or private? Secondly you say you have an enforcement notice from the planning department. Is it actually a formal legal notice of enforcement action or is it a letter saying they are minded to take enforcement action because it is not in accordance with the approved scheme?

When you have this kind of comment on an application I always like to send the planning officer an email "explaining the misconceptions" in the comments "for the sake of clarity". If nothing else there is then an answer on the application file which can be read by the planner's team leader and any councillor that may be interested and thinking of getting involved......

I'm with @DevilDamo on this. The "Prior Approval" arrangements were baked in so as to allow some extensions to be 8m deep on detached houses not in conservation areas, AONB's etc. However, your existing two storey rear extension is at the limit of 3 metres allowed. You can't add a further 5m to that extension at ground floor level as "the enlarged part" (i.e the total extension beyond the original rear wall) would be regarded as including the first extension. Thus the combined new and first extension would be more than 3m deep and anything containing two storeys cannot not be further out than 3m in order to be classed as permitted development. Is there potential for a single storey extension on the non-extended side? Could that help with a bit of internal reorganisation?

Sorry.. it was so tempting. Let's say it was about big nasty aliens and the heroic efforts of a few brave americans saving the world