kandgmitchell

We paid Protek £1400 or so for £400,000 cover last year so you're not far off the market.

Well I'd put my money on condensation. Penetrating damp would disrupt the plaster and leave a stain over a defined area as it soaks the wall. This looks like mould spots across a damp surface. This is a classic conundrum with modern life in older houses, lots of warm moist air and poorly performing thermal envelopes. You can't use the windows in the winter when it is most critical to remove the moisture laded air. Usually it's the colder surfaces in upstairs bedrooms that suffer the most. The first job is to kill the mould, the second is to get rid of the worst damp air at source so extracts in the bathrooms and kitchen are a must. You may want to consider a cheap dehumidifier. Going beyond that isn't easy as putting in trickle vents now isn't simple nor is insulating the walls. So the easier bits first.

Assuming there's no obvious ingress of direct water from outside - (as ST says, check for leaking gutters etc) then this looks like classic condensation. Corners and the bottom of walls are colder, condensation happens often without even being obvious. Dust in the air sticks to it and mould grows on the dust in a damp environment. Still air behind cupboards and the like makes it worse. First job is to kill the mould so it doesn't just grow back. Curing structural condensation is not easy. You need to reduce the moisture content in the air whilst getting those colder surfaces above the dew point

Try planning admin - whilst they can be a bit pedantic at times in some councils, I've often found them surprisingly human in others. They're more likely to know what goes on with the paperwork than the case officer. Think nurses in a hospital knowing far more than doctors about the "process".

The doors are fire rated for a reason - they protect the means of escape in case of fire, down the stairs and out the front door. The proposed layout negates this with any fire in the lounge/kitchen making the stairs unusable. Those on the first floor may have access to escape windows but those on the second would have no way out. It'll contravene the Building Regulations and be too much of a risk. At least retain the separation between the lounge and the hallway to protect the escape route.

The cable runs direct - a male connector in the services room ( worth building your own house just for those two words...) with a female wall outlet. My electrician has checked the "punch downs" and says they're ok. I'll buy a long Cat 6 cable from amazon and try that.

We had 20 odd on a 4g router in the static caravan and to be honest we had no trouble. We went for 200mbs because at £20/month it seemed a good deal. It's more case of why is there 200mbs at the modem and only 100 max at the other end of the cable we paid extra to have installed. Sounds petty but we've had a few issues with the house wiring so are being a bit bullish with this.

The installation to the house was done a few weeks ago. The internet supplier's engineer checked the speed using his equipment on the day and found the query. Since then I have connected my laptop directly to the router and used a couple of free speed testers, both give very similar results. My electrician also used a tester plugged in at the service room and in the living room - again only 90 odd mbs. No other activity at the time.

Hi, In the new build we specified just one fixed Cat 6 connection - from the services room to the living room to service a smart tv etc. Now had FTTP installed with a modem in the services room. The internet provider supplied a router, and plugged direct to the modem it achieves 200mbs (the package we've chosen). However, the wireless coverage was poor which was put down to all the equipment in the services room. So, we relocated the router to the living room which is more central and open plan and connected it to the cable outlet and plugged the other end into the modem. The wireless signal is much better but the maximum speed is now no more than 90 odd mbs. Both locations have been tested with a cable connected direct to the router - 200 in the services room at the modem and 94 -95 at the end of the cable. So it's the cable. Both the internet installer and our own electrician (not the cable installer) have checked it and say it's wired correctly so why can't I get full speed?

Requirement B5 is more about getting a fire appliance to within 45m of the house and allowing it to turn and leave. You'll only need a private hydrant if you are more than 100m away from one AND you have a compartment of more than 280m2 in area. So if your house is really big then split it up into distinct compartments with the appropriate fire resistance between. Wales do ask for sprinklers and Scotland is simply another country.

I'd say there's sufficient information on your drawings to establish what you intend to do. There are two aspects to this: planning and building control. For planning the removal of the unwanted part of the extension should be "permitted development" that is allowed without planning permission as it's the "alteration" of a dwelling house and since you are taking it away, the usual constraints on height, size for new extensions etc do not apply. You can apply for a Lawful Development Certificate from the local council to confirm this. You will also, separately, have to apply for building regulation consent to form the new internal arch as that wall is probably loadbearing and supports the floors above. The new roof light also comes under their control. These are technical requirements making sure things are structually sound etc. I would strongly suggest you find a local professional to help you with this process. You seem to have the right ideas but need someone with experience of the actual process of dealing with authority to guide you through it. It can't really be done on a public forum.

So going back to the OP's query - I paid £300 extra for three phase which goes to external cabinet. 3 phase cable to house but currently on single phase only but the extra is there if needed.

If it's in use for your build then no, PD regs say: 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.

How about thermalite or celcon? They weigh next to nothing. The steps will not be solid per se surely, form hollow "boxes" and span the internal spaces with the limestone flags

This area is very complicated, my impression is that the LA ought to have issued a notice of cancellation as soon as it was obvious the AI was unable to continue with it's work. That triggers a defined period for the client to seek another AI to take over or else the project reverts to the LA. I suspect however that all parties tend to take a sensible and pragmatic approach in these extreme circumstances and I guess if the project has hardly started it makes sense to in effect start again. I agree the regulations used are those in force at the time of the initial notice. If the OP wants to avoid a particular requirement in the latest regs that significantly affects their design then they need to engineer a transfer pdq from the original intial notice. If they aren't bothered then simply start again with the latest regs.

There was an initial notice served by PWC on the LA which suspends their involvement. The LA may now accept a simple change over to a new AI (it's a lot less hassle for them) with everyone pretending you hadn't actually done any work, otherwise you will need to go through the transfer process. Working under the later regulations will involve; high speed broadband, electric vehicle charging plus as you say enhanced thermal insulation requirements with photo's of various stages so the EPC supplier can confirm you've done what you are meant to. Part O is also a consideration, perhaps get your architect to assess the design against the new regs before you make up your mind.

I'm not certain that's correct. There are provisions for "transfer notices" within the Approved Inspector Regulations which allow for the transfer of a project from one approved inspector to another. However, in this situation you may have to issue a cancellation notice yourself to the LA, you can then appoint a new Approved Inspector who issues a new Initial Notice. Have you had a cancellation notice from the LA at all? This stuff is very complicated so you need to discuss this with any new AI (who may not be keen anyway) and/or the LA to find a legal way forward. From my recollection the operation of the version of the regulations any work is subject to, is relevant to when the work started rather than when any notices are served so the regulations should be the same for either LA or new AI.

Under English Regs Part M doesn't apply to a change of use from a building that was not previously a dwelling to a dwelling (Reg 5 (a) then Reg 6 (i)). Thus you are not obliged to, but consider would it be useful to you at a later date or to a friend or neighbour 'cos it's easier to do now rather than later.

Whilst the F&B colours are certainly interesting, I found their paint awful to use - it's so thin. Had to use three coats of estate emulsion "Stifkey Blue" to get the effect. Now we use a Johnstones paint centre to match the colour as close as possible and use their trade emulsion which is much nicer to use.

I can't see that post being a significant issue for fire, it's heated perimeter related to it's section size is small. The other faces are protected by the blockwork either side and the cavity and external leaf. It's also well stabilised so if heated to a point of failure it'll be held in position. The beam is at far more risk from failure in a fire and will tend to pull the post away from the wall as it sags. I would have thought a strip of fire resistant board against the post itself and then a panel of board across it in the plane of the plasterboard would be plenty. If there's room for some aerogel as well it'll help the cold bridge effect.

Not unless you're building a very tall self build. Basically higher risk buildings will be dealt with by a different regulator under the HSE rather than the normal LA/private BC system. The other educational bit will probably be good practice guidance notes. Talking to a private BCO a few days ago she told me that she is no longer allowed to offer any advice on site and must refer any queries back to the designers. She's not too happy about it as it has taken a lot of the interest out of the job - "I'm just a policeman now" she moans. That's a highly experienced professional who now is considering taking the retirement option.

Loved that bit in the officer's report which stated that outbuildings are built to a lower standard and contain few windows..... and where they are required for lighting purposes are provided by small windows.... That person needs to get out more. As to a statement of case it is what it says: it states the arguement that you use to show why the Council's decision was wrong. Usually you would state the law and then show how the Council's interpretation of that law was incorrect using but not necessarily restricted to the officer's report. A "concise" statement that gets to the nub of the matter is far better than some wordy flowery thing. In this Cheshire case the consultants dismissed the quality bit but managed to make the Council look poor for raising it, they attacked the floor area pointing out the Council's use of footprint rather than floor area, they showed each individual use was reasonable in scale etc etc. If specific court cases or other appeal decisions are available to support your case then those would be added along with how they relate to the situation. In most situations a planning consultant will have more access to that sort of information and can usually present a better case.

Sorry if it appears pedantic but are the walls either side of your plot actually "party walls" i.e they sit astride the boundary of your land (perhaps a situation where the house on your plot was part of a whole terrace and has since been taken down) or do they sit wholly inside the land owned by each neighbour (so there are two separate terraces you are now going to link).

So to clarify, you intend to build a new house attached to an existing neighbour's house to create/extend a terrace ?

This sounds about right, the regulator clamped down hard on private BC companies and they are all now into this chase, chase, progess, progress approach. I think they have to report how many jobs are outstanding for over 12 months as well now. Not good for self builders who tend to have a "in my own time" approach. Perhaps this ought to be brought to a wider BH audience just to make people aware of what they may face.