kandgmitchell

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

Nanny state stuff again - could get worse after July 4th....................

But it does matter - a lot! It was this forum that saved us £4500 in SDLT as our solicitor had filled in the forms for us and told us it would be £4500. One assumes they know what they are about. I then read a post on here which set me thinking and doing more research. Because our plot was originally agricultural, the tax bands were different and the actual SDLT was zero. After filling in the appropriate forms ourselves, HMRC refunded the lot plus interest.

I'd second that, I really can't see that the level of risk warrants that sort of precaution. I'd worry about charging an electric bike in the hallway but a fridge? Just get the project signed off without the fridge and then get on with the life you want afterwards.

The development as a whole may start from your rear boundary but that would include all the open space around the proposed buildings. You may find that there is indeed a gap between you and the nearest building. It's rare for the planners to allow new buildings on such a large site to sit against the development boundaries simply because there is space available to reduce the impact on existing properties. You may for instance find it's the school planning field that abuts your fence rather than the back wall of a supermarket. If there is a planning application in for the development then you can see it on the council's website and consider what is proposed in detail. You will have a chance to comment and make your views known. Take up that option and argue your case if needed.

So does the land actually appear in the Brownfield register held by the LA? If not who told you it was brownfield (previously developed) land?

Well I hope someone pops up. Ideally you need someone local and ideally with a relationship with the LA if you are using their BCO's. The regs vary for commercial stuff - sometimes easier, sometimes harder than for domestic building. You'll also need some decent plans for the fire officer consultation done by whoever does your BC work.

A first floor extension on a commercial property... You are going to need someone who knows what they are doing to get that approved. Find an architectural technician or an ex. bco who now submits plans. Ask your builder if he knows anyone - they usually have a few contacts. You aren't going to be able to do this yourself without substantial technical knowledge.

Ditto, all your interactions should be in written format. I presume you have had a letter from the planning department and not just a verbal request from an enforcement officer. If you used the LA for building control I'm amazed that they have let this go this far. Threats of enforcement action should never be made lightly by a Council (normally the planners would have run the scenario past their legal department) so you need to be professional in response and stop this nonsense in it's tracks. Put your position in writing and insist on a response likewise in writing.

And always remember the Town and Country Planning Act Section 55 says: The following operations or uses of land shall not be taken for the purposes of this Act to involve development of the land— (a)the carrying out for the maintenance, improvement or other alteration of any building of works which— (i)affect only the interior of the building, or (ii)do not materially affect the external appearance of the building, So internal works to strengthen/repair a barn would not be classed as "development" and if it's not development then the planners are not involved not matter what the building is used for.

If the original house front door remains then a porch is exempt BRegs up to 30m2 (subject to having safety glazing in the correct locations). If the door has been removed then it's a hall extension. Built getting on for 10 years ago? No direct action for contravention after 12 months so Sept 2015 ish, now long gone. They can still obtain an injunction to prevent a contravention persisting but for a 10 year porch? No way, I've only heard of that being used once. It's not going to happen here. The Council never ties PP to BRegs, whoever carries out the work should know the law and go through the process, they didn't, but assuming its sound, doesn't leak and isn't damp nothing has been lost except the paperwork. By all means buy an indemnity but it seems a bit of a waste of money. By the time you come to sell, that porch will be even older and even less interest to the authorities than it is now.