kandgmitchell

Don't see why not. If the local ground conditions require a 1.0m min. dig, odds are that bit in the middle will fall over anyway. Be cautious about undermining the existing foundations of the house by digging too wide where you abut though. Is that a drain bottom right?

Reaching that stage of thinking about the finishes. We need to install our own staircase and I have it designed and priced ready to call off. However, the hallway is to be tiled and the stairs will be open on the underside. Do I tile the floor first or allow for tile and adhesive, install the stair and tile to it? Thoughts on a postcard please........

Consider this from the Permitted Devlopment order: Permitted development A. The enlargement, improvement or other alteration of a dwellinghouse. As well as under minor operations: Permitted development C. The painting of the exterior of any building or work. So if you can paint the exterior walls of your house vivid purple, the improvement from white to grey windows shouldn't get your "neighbour" upset!

Well I'd argue that Class A of PD allows "the enlargement, improvement or other alteration of a dwelling house". The change from door to window doesn't affect the subsequent list of "but not if's". The internal conversion isn't development anyway. The potential fly in the ointment is if the original approval for the dwelling contained a specific condition requiring the garage to made available for parking a car. That was not uncommon in the 70's/80's. You would then have to deal with that point. Some research may be needed especially if the original approval was for an estate of houses. Even if all OK you'll still need a building regulations submission.

Yup, kept the cats in deliberately just to avoid the inevitable...............

I agree, I realised my groundworkers weren't as experienced in the reinforced raft field as they claimed but they worked hard, listened to my concerns when required and more importantly acted on them. A clear understanding of the process was key but by god was I relieved when it all worked out right in the end!

Well the perimeter was set by the vertical edge insulation. My ground workers used a laser level with a square of ply attached to their staff which they used to keep checking the concrete surface level, a little crude but it worked. The two pumping guys handled all that side of things so we could concentrate on the spreading, compacting and levelling. Yes pleased with the end result - probably no more than 10mm out of level looking at the subsequent rainwater on the surface. We now have the attached sitting on it - that's four days work for six men and a crane.

The exact wording is: (development is NOT permitted if...) (d)any part of the structure would be within 2 metres of any boundary of the curtilage of the dwellinghouse with a highway So, any part of the porch has to be at least 2 metres from any of your boundaries which abut any highway. So, a mid-terrace house would have one of those scenarios, a house on a corner may have two such boundaries to consider. It is only boundaries with a highway not neighbours. It also cannot be more than 3m high nor more than 3m3 in ground area (measured externally)

I've had this today as well - just dropping out and stating site can't be reached - timed out etc.

Just a thought. That composite cladding needs to be at least Class B-s3 d2 spread of flame classification. The external wall needs 30 minutes fire resistance from both sides. Your fireline plasterboard should be ok for the inner face but the composite cladding is unlikely to allow the wall to be fire resistant from the external side. My thought is it will need a cement based board behind the cladding. You will need to check this with your SIP provider. The door off the garage just needs to be an FD30S door with a closer. Also BC may want a landing at the top of those steps that is not obstructed by the door.....

Neither take priority over the other - you have to comply with both. You can use having to comply with one as a lever to get a concession out of the other but there's no obligation on their part to play ball. If your planning approval has a condition that you build in accordance with the plans reference x,y and z and you haven't, then you may wish to regularise this to avoid issues in the future. It all turns on just how much the change is from what the planners approved. If it's minimal and just a bit smaller - would I bother? probably not. If it's significant or you're risk adverse then go back to the planners with the changes.

We paid £138/m3 for 27m3 of C35 concrete (plus vat which we'll get back) so about £3K and £700 for a line pump plus two operatives for a day.

Those were the days. Regulation K8 Height of Habitable rooms, last seen in the 1976 regulations I believe. This and lots of other stuff (remember zones of open space?) was swept away when the 1985 re-cast of the whole system brought in the Approved Document approach we use today. It set a minimum height of a habitable room at 2.3m. On loft rooms it said: Provided that, if such room is wholly or partly in the roof of the building, it's height shall be not less than 2.3m over an area of the floor equal to not less than one half of the area of that room measured on a plane 1.5m above floor level. And that was the law - set out in the statutory instrument, non-compliance was an offence. The only way to overcome a shortfall was to apply for a formal relaxation which had a process all of it's own including an appeal to the Secretary of State upon a refusal by the LA.

Well it isn't difficult for them as the AD to Part H says: Pumping installations 2.36 Where gravity drainage is impracticable, or protection against flooding due to surcharge in downstream sewers is required, a pumping installation will be needed. 2.37 Package pumping installations are available which are suitable for installation within buildings. Floor mounted units may be particularly suited for installation in basements. These should conform to BS EN 12050. Pumping installations for use inside buildings should be designed in accordance with BS EN 12056-4. 2.38 Package pumping installations suitable for installation outside buildings are also available. Guidance on the design of pumping installations for use outside buildings may be found in BS EN 752-6. 2.39 Where foul water drainage from a building is to be pumped, the effluent receiving chamber should be sized to contain 24-hour inflow to allow for disruption in service. The minimum daily discharge of foul drainage should be taken as 150 litres per head per day for domestic use. For other types of building, the capacity of the receiving chamber should be based on the calculated daily demand of the water intake for the building. Where only a proportion of the foul sewage is to be pumped, then the capacity should be based pro-rata. In all pumped systems the controls should be so arranged to optimise pump operation.

Conservation never stick to the standard consultation time - they're probably off on a course about the application of wattle and daub construction in a modern post brexit holistic environment......... The case officer will just plod on, they may chase conservation or ecology if it's vital to consider their comments but don't be surprised if either parachute their comments in at the eleventh hour and you're being asked for an extension of time!

Only if the beam contributed to the overall stability of the building, if it just supports the roof then no fire protection is required.

and it's only advisory to open in the direction of escape unless you are going to have more than 60 in that room (and the occasional party doesn't count!) (and doesn't apply to dwellings anyway)

The chances are the planners will have no idea what the figures mean either but if they are presented by your SAP assessor they'll take them as complying.....

True, but one doesn't realise the years have caught up until you're caught out!

Just to add to this with a bit of experience of what I would do differently "next time". I had installed 50mm twin wall duct for the electric supply. After completing the raft that duct was extended by the groundworkers to the electric kiosk with the meter some 20 odd metres away. Only later did I consider the cable needs - 3 phase 25mm. Upon picking it up from the suppliers I could immediately sense a problem coming. A) it was heavy and B) it didn't bend well. This week I discovered drawing it through a 50mm duct was not practical - should have used 80mm at least. Also the bends in the duct made pulling the cable through a nightmare. Luckily, after a struggle we got it outside the raft (all of 3 metres) but had to dig down to it and cut it open to get past the first (of several) too tight bends. Finally have strained back trying to pull it the last 5 metres - can't even bend over at present! Resourceful wife asked two random men in a family of four passing by to help and they very kindly stepped in and pulled it the last bit while I sat on the floor in a lot of pain. So, 1) work out cable needs in advance. 2) use a bigger duct than you think you need 3) consider running the cable through the duct laid out in a straight line, then placing both duct and cable in place in one go so you know it will bend where you need it to! 4) just get someone else younger and fitter to do it!

Hi Alan, I submitted the appeal on the 26th October 2022. I got my start letter on the 14th November 2022 so a pretty quick response. However I got this today in response to my formal complaint that the process was taking too long... Thank you for contacting the Planning Inspectorate. I have passed your email on to the Case Officer who is currently dealing with this appeal for them to respond to your complaint. If you have any further queries in relation to this appeal, please contact the Case Officer directly. Nevertheless, I would like to explain that although the time taken to handle an appeal may exceed the median of time published on our website, those are average handling times, not statutory timescales. We can only apologise for the delay and inconvenience caused by the length of time taken to process this appeal. I appreciate your concerns and dissatisfaction with the appeal process, please be assured that we are processing appeals as fast as our resources allow and that a site visit will be arrange as soon as possible.

Well I got this back in October 2023 for a simple LDC appeal which started in November 2022 -- Thank you for your email relating to the above appeal, I apologise for the delay in arranging a site visit. Please note we have a significant backlog of Enforcement and LDC cases awaiting a site visit, we apologise for the inconvenience this causes. We will generally be working through the backlog in chronological order (oldest first), but I must also make you aware that you may notice that on occasions a more recent appeal may be scheduled earlier - the reason for this is we create all Inspector programmes in a geographical way, which might result in the need to allocate a new case to complete a group of older cases to ensure the Inspector is utilised to his/her full potential when visiting an area. Please also be assured that we are putting new measures in place to deal with the current delays and hope to see improvements over the coming months. We are unable to respond to any queries regarding appeals awaiting a site visit at this stage. While we understand that this is frustrating, doing so takes valuable resource away from our case work processing and can further delay appeals. I then got this in response to a chase up a couple of weeks ago.... Thank you for your email relating to the above appeal, I apologise for the delay in arranging a site visit. How long will I have to wait for an event date? Unfortunately, we can't give an accurate date when we can allocate an Inspector and set an event date, but please be assured that we are doing everything we can to process your appeal as quickly as possible. For some cases this might be longer depending on the complexity of the issues and availability of Inspectors with the particular specialisms required. Please also be assured that we are also putting new measures in place to deal with the current delays including the recruitment of additional resources to help recover performance over the coming months. Our average handling times on GOV.UK provide a useful reference for how long appeals take from submission to decision. How do you allocate Inspectors to cases? We generally allocate Inspectors to cases in chronological order (oldest first). However, Inspectors work geographically, and to make best use of their time, we sometimes need to prioritise newer cases within a certain region. This may appear that cases are 'leap frogging' older cases, however this ensures we make the best use of the Inspector's time while they are conducting other site visits in the area. We are unable to respond to any further queries on delays on this appeal, but please be assured that will continue to work hard to arrange a site visit and we will be in touch as soon as possible. Please use our customer contact form if you need further any assistance. Thank you for your patience and we hope to be in contact shortly. So still awaiting a site visit from the Inspector - I may be unlucky but just be aware of the delays out there!

We used 1810 in the last kitchen and have specified them again. Very good quality. We had a sink and a half in a 600 cabinet. No draining board but we simply kept one of the plastic tray types in the cupboard under and used it as and when required. Just seen they do a 340mm x 400mm single bowl and sink and tap packs.

Along with just about every other bit of authority out there I would suggest...................... after all, don't forget they know more than you!

From recollection the application of the new Part L was done by a plot by plot basis rather than all plots within the original scheme. So even though the site may have have started as a whole, only those individual plots that were under way in June 2023 could claim to be built under the old version. If the defective house was being demolished and it's foundations removed I'd thought it'll be hard to argue that the new replacement wasn't an entirely new building and thus subject to the current regs.