kandgmitchell

Remember that when you are applying for an LDC the LPA are not considering any planning policies in their local plan. They are being asked to determine whether the application satisfies the provisions of the permitted development regulations. Ordinarily that can be done by reference to specific measurements and dimensions set out in those regulations. The issue comes in here when the phrase "incidental to the enjoyment of the dwelling house" has to be determined. For some reason they have decided that the OP's building is not such. They are interpreting the law here and often these things are run by the Council's legal department before issue. There have been several legal cases over this phrase "incidental to the enjoyment" and it is not as clear cut as you may think. I don't have access to my case references unfortunately (they're in the container with the rest of our life) but I recall one judge suggesting that "incidental use" isn't simply up to the whim of the land owner and refusing an application to the court. Here, simply the scale and nature of the proposal may have swung the opinion away from "incidental" (minor, subordinate etc) towards something else. As to a way forward, by all means appeal but it'll take a while. The other approach is to negotiate and try to find out what the LPA do regard as incidental. For this I'd consider using a Planning Agent simply to distance yourself from the discussion. Planners are often more amenable to agents because they talk the same language (and in some cases worked alonside them). Good luck!

I would agree to some extent. I see many architects drawings with a phrase such as " drainage layout to be agreed between builder and building inspector" and your example regarding foundations. That is unfairly using BC as a cheap design service and some designers/builders do take the p...s. However, BC has to agree matters on site when a building notice is used and I would hate to see things degenerate to a point where professional common sense could not be exercised on site.

But also be aware that they seem to use different Inspectors for enforcement and LDC appeals. At least that's the reason given for the 60 odd weeks I am in so far on a fairly simple LDC appeal in relation to a residential property. At the stage of a complaint about the delay.

Showers? Drinking water for the ice machine for those cocktails?

Well your enclosure, as you say falls into Class 6 of Schedule 2 to the Building Regulations and so is exempt. It also would not have been subject to the Energy Efficiency Requirements because Regulation 21 (which applies those requirements) gives exemptions to those requirements to several types of buildings included, as you point out, under sub-para 3(d) "stand alone buildings other than dwellings with a total useful floor area of less than 50m2". Since you have a pool inside, the provisions of G1 and G3 (2) and (3) may well affect you (cold and hot water supplies) however, (Regulation 9 (2) (b)).

Agreed, keep them separate - they are different animals and follow different routes. With planning these days it's best to follow the KISS approach.

That's not a change in regulations, that's a change in attitude. I agree you can get the "I can't design it for you approach" but equally the OP has a suggested solution - a short fixed ladder. That should be sufficient to open a sensible discussion with BC as to compliance. If you don't ask you'll never know.

You know the only way to resolve this is to ask your BC provider. It's them that are going to have to sign this off. This what the flexibility of the Approved Document approach was supposed to do - allow for unique design features to be assessed against the basic requirement of providing adequate means of escape in case of fire. The pre- 1985 regulations were prescriptive and any diversion had to be dealt with by a formal relaxation application.

Interesting, "ground area" is not defined in the order. So, it could be argued that the overhang has no ground area since it does not sit on the ground. However, it could also be argued that the overhang projects over a ground area so should be included. You can see why so much planning ends up in the courts!

The good old 1992 version of the Approved Document to Part A had a wide range of timber span tables in the appendix. For a 5.5m clear span using C16 joists you'll need 63mm x 220mm @ 400mm cntrs assuming a dead load of no more than 0.5kN/m2 (excluding self weight) or 75mm x 220mm @ 400mm cntrs if the dead load is between 0.5 and 0.75kN/m2. Although C16 is not as common these days. If you have C24 joists you could "get down" to 75mm x 195mm @400 cntrs for the lighter dead load. But as been pointed out these are chunky bits of timber and open span joists may be cheaper in the long run.

That's not exactly correct. Your foundations can be within your own land but if they will be deeper than those of a neighbouring building within 3m then you must serve a section 6 notice. If within 6m and deeper than a line drawn at 45 degrees from the neighbour's foundations then again you need to serve notice. However in the OP's case I'd be surprised if their garage foundation would be deeper than the neighbour's house foundations although a modern 1.0m deep foundation could be deeper than a Victorian brick spread. It's all too easy for an adjoining owner to create an issue as they do not have to pay the costs of the party wall award, the building owner must. However, this should have been sorted out much earlier. OP did you engage with the neighbour about your works? It's being done on the boundary after all, what about damage to their property, how does the builder gain access to build the wall along the boundary? If these things hadn't been raised before then it's not surprising that they've gone down the formal route. I'd get round there and see if it can be sorted out amicably. If not then consider appointing their surveyor as yours as well (they have to act impartially) to keep costs to a minimum.

I need two small electric jobs doing. The electrician who wired up the static back to the cabinet housing my cable head and meter seemed the obvious choice. I need a suitable cable for the house pulled through the duct from the cabinet and left free at either end for connection at the appropriate time. I also need a temporary builders supply close to the footprint of the house for the kit erectors and fit out contractors use. Simple? well I've been let down twice now with promises of doing the job and then putting it off on the day promised so I'm getting a bit fed up. I know what cable I need to pull through so I can do that. At present I have an exterior type double socket in the cabinet wired to a small CU which also serves the caravan supply. The house slab is on the opposite side of the caravan from the cabinet about 15m away. Instead of fixing extra external sockets to a board fixed to the caravan as was my first plan can I just buy a decent quality extension lead reel with 4 outlets and plug it back into the cabinet socket? The builders can then move it to suit themselves. The house is timber framed, the raft is in, so the heaviest tools are likely to be plasterers mixing tools I guess.

Boundary means boundary of your ownership, the curtilage of your plot, the bit that you control. Not sure why the builder would think boundary meant the side wall of a building situated on someone elses property.

I think the latest changes to the fee system has taken away the "free go" arrangement.

But above you said you were 500 - 600mm away from the boundary, the plans and photo seem to confirm this. If so then under the Building Regs you will be limited to 1m2 of unprotected area (i.e ordinary window) which would affect what you propose.

The stone was MOT1 type stuff which I think is max 30mm downwards. It packed tight with a 2T vibrating roller. I used 150mm xps for the insulation because the Dan Wood spec uses 90mm of insulation across the top of the raft. I could have added more but it was diminishing returns really.

Final two photo's 8053 is the steel, sorry it was getting dark when I rembered to take this. Layer of A393 mesh in bottom and top with a further layer of A393 min 1.0 m wide around the upper perimeter (we just used the 1.4m offcuts from the main mesh). A couple of embedded beams using 16mm bars where the main load bearing walls are. 8059 is the finished raft with a muddy surface due to the state of the ground whilst the rain water drainage was being done. I'll power wash it off before the frame arrives.

As asked for here are some photo's. 8043 is the stone base done. 8046 the sand blinding, 8047 the sub raft insulation under way.

We had MBC price the job last year. Their quote (April 2023) for an insulated raft for the same building design was £34K. Just a note, DanWood add their own insulation ontop of the slab so we used 150mm xps under.

Nigh on 100m2 simple rectangle but with two pairs of 200mm x 850mm "outshoots" which support an open gable feature on the rear and front elevations.

Or this UGW40D_d79ddae1-9e46-4a5d-9c1c-6cd0ce090fe7.pdf

Mark? It was a "self" install with groundworkers doing the heavy stuff and me making sure the details were done properly. Took a while simply beacuse of the number of wet days when the site was just too muddy to work in.

This is to take a DanWood timber frame. The frame sits on the edge of the slab with the exterior insulation overhanging. More insulation goes ontop of the slab and an insulated former is used at door openings (from what I can see from the details provided). No special shuttering although we backed the vertical insulation with scaffold boards just in case. Be honest I doubt if they were needed though. It was a Green Raft that uses a vertical plastic joining strip between the horizontal and vertical insulation panels.

Yes, I'll post a few.

Just to add to the wealth of knowledge on here. We have just completed our insulated raft using xps with concrete 250mm thick at 100m2. Installed the foul drains and surface water out to a soakaway. All in, including labour it's come to £26K and a bit. Hope this might help with others budgeting.