kandgmitchell

Trouble is by lifting the base to fall the proper way and then lining it with say a single ply membrane you'll have to take the slates off the mansard in order to get behind them and form an upstand. It may interfere with the window cill level as well. Where is the current outlet?

So this is a "plumbed" in, fixed gas fire with a pilot light? I thought gas fires used piezo ignition these days - is it really old? Obviously the gas equivalent of standby on all those electrical fittings. Edit: Just remebered my parents had a gas fridge back in the '60's I guess that must have had some form of pilot

Well you aren't going to affect the new house as you would not project beyond it's rear wall. As to the other side, why would this be any different to a situation where the new house had never been built.

I'd be intrigued to see the wording of the original approval for the formation of the new dwelling. The condition would apply to that development and thus may possibly apply only to the new dwelling and not the host dwelling. You could also look to see whether the city council has amenity space requirements for dwellings in it's planning policies or supplementary planning guidance. Looking at your sketch it can surely only be lack of amenity space left for the original dwelling that'll be an issue for the planners in respect of your proposed extension.

My thoughts are the external anti-draught flaps on an extract fan being lifted and dropped by the wind. Some also have internal "non-return flaps" which can be sucked up by a partial vacuum caused by external air flow and they "clap" when dropping back. We also had a problem in one house of undertile felt being slapped against the tiles by a draught through the loft space but only during high winds. Took ages to work it out. 2nd floor flat - under a roof or another flat?

And they really can float upwards. Years ago I was working in the Daventry area of Northants and a colleague came back into the office and told us all that we ought to see the "submarine" on a building plot in a local village. Passing that way over the next few days (I think we all did that route) there was a large cesspool tank that had forced itself back out of the ground and stood like something Jaques Cousteau would use for all the world to see. More concrete and partial filling with water to ballast it was called for.

Be aware that many LA's and Approved Inspectors will require such a divergence from the Approved Document to be designed and argued for by a qualified Fire Engineer.

I would agree with you. Regulation 22 of the Building Regulations etc (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2023 states that "The amendments made to the 2010 regulations made by the provisions listed in paragraph (2) do not apply to- (a) building work which started before the regime start date (i.e 1st October 2023) (b) building work in relation to which: (i) plans were deposited with a local authority pursuant to section 16 of the Act before the regime start date. Paragraph (2) says: The provisions referred to in paragraph (1) are:- (b) Regulation 6 (New part- duty holders and competance) It is Regulation 6 which introduces a new requirement under 11Q (2) (d) for a client to provide a signed statement that the work is complete and to the best of their knowledge it complies with the regulations. There is a long stop date for regulation 6 not to apply of 6th April 2024 for work to start. Thus if Regulation 22 disallows Regulation 6 because the work started before October 2023 or plans were submitted before then and starts before 6th April 2024, then the new requirement for the statement doesn't apply.

Yes you can build dormers under PD but they are subject to a volume limit (among other criteria). That volume is above and beyond the original roof. Other alterations to that original roof, say as part of an extension, eat into that volume and thus reduce the amount left for the dormer and may even use it all up so that all subsequent dormers will require planning permission. That is why PD works should be done first, before any approved works, particulary if they may impact on PD rights.

Or more - I have an appeal that was ready for an Inspector's visit as of last February and we are still waiting "for one to become available"....... If your application was validated on the 4th December the decision expected date must be around 4th February? Frankly, these days unless you are weeks over that date it's not considered a problem. If it does drag on then a polite call to their team leader may help at least clarify the situation and give some idea as to schedule.

You're presumably relying on Class B of Part 1 of the PD rules. This allows "the enlargement of a dwelling house consisting of an addition or alteration to it's roof". Has your work created an "enlargement" ? Internal works are not development so do not require any planning approval so the Council have discounted those. I suspect that with no external works you'd be struggling to claim your PD rights have begun when faced with a determined local authority.

I think this was answered in earlier posts - to avoid placing additional load on the neighbour's foundation you ought to be at the same level. If you stop your foundation half way down to theirs you will be adding extra loading. Whether that will actually have an effect in practice who can say. That'll have to be your choice.

I would agree that another window in the flank would be ideal (if not obstructed by the abutting roof line). If not then you have a potential issue for your staircase approach. Paragraph 2.10 sets out the parameters for escape windows. It states that the level of the window should be no more than 1.1m off the floor. This is where your building control body may have an issue or may not - it'll be down to their interpretation whether your landing constitutes a floor. They may or they may not. If they do then that landing should be at least the width of the narrowest part of the stair and have a length again equal or more to the narrowest part of the stair. So arguably a 600mm wide stair with a 600mm x 600mm landing would be ok, although they may then query the headroom. As to the height of the rooflight above the outside ground you will see that para 2.10 doesn't mention that. All this is assuming the bedroom floor is not more than 4.5m above ground level. In all I'd be discussing this asap with building control, explain the listed building status issues and perhaps offer an enhanced fire detection system above and beyond the normal requirement.

So, you have three issues? The cladding, the porch and the parapet - correct? The planners have said they would accept the cladding so park that, what about the parapet? The approach with planners is to avoid bundling up too much at once. If they dislike one thing it can poison the whole lot. First job is to establish exactly what of these changes they would accept. Then consider going back with a revised s73 just on those matters. If it is just the porch I wonder if a retrospective planning application just for that may be worth it - you can then clearly make the case for the accessibility and that may swing the decision back in your favour. Lets see if DevilDamo has any thoughts.

I was referring to the rear brick wall - the one with the fencing on. It looked like you were going to dig along it for the rear foundation. Presumably you have no idea how deep their foundations are?

The relevant bit about depth of gardens etc is on page 15 of the Approved Document to Part B Voilume 1, in particular diagram 2.5. I can't get it to copy so as to post here. However, Regulation 4 (i.e the law, not the advice in an AD) says in paragraph 3): (3) Building work shall be carried out so that, after it has been completed— (a)any building which is extended or to which a material alteration is made; or (b)any building in, or in connection with, which a controlled service or fitting is provided, extended or materially altered; or (c)any controlled service or fitting, complies with the applicable requirements of Schedule 1 or, where it did not comply with any such requirement, is no more unsatisfactory in relation to that requirement than before the work was carried out. The significant bit is "no more unsatisfactory in relation to that requirement than before the work was carried out." So the impact of moving the partition between the two bedrooms, on the original means of escape has to be considered assuming all other parameters haven't changed. I can't see how moving the partition can be said to be making the existing situation more unsatisfactory. Indeed if your new windows are better for escaping through then arguably this is more than adequate compensation. Myself, I'd acknowledge BC's concerns (and they are fair to raise) but politely point out you are not making the situation any worse and hence Regulation 4(3) applies.

7ft deep and 1 ft wide?? as if that could be dug. This solution isn't just a "remedy" it's a lot of engineering. As a flat you will be leasehold and will need approval from the freeholder/management company for that sort of work. There must be a better solution. Out of interest is that return wall shown in picture 3 abutting your kitchen? Is that the worse location for damp?

Well that cladding and the posts are going to stay wet for a good 4 months of the year (although it seems like forever at the moment as it starts raining again...). Even the most robust timber will suffer in time. Not a good detail at all I'm afraid.

One issue you'll have will be rainwater - looks like you'll need gutters at each boundary thus bringing your walls in to accommodate these. This doesn't really need an architect per se. There are a number of surveyors/technicians who prepare plans for extensions like this and get building regs and planning approvals for householders. Most builders know someone who will prepare designs and drawings for potential clients of theirs. Once upon a time the local paper had small ad's for "plans drawn". It's that market you need. Ask friends and neighbours. If you have a builder in mind ask them - you need a "plan drawer" although the skills of most match or exceed many architects particularly as to practicality and interaction with the local authority.

You will see that the photo's do not look like the drawn detail. If the photo's show the "after" job then the potentially damp brickwork is exposed inside the house and will track damp into any lining if no damp proofing is done. As mentioned the cavity needs closing around the opening for fire purposes and this can be done with timber. At the same time a dpc can be fitted between that batten and the brickwork and then tucked behind the door frame. By all means then foam up all the tiny gaps before reinstating the plasterboard lining. You could recess the batten and then fit an insulated closer but with the frame forward of the cavity this will always be a cold bridge.

There are various time scales depending on the type of application. Assuming your's is a minor application then they have 8 weeks to determine it. Beyond that you have the right to appeal against "non-determination". However if you agree to an extension of time then that right is suspended until that time period expires. The Council ought to give you an anticipated time of determination along with that extension of time request. Ultimately if 16 weeks have passed you can get your fee back but you aren't supposed to engineer that by being awkward. Some Councils are just disorganised, others are just awful, many however are actually understaffed and overworked. I find it's best to smile through gritted teeth and go along with it if you can. Conservation teams are often a problem because they live either live in tudor age timescales or the "team" is one person dealing with lots of things (in our own case for several authorities as well). The trouble is if you threaten appeal they're not bothered as it just goes off their desks for a few more months. Perhaps a polite email explaining you've waited a while now and asking for a firm date for determination if you agree to a further extension.

Ditto, presumably the planners used the tree survey to inform themselves on the impact (if any) on the trees caused by your development. Since they did not feel it was necessary to impose any specific condition about the trees then it seems they were satisfied. Again as above, check any particular reference to trees on your approved drawings, in particular any landscaping scheme. However, no doubt as a kind, caring, nature aware type I'm sure you'll take note of the professional advice, but as far as statutory control goes, it's advice.

A few years ago in order to build a deck over very soft wet ground I set short lengths of 4" x 4" treated fence posts into the ground surrounded by post mix. Once cut to the right height I then coach bolted 7" x 2" joists to the faces to make a frame, infilled with smaller joists and decked over. Could you use the same system and just frame your walls off the deck/floor so the hide is essentially sat on timber piles which provide support and anchorage.

Could we substitute "need" for "desire". England is pretty straightforward. If you have habitable rooms in a basement then either bring it's access stair up into a protected hallway with a final exit or provide an alternative escape from the basement.

Where do they get these ideas from? I can just see a group of "like minded" public spirited residents coming together and employing an architect to come up with suggestions as to the sort of development they would like to see on their street. Perhaps not then!