kandgmitchell

At what level is the damp proof course in the inner leaf relative to the bitumen on the floor slab (this would have been used to stick the parquet down as well as give some damp proofing to the slab). If these are at different levels and not linked could the damp be tracking via the floor into the wall?

I think the free re-application now only applies where the original application was decided between 5th December 2022 and 5th December 2023, i.e they are phasing the concession out for new applications.

Well you can go through the percolation test regime then calculate the storage capacity required using the formula in Approved Document H ( page 46) or use the even more painfull BRE Digest 365. Myself I'd speak to your BC officer and agree a sensible volume depending on the ground type. Start at say a metre cube and negotiate. Use crates wrapped in geotextile and surrounded in pea shingle/crushed stone. The crate remains empty ready to fill up with rainwater.

Look at page 24 of Approved Document K - this shows the relevant heights of guarding in various locations. Minimum height of opening windows is 800mm. However, since the addition of Part O - Overheating has been added to the regulations there is an additional complexity. If the window is needed to remove excess heat and has to be open wider than 100mm to achieve that, then the cill height becomes 1100mm (because presumably overheated people are more likely to fall out of a window than cool people??) In simple terms (and not all variables are known here) then you'll need 4% of the bedroom floor area as openable area. You could argue that your velux will provide that and thus the main windows would not be required for that purpose and therefore the original 800mm cill height would be sufficient.

Ditto, don't raise it and react if the planners bring it up.

These will be party fence walls at best (i.e shared between two owners) party walls separate buildings. I agree with markc, these walls will have no dpc, probably half a brick thick with piers at intervals. You'll have no control on what happens on the otherside even if it's just lack of maintenance and all the pointing falls out.

English regs say in AD B Volume 1 - Dwellings Section 1: Fire detection and alarm systems General provisions 1.1 All dwellings should have a fire detection and alarm system, minimum Grade D2 Category LD3 (see diagram below as an illustration) standard, in accordance with the relevant recommendations of BS 5839-6. Should however you have the standard Grand Designs house: Large dwellinghouses 1.5 A large dwellinghouse has more than one storey, and at least one storey exceeds 200m2. 1.6 A large dwellinghouse of two storeys (excluding basement storeys) should be fitted with a Grade A Category LD3 fire detection and alarm system, as described in BS 5839-6. 1.7 A large dwellinghouse of three or more storeys (excluding basement storeys) should be fitted with a Grade A Category LD2 fire detection and alarm system as described in BS 5839-6. LD3 Minimum Protection Escape routes only Escape routes only Category LD3: A system incorporating detectors in all circulation areas that form part of the escape routes from the premises. • Hallway • Landing Note: This minimum category now only applies to owner occupied bungalow, flat, single-storey unit or maisonette with no floor level above 4.5m from ground level or owner-occupied two-storey house.

I'd second this as an approach. It may be useful to share the exact description of work on the original approval. Presumably there is a condition stating you must build as per plans reference...... So it may be that all(!) is required is an application to vary that condition so as to accept amended plans showing a basement. A particular court case: Vue Entertainment v City of York Council may illustrate this. The original approval for a leaisure development included a "multi-screen cinema" and one condition was that the cinema was to have 12 screens and 2000 total capacity. An application to vary that condition to a 13 screen 2,400 capacity, originally refused, was eventually found lawful by the High Court because the original approval description was not being changed by the Section 73 application (which cannot be done) as it had simply said "multi-screen cinema" on said approval. In a similar way I had to revise a warehouse approval because preparation works on site found a previously unknown 400mm water main (??). The building had to be shortened by 3m. This was dealt with by applying to vary the condition requiring the scheme to be built to the specified approved plans and substituting revised drawings showing the alterations, as the original description of warehouse hadn't changed. Would this not avoid any CIL issues whilst confirming your basement is lawful ( again on the assumption that the approval doesn't say "dwelling house of x square metres floor area etc").

Your ceiling should be the same as the others in the house - not sure how many storeys but it's going to be at least modified half hour. Plasterboard and skim will give that. The floor isn't a compartment floor so there is no specific requirement to fire stop a penetration but I'd make the hole for the cables as small as possible and foam up the spaces left. If they are surface mounted in the cupboard presumably they'd be in a trunking so as to look neat.

It is interesting that the crumbling section lies between two dressed details - the stone cill above and the string course below. The cill also has a crack in it above the worst weathering. There doesn't seem to be much overhang on the cill and the string course seems to have a flat top edge. These may conspire to keep the stone panel between the two wetter than the rest of the wall. The crack in the cill will also feed water into the top edge of the stone and then freeze thaw action gets to work. Be interesting to know if other matching properties in the street suffer the same issue. Curing the problem would certainly start with filling that crack in the cill. Beyond that you can't really change the cill and string course. It may be a job for a mason to cut out the face of the worst block and insert a shallow facing stone. Might be worth having one look at it. Lime is more porous but then it allows the water to evaporate again. Think of lime as an overcoat that gets wet then dries off whilst cement is like a plastic mac. It holds back the rain but once water gets inside it it can't get out.

So what will be your reasons for amending or removing the condition?

No doubt the purpose of the original condition was to ensure there was sufficient parking on site. As part of the application I would add a blockplan showing that even without the garage being available there was still adequate parking within the site. Ideally I would look up the relevant car parking standard for your size of house (i.e number of spaces for bedroom number) and show how you still satisfy that standard once the garage is discounted.

Not quite as easy as it looks. You have trussed rafters which are lightweight factory made frames which distribute loads within themselves and are further strengthened by being part of an overall structure braced with horizontal and diagonal members. You cannot simply cut away the inconvenient bits. The principle you show may be possible but it will need to be designed by a structural engineer to ensure it doesn't all come apart at the seams......

I don't think this sort of thing really worries buyers that much. Lots of houses have unauthorised things done to them over the years and they still sell. As the years pass, a buyers view of the situation will change. There is zero chance of the authority taking action (see above), the building hasn't suffered damage and so a buyer will be quite relaxed about the situation and will take a view. There'll be other matters they will be more interested in - location, size, appearance, schools etc etc. I really can't see this being an issue after so many years. Don't let it put you off if you like the house, and avoid regularisation; it'll be a pain for no real gain.

Depends a bit on the the planning permission. You may have obtained a valuable addition to the house which may enhance it's value at a later date. As for now if you just use it for family purposes then so be it. No-one comes and checks what it is actually used for after completion. As for council tax the local authority merely sends out the demands. It is the Valuation Office Agency that determines your house's banding for the council to use. As far as I can see it is a case of referring yourself to them for re-banding. Looking at their website unless that annexe is entirely self contained (which I doubt the planning gives approval for) I don't think you have to worry.

So, just to clarify. This is a loft conversion within a traditional pitched roof dwelling. When you say "flat glass roof lights" where would would these be fitted, horizontally on dormer roofs or are we talking "velux" style rooflights in the slopes? Again I presume the proposed 3m wide doors fold inwards with a glass balustrade externally. That balustrade will need structural design for a 3m width. A little clarification will allow others to comment further.

Really? The works were done over 20 years ago. If nothing has happened to the structure over that period is it likely to happen now? When you sell your buyer will be looking back over nearly 30 years and will have the same decision to make i.e there is no piece of paper relating to works done which have had no physical impact on the property. Like others above I'd not worry about getting this regularised. If you like the house and it's in a good location then it'll sell again.

Cheers for the advice - will do.

Work on my insulated raft starts on the 8th. So that's 150mm xps with a 250mm slab (more insulation on top). Through this slab are a number of drain connections and various ducts for power, ASHP etc. These have to be located accurately for the timber frame to be placed. I need to form 200mm x 200mm square ducts for the ducts (if you follow). I'll make up some 19mm ply boxes to form permanent shuttering in the slab to do that. This is what the frame suppliers require. Now the query: Do I just shutter the concrete depth or both concrete and insulation? The latter has the advantage of being able to secure the shuttered duct accurately as it will be held by the thickness of the insulation and cannot be displaced by the concrete. However, that leaves ply in contact with the sub-base stone and basically a 200mm x 200mm hole through the dpm under the slab (although there'll be another ontop of the slab). It also allows some flexibility in moving the duct/drain a little if needed. I could then fill the whole thing with expanded foam before the screed and UFH goes in. The former however cuts down on a cold spot plus the dpm can be tightly wrapped around the drain/duct. But you have to get a not very flexible duct positioned just right through the insulation first time and 50mm electric duct is a bu...er to control. You then have to make sure the concrete doesn't move the timber box, so that's some form of pegging. Thoughts?

Well it was for ladder rescue, not necessarily by the fire brigade. Siting at max 1.7m up the roof slope would almost certainly involve some access onto the roof slope to reach a ladder set against the original house eaves. I was perhaps over stating the "toes in the gutter" for dramatic effect, but I would still not like to be getting out that way rather than rely on a protected stairway!

Had the same thing with an application for an LDC for an extension on a warden's house on a scout camp site. I had shown a covered area with a floor and open sides as requested so that canoes and other gear could be dried under cover. The council refused the LDC citing that it was a veranda. From what I can remember I put walls up resubmitted and got approval. The scouts then didn't bother with the walls. Madness.

I used a cheap scissor type pipe cutter for my mdpe that I had bought when I was putting in some interior plastic heating pipe. It worked fine - just needed a bit more effort.

Just be aware these things can bite you and very hard. I recall a case in 2002 of a small baptist chapel getting permission to be converted to a dwelling. It was the usual rural chapel kind of thing - corrugated sheeting on a timber frame. A fair amount of upgrading had been agreed with the planners but essentially it was a conversion. However, the owner went too far, taking down the frame (because he said it was rotten) and re-building the walls in blockwork along with a new roof. The Council served an enforcement notice saying that this was now a new building not a conversion. Being in the green belt it was not appropriate development. The owner went to appeal and lost. The Inspector stated that the original planning chapter had been closed by the extent of the works and what was now there had to be viewed as something different. The owner wasn't allowed to re-instate the original building and had to completely demolish all the new work. He was however allowed to retain the original concrete floor slab. To date that concrete slab still sits on an empty overgrown plot.

Yup, extra expense to consider at this stage as presumably you wouldn't want to throw the doors you fit to a 2 storey house away when you convert the loft. I'd say fit them now as it means the means of escape windows on the first floor aren't strictly needed as you'll have a protected stairway (but still nice to have). The days of allowing means of escape via windows from the second floor have gone. Can you imagine hanging by your fingertips, laying on the roof tiles with feet in the gutter waiting for a fire engine to come and get you out of the smoke with flames licking around your toes ....Just think of your kids or your granny!

Could you use two of these to insert some blue MDPE between them and then put a standard blue mdpe T piece in to your blue? https://store.jdpipes.co.uk/plasson-plass4-universal-coupling/