kandgmitchell

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!

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.