kandgmitchell

Make sure that you have at least 2.0m headroom where the new stairs arrive on the second floor for an area = width of stairs x width of stairs

I spent ages building a brickwork BBQ - made an arch former and incorporated a lovely arch feature in the base. Used a really old, thick concrete paving slab as the top, where the charcoal sat. Built a brickwork perimeter off that where the grills could slot in. The first time I used it the slab cracked completely through front to back and shifted the perimeter brickwork. Ho hum!

Well I feel sorry for the poor sod who'll end up being the only one left paying for everyone's electricity use.......

I agree, we've basically been working with a system set up by the 1936 Public Health Act and tweaked a bit by the 1984 Building Act where an applicant was only "giving notice of an intention to build" . A council (as it was then) could refuse an application but that didn't stop work going ahead if the applicant wanted as long as work on site complied. That was all well when things were simple and building methods were traditional. Now we have really complex regulations about saving energy, electric vehicles, gigabyte infrastructure and goodness knows what else. You can't check that on site standing in the rain and mud.

Not really surprised by the LA reaction, it's hard enough getting a response about a current application let alone on one that's only speculation. As above, first stop is the Council's local plan, look for that on their planning pages within their website. It will set out their policies assessing planning applications. Look for commercial development in the countryside, diversification, protection of natural resources etc. Try to think along the lines of "would this proposed use satisfy this policy?" Usually I'd be trying to show that it does, you need to do the reverse. Think impact of car parking, noise and disturbance within the woodland, impact on your own amenity etc. If possible align these concerns with the appropriate policy. If the proposal can be shown to contravene sufficient local plan policies it will fail.

But if the developer is the builder, should building control be liable for the error that builder makes on their own project. "The author of their own misfortune" really. That's not to excuse building control for not picking this up at an earlier stage (but maybe they did?). I've worked on both sides of the fence, local authority and private building control as well as designing and submitting to them. You would be amazed at the lack of detail often submitted for approval - just the planning drawings if you are lucky, it then becomes like drawing teeth to get sufficient detail to check the scheme properly whilst all the time the builder is rushing ahead and the client is blissfully unaware. Then, when finally you get the info you need, it's your fault that things have to change on site - the cry of "why didn't you pick this up earlier" comes from both the builder and client. It's a thankless task at times.....

This area around Cambridge is a real hot spot. Completely new towns are being built, estates of a 1000 houses are going through the planning system. We drove through the village where we used to live last weekend after visiting friends. Just outside, running along a road between the A11 and A505 was hundreds of metres of herras fencing. Behind it the Wellcome Trust are extending their Genome Campus along with 1,500 homes, 150,000m2 of commercial, a school, hotel etc etc. Not far down the M11 they've put a whole new junction in merely to serve the proposed housing developments to the north of Harlow. The pace of development in that area is amazing. No wonder Building Control is stretched - how can all of this be checked, there simply aren't the resources, multiply that across the country you can see why things get missed.

They have had to go back to planning committee to get the demolition process added to the reserved matters approvals for the method statements for construction (as presumably they only allowed for building them, not knocking them down). The proposed method statement includes for demolishing the structure whilst salvaging as much as possible for re-use. It also mentions grubbing out the foundations with all brickwork/concrete being crushed on site and re-used to fill voids and for piling mats. The attached plan (presented to committee so in the public domain) shows the plots to be taken down but interestingly refers to adjacent piled houses remaining. It therefore seems to be a situation where some were piled and are ok but some had traditional foundations and are not. There are no specific details probably because someone's PI insurance is going to get a very big hit. plan.pdf

Mmmm, "eco-tourism holiday let". Is it wise to open up a potential can of worms for uninformed councillors to latch onto and take the discussion up a completely different path? Suddenly it becomes about extra traffic, noise from holiday parties, even fireworks etc etc. They are like sheep, when one starts the others follow and suddenly you find they've forgotten what they are supposed to be considering. If the holiday let is a clear part of the planning application then I'd mention the annexe in passing as simply an opportunity to exhibit the methods used in the build. If the holiday let hasn't been mentioned before then I wouldn't raise it at all. A wise old planner told me that there two things that should never be seen by the public - making sausages and committees making planning decisions......

80m2 x 50mm = 4m3 x £138 +vat = £662 - that's about 100 London pints

In my minds eye I see a horizontal "picture frame" 20m x 6.5m with a post on each corner. I can't however see how each splice in the 20m beams will also be located over the corners of the atrium. This will need scoping by an engineer because there is so much here that can't be done easily on a domestic scale. No snow load? is this in Dubai?

A is good (A1 is non-combustible) F is bad - easily combustible. So an A rated plasterboard is better than the requirement for a C rated surface. Knuaf class their board as A2 which is limited combustibility probably because of the paper surface. Do not confuse spread of flame classifications such as these with fire resistance. That's something else. The BCO is saying your ceiling should resist the potential for a flame to spread across the surface to an equivalent standard of at least C-s3, d2. So thats C - limited contribution to fire, then s3 relates to smoke generation in this case emissions with a high volume intensity (scale is s1 to s3). Then d2 which refers to the tendency of the surface to produce burning droplets (scale d0 to d2). D2 is the tendency to produce high/intense dripping droplets. So your ceiling must be better than one that has a limited contribution to fire, produces high volumes of smoke and produces high/intense levels of droplets. Well a plasterboarded ceiling will have an A2 limited combustibility rating (as per Knauf), probably has a s1 rating (emissions absent or very limited) and a d0 droplet rating (no burning droplets). I can't see why a BCO should ever query a plasterboard ceiling when tested against the C-s3, d2 classification required by Table 4.1 of requirement B2. It's way better than that.

Thanks for the heads up. I've got an AFT quote which is dear for the insulation units but uses less concrete and steel compared to my SE's design and a Greenraft quote which utilisies my SE's design but is a couple of grand cheaper for the units. Bewi who make the Jackon system have yet to come back with a figure so I'll try these guys.

Well that's well over 30m2 floor area. It'll need a building reg application so design and calcs for the foundations. Given that the house is yet to be given planning approval you may want the flexibility of not having garage foundations set in concrete so to speak... The crossover may be worth at least getting a quote on to compare with what will be substantial foundation works.

And be aware that if this is over 30m2 it'll need a building regulation application submitted. The piling will need designing by an engineer and approved by BC. You can't really do a "small section" of piling 'cos the rig and site set up etc loads a lot of the cost. Spread over many piles it's not so bad but for a few then it'll be an expensive hobby - that's if you can interest a piling co in doing it.

So how do they mainatin their gable wall at present? Climb onto your roof to reach the one floor level above yours? If you move your building 1.5m away, then the neighbour's wall will certainly not be a party wall whatever the present arrangement is. If they needed access for maintenance, and it was refused by you or any subsequent owner, the neighbour could resort to the Access to Neighbouring Land Act 1992 and get an order allowing them access for essential maintenance.

That sounds right - the planning portal handling charge is going up all the time and adds a hefty chunk onto the smaller statutory fees.

Thanks for the replies. I'll look into flying ends - didn't know they were a thing. Definately going to do the tie wires with loops though.

My SE has specified splice bars for the mesh in my raft slab rather than overlap the mesh. He makes the point that overlapping can reduce the cover. However we're talking 268 of them at 800mm long and 10mm dia. Apart from 214m of 10mm bar there's all that wiring into place..... Thoughts?

Not half!!

So after all that not building control then. Planning enforcement instead. Obviously reacting to neighbours' compliants that work is underway. If the retaining wall is of sufficient scale to be "engineering works" then it requires planning permission. If it is shown on your planning application then what is said in the letter is fair. You are starting at your own risk. If that piece of paper doesn't materialise or turns up as a refusal after all (never trust verbal assurances of approval) then what is currently an informal warning could become something more unpleasant. Personally I'd respond to enforcement explaining you having to do some work to stabilise the ground but you will now wait until formal approval arrives. Always best to engage if only to delay action from the other side!

I'm still confused as to the involvement of Building Control. The Building Regulations refer to the noun i.e buildings rather than the verb "to build". Regulation 2 defines a building and excludes " any other structure or erection" so if this is a free standing retaining wall that's not part of a building then BC have no formal interest at all (although I know of at least one local authority that uses BC as foot soldiers for their planners - it avoids those in ivory towers getting their feet wet).

I'd stick to residential (dwelling houses) and enlargement, improvement or alterations as an LDC should be half the normal flat rate fee (so £103 now I think) . If you go off into "other" it'll be complicated as the fees are worked out differently. Ultimately the Council will check the fee and query/refund if it's wrong.

Interesting, the final design is issued now. 250mm slab after all, two layers of A393 mesh plus cages along external walls and internal load bearing walls with 6 No. 16mm bars, 3 top 3 bottom. 8mm links at 200mm cntrs plus 10mm tie bars back to the mesh at 200mm cntrs all around. Think I need to brush up my steel fixing skills...... Timber frame with UFH laid in insulation on that slab. Will take up recommendations here and speak to them about this.

Many thanks - that's what I thought about the ease of installation. Mine's a 1 1/2 storey timber frame with rendered EWI. We live on site and I didn't want the mess of traditional mass fill which is a bit overkill for timber frame. Will give AFT a call thanks.