kandgmitchell

Well the planners didn't think this one up themselves. There would be some consultation with the local fire authority on that file somewhere. Find that on-line and see what the FA actually said. Then track down the officer who did the consult and have a chat with them. I've found most fire officers helpful. See what alternatives they can suggest. You will need to take note of B5 in the Building Regulations (where 100m is mentioned) and the Approved Document gives the option of "any other water supply that the local fire and rescue service considers appropriate". So early discussions would be useful on both counts.

Well BS 5628 Code of Practice for the Use of Masonry says: 5.5.7.4 Weepholes Weepholes should be formed through the outer leaf immediately above the cavity tray. These may be formed in the vertical cross joints at intervals not greater than 1 m. There should be not less than two weepholes over each opening. Proprietary devices may be installed to form weepholes. They may be designed to drain the cavity but prevent the ingress of wind-driven rain. Weepholes need not be provided if walls have a rendered external surface finish. I think this situation is frustrating for any customer of the construction industry. You have the designer, the constructor and the certifier and it still goes wrong. Part of the problem is every project is a "prototype". Another is the separation of the functions; in contrast for instance, a car company designs, sources and manufactures within it's own direct control. It then gets lots of goes at fine tuning the product to get it right. Construction tends to have different people who often don't talk to each other but nevertheless assume the "other" is looking after the detail. Once the one off build is done it's the customer who is left to find out what mistakes have been made. How you prevent this kind of thing happening? Well the new Building Safety Act is a nod in that direction but I can't see this sort of simple error will ever be eradicated. It's gone on forever - they never did get that roof on Stonehenge despite getting the money up front!

Up to 6m or within 6m? The Party Wall Act does include a requirement to serve notice if your are excavating for foundations within 6m of adjoining properties if your excavation will intersect a line drawn at 45 degrees down from that neighbours foundations. Deep piling could well do that. I'd need to check my references if this is driven piles as no doubt there have been court cases to determine whether that is "excavating". Could be worth a quick google for a local party wall surveyor and asking the question.

Well as they say ...it's another country up there!....

Agreed. Make sure your application for a certificate of lawfulness (and I wouldn't build the garage without one) makes it absolutely clear where the principal elevation is and hence the garage is in the "back" garden. Add all the info you have and go for it. Good luck.

The Building Act 1984 doesn't apply to Scotland. However, if classed as a "building" in England it would be exempt as being less than 15m2 floor area. Note that in England you will have to comply with the Regulatory Reform (Fire Precautions) Order 1995 as it is a holiday let. Don't know how Scotland views this though. For interest the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 defines a caravan as: “caravan” means any structure designed or adapted for human habitation which is capable of being moved from one place to another (whether by being towed, or by being transported on a motor vehicle or trailer) and any motor vehicle so designed or adapted, but does not include— (a) any railway rolling stock which is for the time being on rails forming part of a railway system, or (b) any tent; The Caravan Sites Act 1968 seems to suggest a "caravan" has to be able to be lawfully moved from one place to another on a highway whether that be being towed or transported on a vehicle or trailer as it excludes twin units because they can't. If your hut can be physically lifted onto a truck and moved to another location then that's a good argument for being a caravan.

Is the OP in England or Scotland?

However, Section 121 of the Building Act 1984 says: 121Meaning of “building”. (1)The word “building”, for the purposes of— (a)Part I of this Act, and (b)any other enactment (whether or not contained in this Act) that relates to building regulations, or that mentions “buildings” or “a building” in a context from which it appears that those expressions are there intended to have the same meaning as in Part I of this Act, means any permanent or temporary building, and, unless the context otherwise requires, it includes any other structure or erection of whatever kind or nature (whether permanent or temporary). (2)In subsection (1) above, “structure or erection” includes a vehicle, vessel, hovercraft, aircraft or other movable object of any kind in such circumstances as may be prescribed (being circumstances that in the opinion of the [F1appropriate national authority] justify treating it for those purposes as a building). (3)For the purposes mentioned in subsection (1) above, unless the context otherwise requires— (a)a reference to a building includes a reference to part of a building and (b)a reference to the provision of services, fittings and equipment in or in connection with buildings, or to services, fittings and equipment so provided, includes a reference to the affixing of things to buildings or, as the case may be, to things so affixed.

Frankly I would argue that Condition 2 fails at least two of the 6 tests that conditions have to satisfy to be valid, if used to control the gym. These tests are: Necessary, Relevant to planning, Relevant to the development to be permitted, Enforceable, Precise, and , Reasonable in all other respects. Is control of the use of the rooms within a dwelling "necessary" and is it "enforceable"? Why would it matter in planning terms if the gym space was used as an art room, a yoga space, a store room or a spare bedroom? Equally how would the planning authority find out what the space was used for and enforce the condition? Clearly the condition is unnecessary and unenforceable when used to control the internal use of rooms. For the planners to suggest they will not consider room uses because they have been "fixed" by the condition is stretching things just a bit too far... Furthermore, Section 55 of the Town and Country Planning Act makes it quite clear that works affecting the interior of a building do not constitute development for the purposes of the Act. That condition cannot be used to prevent future internal alterations especially if not relevant to the original approval. However, AliG sums up the situation for you in their last post. That gym window was always at risk being so close to the boundary and the upper rooms have double aspect windows. It may be a lost cause I'm afraid.

Those without shoes can walk on the grass. Like that a lot.

This works best on an older house where the new works in effect reflect an improvement despite the windows. On a much newer house it gets harder to justify.

I'd second that. The dwelling is the planning unit and a home gym and a home office are both legitimate uses within a dwelling so you can use it for either. Converting a garage to a gym/office would only require permission if the garage use was secured by a condition for parking purposes. But that is bye the bye , Temp is right, make it clear to the planners that the development will have a significant impact on your use of the room as it stands at present. Ask if they can request that the developer carries out an impact assessment on light levels to this room, prior to them considering the application. Speak to your councillor to help put pressure on the planners to consider the situation.

Have a look at page 8 of the Approved Document to Part E, in particular E2. It'll be applicable to new floors and walls being constructed not existing. Note also the exemptions to the right side for particular walls. You need an airbourne sound resistance of 40db for your new internal walls. Looking at Knauf's details their 12.5mm wallboard with 97 metal studs and 25mm insulation gives 42dB. Your studwork will be at least as good as that. There's no requirement for testing anyway. The masonry wall will well exceed the requirements.

Well get ready to follow paragraph 10.10 of Approved Document L1 because you will not comply with 10.7(d)..... Extension of a dwelling 10.7 When a dwelling is extended, elements should satisfy all of the following. a. New thermal elements should meet the standards in Table 4.2 and paragraph 4.7. b. Replacement thermal elements should meet the standards in Table 4.2 and paragraph 4.8. c. New windows, roof windows, rooflights and doors should meet the standards in Table 4.2. d. The total area of windows, roof windows, rooflights and doors in extensions should not exceed the sum of the following. i. 25% of the floor area of the extension. ii. The total area of any windows and doors which no longer exist or are no longer exposed due to the extension. e. Existing fabric elements that will become thermal elements should meet the limiting standards in Table 4.3 by following the guidance in paragraphs 11.2 to 11.4. 10.8 When a dwelling is extended, any fixed building services or on-site electricity generation that are provided or extended should comply with the guidance in Sections 5 and 6. 10.9 As an alternative approach to paragraph 10.7, the area-weighted U-value of all thermal elements in the extension should be shown to not exceed the area-weighted U-value of an extension of the same size and shape that complies with paragraph 10.7. The area-weighted U-value is given by the following expression. [(U1 × A1) + (U2 × A2) + (U3 × A3) + …] (A1 + A2 + A3 + …) Where: U1 = the U-value of element type 1 A1 = the area of element type 1 and so on. 10.10 As an alternative approach to paragraphs 10.7 or 10.9, the Standard Assessment Procedure may be used to show that the dwelling primary energy rate, the dwelling emission rate and the dwelling fabric energy efficiency rate for the dwelling and proposed extension do not exceed those for the dwelling plus a notional extension. The notional extension should be the same size and shape as the proposed extension and comply with paragraph 10.7. The openings in the notional extension should conform with paragraph 10.7d, with the door area set as equal to the door area of the proposed extension and the remainder of the openings being classified as windows. NOTE: Where the performance of elements of the existing dwelling is unknown, data in the Standard Assessment Procedure Appendix S should be used to estimate the performance.

Now being put on the spot I've read that lease term again - it's in three parts: (13) Not at any time during the said term without the license in writing of the Lessor... to make any alteration in plan or elevation of the maisonette building hereby demised or in any of the party walls or the principal or bearing walls or timbers thereof... (my emphasis). So you cannot, without a licence make any alteration in plan or elevation, or make any alteration in plan of any of the party walls etc. Now I've added a comma in places and it makes it easier to read. The legal people avoid commas deliberately but it does make things harder to follow for the rest of us. That term can be read to mean that removing the cupboard walls is an alteration in plan of the maisonette building and thus needs a licence. If it was me I'd send a simple polite letter with a copy of your surveyors opinion and bathroom plan and make the point no loadbearing walls are involved without specifically referring to the lease - as a courtesy perhaps. See what comes back. If it's a "that looks nice - good luck" then I'd say that's your licence.

Could you not swap the wc and the basin so the new wc uses the existing wc waste (which I assume goes into the floor) and the basin uses the ex. basin waste route so no alteration at all to the external wall. If the cupboard wall is non-loadbearing then no need to involve the leaseholder.

The west elevation being designated as the principal elevation will be of no use, as then the north elevation will be a side. If you are in a conservation area then: E.3 In the case of any land within the curtilage of the dwellinghouse which is article 2(3) land, development is not permitted by Class E if any part of the building, enclosure, pool or container would be situated on land between a wall forming a side elevation of the dwellinghouse and the boundary of the curtilage of the dwellinghouse. If the south is the principal elevation then the north elevation is the rear and the above doesn't apply. The technical guidance states: Principal elevation: in most cases the principal elevation will be that part of the house which fronts (directly or at an angle) the main highway serving the house (the main highway will be the one that sets the postcode for the house concerned). It will usually contain the main architectural features such as main bay windows or a porch serving the main entrance to the house. Usually, but not exclusively, the principal elevation will be what is understood to be the front of the house. There will only be one principal elevation on a house. Where there are two elevations which may have the character of a principal elevation, for example on a corner plot, a view will need to be taken as to which of these forms the principal elevation. From your description the obvious choice would be the west but with the north being a closely argued alternative. If you need to persuade both the planners and an Inspector to accept the south as the obvious principal elevation you may need to "enhance" matters to make it much more of what the man in the street would describe as the front (entrance door, letter plate, doorbell, house name etc).

Ok for the master en-suite then - just watch the length of the basin waste - you may need an anti-syphonic trap to stop it gargling. You don't want to "Y" on the guest room WC to the cloakroom run as you'll have a junction under the floor with no access (other than taking off the pan) as a rod will just push straight past when introduced from the IC. Take that WC out to the IC direct. The shower depends on the type of tray you are fitting, as running a 40mm waste through a floor slab given the tendency to "slime" up with hair and soap etc never seems a good idea. As for connections to stacks see Diagram 2 in the Approved Document H as well (your BCO will have!).

Alan's right - some LPA's will discuss queries with you. Others are in such a state that they will take no amendments whatsoever and one is quite open that even simple domestic extensions will take 12 weeks to determine so feel free to go to appeal.... Personally I'd apply for the house with the LPA's amount of parking shown and then apply for the garage once the house is secured. Two applications I know but planning can be a bit like a chess game at times! Again, pre-application discussions vary. Some LPA's are good, prompt and stand by their officer's opinions (assuming councillors do not get involved), others take forever and the advice they give is so thin you'd have been better just giving an application a shot. State of local government today I'm afraid.

This begs the questions: How is the master en-suite drained? How are the guest wc and shower drained? There needs to be a basin in the cloakroom wc. Normally the head of the run is vented direct to atmosphere. You could run the kitchen gulley across under the building to connect to one of the side IC's Ground floor showers connected to stacks can be a problem as the waste can hit the stack in the bend area if it's not properly planned. You could raise the tray and use a manifold or if against an outside wall pop the waste out to a gully as just two of several alternatives. Never have liked rodding eyes on stacks. By the time you know it's blocked the level could be well above that eye and opening it into your house isn't nice! With an external IC you should be able to rod right into that bend to clear it.

This is from Part B means of escape from flats. Escape from the ground storey 3.15 All habitable rooms (excluding kitchens) should have either of the following. a. An opening directly onto a hall leading to a final exit. b. An emergency escape window or door, as described in paragraph 3.6. (my bold) Your arrangement would comply without the door marked

I'd agree; what's the worst that can happen - someone turns up and says "you should have told us". If the pipe is a direct replacement for the size and is stronger then there's not a lot they can say....

Cars? By the time the planners have approved the schemes the powers that be will have us all cycling around our "15 minute" cities wearing hand knitted jumpers made on our own hand looms using wool from the sheep grazing on all the green spaces promised and shown on artist's impressions of all new developments. Cars will be for authorised users only on production of the appropriate permit. Oh hang on got confused....that last bit was soviet russia not green policy. Sorry.

Well to get to an appeal situation you will need either a refusal (which will at least crystalise the issue at dispute) or be beyond the determination date. I guess if the planners have clearly told you they will not let have what you want, then as soon as the date on your acknowledgement letter has passed go for a non-determination appeal. You could try the "well I'll go to appeal if you refuse this" approach but frankly they get paid every month whether you appeal or not so it rarely works. You could try getting your local councillor have the application referred to the planning committee (procedures for this vary between authorities) - odd decisions do get made there. However, all this takes time (and blood pressure!). Good luck.

Well you can't lose anything by trying !