kandgmitchell

Well I'd just prepare a simple layout drawing using the build out as my reference for the highway edge, use the 2.0m "X" distance ( Manual for the Streets para 7.7.7) then use the 25m "Y" distance and show that. Could you widen your drive so as to push the centre line away from the neighbour's hedge and thus improve the splay? Good luck - I'm arguing one where planning was refused on the basis that the vision splay of 56m wasn't shown in both directions as per guidance etc etc. The access is onto a one way street so I'm not sure why that's needed? Upon pointing this out Highways " are considering the matter" but another application will be needed!

Be aware appeals can be slow. There is a "standard" procedure to get through first where documents are exchanged between the parties. That runs to a set timescale of 8 weeks or so. Then comes the allocation to an individual Inspector. These Inspectors can come from well out of the area. I met one in deepest commuter Buckinghamshire who lived north of York and another in Essex who came from Nottingham. I suspect the Inspectorate wait until a number of appeals in an area makes it viable to allocate them to an Inspector who makes all the site visits across a couple of days. I'm helping someone with an appeal in north Essex that was ready for it's site inspection in February and it still hasn't been done. All I'm saying is an appeal may get you the decision you want but don't assume it's a quick process for bypassing an obstructive planner.................

I agree - you're going to struggle with Dri-Therm 32 or similar in a 100mm cavity - using lightweight aircrete blocks as the inner leaf you will still need a 35mm plasterboard/insulation laminate. There are many U value calculators on manufacturers websites. Try out other combinations but rigid in the cavity is usually the way now but I agree 10mm air space is a big ask.

I'd argue it's all about protecting the pipe from damage. A minimum depth of 600mm in fields is there to prevent farm machinery from affecting the drain. However, a drain laid under a garden path outside the back door of a house is much less likely to come to harm. So arguably Table 10 in Part H wouldn't apply to my second scenario. The 300mm figure for drains I think arises from Diagram 10 which shows the bedding arrangements. I would have thought that was perfectly acceptable in residential gardens with no car loading. As for freezing, well all the external gulleys would have their traps frozen before the drain becomes a problem and most foul sewers are quite warm from hot water, washing machines, dishwashers etc discharging into them. I've usually found upon lifting a cover, that drains smell of washing powder rather than what most people think they ought of......

Be aware that "openness" in the green belt for planners is not so much about long views but lack of "clutter". They tend to like buildings grouped together rather than spead out and "dotted" about. That'll explain their desire to see you keep the garage closer to the house. The open view for you and the "openness" for them will then be between the garage and the side boundary. I do like DevilDamo's idea though.....

Go on the website of your local sewerage provider - Thames Water, Anglian Water etc and head to the developer pages. There you will find information about building over or near sewers. "Build over" is a bit confusing as it's not just the pipe itself but the 3m zone either side. Most providers now do a "self certification" approach where as long as you meet all the criteria set out then you can proceed (subject to normal building control requirements for drainage) without a formal build over agreement. If your proposal doesn't qualify for self-certification then they'll expect to see plans of how the pipe relates to the proposal, depth of the pipe, foundation arrangements, etc etc. There's a fee involved and you'll have to wait for their approval.

B785 has 10mm bars 100mm apart and 8mm cross bars 200mm apart, so it looks like the SE expected the slab to span further in one direction than the other. I wouldn't swap it for an A mesh which has the same bar thickness set equidistant in both directions without checking with the SE first (albeit proving hard to do).

If this is new work then check out Part A of the Building Regulations. To fall into the simple guidance a wall should not be longer than 12m between buttressing walls and the enclosed space should not be more than 70m2. That is not to say your proposal will not be OK but it will be up to you to prove it is - usually via a structural engineer.

Ah but those cores will not tell me much more than the 25m x 1.8 and 5m x 1.8 "trial holes" illustrated when they were looking for King Alfred.....

Our plot is basically a bit of unused agricultural field. It's triangular in shape and probably got left over when the main rectangular body of the field was sold off. Over the years it became overgrown with a lot of self seeded trees and scrub. It slopes down to a drainage ditch. When the landowner applied for outline planning they cleared many of the small self seeded trees central to the plot leaving the more mature trees around the edge. It then took them a good 5 years to gain outline approval and we now have full planning. As the site is near the medieval village church we had to have an archaeological excavation done. Whilst they found no artifacts they did see a "buried top soil layer which may be remains of a medieval ridge and furrow surface". This lay about 900mm down. The strata below this level looked the same as that above (it's a moderate plasticity silty clay) So, there has been change in ground level - probably some attempt to terrace the ground and reduce the slope but it certainly isn't recent, given the tree cover that was cleared and from talking to locals. Now, in one corner the foundations will be influenced by a retained tree to the extent of making the foundations 1.4m deep but NHBC Chapter 4.2 says for existing trees that is measured from original ground level. Well, if that is the extant ground then it's 1.4m but if that's the medieval layer then it's 2.3m - a bit of a difference! Hence my query, at 1.4m I'd be some 300mm into the original sub-strata below the medieval soil but not technically 1.4m below it. Can a ground layer ever achieve the status of "original" for the purposes of Chapter 4.2 ?

Just check if the planning authority has any "Supplementary Planning Guidance" regarding design of development/extensions etc. These often give quite specific guidance on privacy distances and how they differ for different arrangements of windows etc. I would expect the LPA to at least stick to it's own guidance but then it may not help you of course if it allows shorter distances. I get the feeling that planners only view bungalows as having a relationship to the boundary at ground level and tend to overlook (no pun intended!) the impact from adjacent first floors.

These days it's almost a lottery with building control. My local authority has only 2 officers to cover a huge geographic area so I just can't use them - I'm going private for this project. In other areas such as Hertfordshire and parts of Norfolk local authorities have grouped together to form what are almost private style organisations. They have lost the local touch and in cases it can be rare to get continuity of officer out to site. I'd say unless you have a relationship with a particular private firm then if the LA has it's own officers and is reasonably well staffed then I'd go with them. If you and your area has neither then the best way forward is to ask around on local building sites to see what experience they have. The same process as finding any contractor I suppose. Treat it in the same way.

Of course the Approved Inspector will not be employed by the local authority which employs the planners so that'll be a long corridor....................

Your sketch appears to show the first spindle about half way between the first tread in the flight (Step 2 ) and the second tread (Step 3). If that total rise at that point isn't more than 600mm then it's Ok in E & W, however the NI regs may be different......

Going "deeper" doesn't mean the ridge would automatically be higher - it's a function of span and pitch so turning the direction of span across the narrower width may actually result in a lower ridge. Planners are almost certainly going to want you to respect the nature of the surrounding properties in scale, form and materials but that doesn't mean an exact copy. As to the insurance company the first step I would have thought is to ask about the potential for "betterment" if you contribute the balance. The conversation has to start somewhere......

Well, when there's a vertical load the rule of thumb difference in height allowable is 4 x thickness of wall - 750mm would suggest 187.5mm. However, this is a pure retianing wall with no vertical load, only a horizontal one, however unless a really heavy truck was to be parked alongside the wall I would have thought a total of 100mm block plus 150mm stone = 250mm would do. If you wanted more certainty without involving a structural engineer then how about a strip of horizontal mesh in the foundation with vertical bars at intervals. Make the vertical rods L shaped and wire the "foot" to the mesh. When set, use 225mm hollow concrete blocks with the vertical rods threaded up the voids and backfill the voids with concrete. Face with stone. I can't see that being pushed over easily.

As soon as I pressed that reply button I thought - I've seen that ..................

I'm with ProDave here. The foundation depth here needs to go deep enough to avoid frost action in the clay (if any trees are ignored - and this is only a garden wall). 0.5m -0.6m should be plenty for that. Of more importance is the overturning effect on the retaining wall caused by the loads on the upper side. What's the difference in height between levels?

I expected to install suitable ducting anyway as it may be used one day. I strongly suspected that no gigabit ready infrastructure would be available anywhere near here for a sensible price. I just want to have my evidence to hand when the matter is raised by building control. I'll give virgin a go, many thanks.

I'd second that. If the chimney was complete then the upper parts could suffer condensation as the weather patterns changed. Venting the flue would help to remove moisture laden air. If it is now entirely within the heated part of the house and you are only looking to stop the warm air leaking into the roof void above the insulation then cover the redundant flue with insulation (preferably with a ply panel to stop someone accidently stepping through it!).

In order to claim the exemption from Part R - gigabit ready infrastructure, we need two quotes showing we exceed the cost cap (£2K). As mentioned above, Openreach has quoted £9700 odd. Has anyone any suggestions for a second provider I can approach?

ETC's right - guarding shouldn't be easily climable by children let alone have gaps of more than 100mm.

Just be aware that the planning approval for the house (albeit as part of approval for the whole site) may require the garage be kept for the parking of a car so as to meet the local parking standards. However, is anyone going to find out? Unless a nosey neighbour dobs you in then I would just do it. Regs wise who says your can't insulate your garage to make the car more comfortable. If it's not used for sleeping then no one really is going to be bothered even if and it's a big if, it ever comes to light. Worst case scenario remove the partition. Ultimately it may raise an issue when you come to sell, but being a new house that's likely to be a while off!

We moved out of our previous house to fund this build. I was keen therefore to create a "permanent" address for bank accounts, credit cards, etc etc in order to remain a real person in this increasingly digital world. The plot has a registered postal address and the Council refer to it as "Caravan at........." in their records.

I had a similar experience a few years ago. We had a small cottage standing in a large plot in rural Norfolk with no immediate neighbours. We submitted a planning application for a large two storey extension on the side. Back came the request to step the front wall back 500mm and reduce the width to reduce impact (?). Upon querying this we got back "this is our standard advice for two story side extensions" . Well on one of their urban estates perhaps but in the middle of no-where? I had to quietly find out the team leader's details and discuss it with her without actually complaining about the case officer. The scheme was approved as submitted. It can be done, although I have to say the current state of planning departments is the source of a lot of this nonsense now.