kandgmitchell

Well I've never seen the airtightness boundary specifically marked for bldg regs purposes. It'll be useful on site though!

This does raise the question why? BS EN 1329 has been withdrawn so that's out of date. Why can't you use underground pipe above ground? The pipe itself must be made to the same size as above ground because they have to fit to each other. The underground may not be as UV stable as the above ground but using it inside that'll not be an issue. You would expect underground pipe if anything, to be stronger than above ground as it's normally buried. So that leaves it being the wrong colour. The Building Regulations are quite clear in Regulation 8 that Part H (along with most parts) only relates to reasonable health and safety matters. I can't see having a brown internal svp would have an adverse impact on anyones H&S. Just musing...........

and they should be air tested before finally closing them in...

Speak to the BCO dealing with the job and get a list of what they expect to see for a completion certificate. As mentioned above different BCO's have differing ideas as to "completion". It's going to be easier than second guessing them.

The fire resistance of that panel is determined by the wall it sits in. To determine the fire resistance standard will require knowing the location of that wall. In a dwelling house or a flat? one, two three storeys? On a protected route? Like everything these days, there are no easy answers!

Vaillant have an installation requirement that the unit should be a minimum of 1.0m from openings into the building in case ofthe escape of the gas used in the unit. The installer isn't going to ignore that I'm afraid as it was they who raised it. It's more about their concern that wind passing through the unit reduces it's efficiency that I need. Is it a thing?

Ah, the red dotted line is the external unit, the black boxes are the concrete support pads (the L shaped one contains the pipe duct). This is the proposed position with the correct 1.0m clearance to the side door.

Good point - another arguement to not have it on the front. Here's my suggested revised position. The original (shown within the planning application) was where the down pipe and tap now are, i.e alongside the door. heat pump sketch.pdf

We had a slate hearth in the last house in two pieces, one within the fireplace recess and one across the front of the wall. Ours was 450mm off the wall face. 600mm would look too deep??

From what I can recall of the primary legislation there is not a requirement for BC to inspect, only a requirement for persons carrying out work to give notice at specific stages so that BC can inspect should they wish.

Right from planning stage I had allowed for the ASHP unit to stand against the side of the house near the front corner. Now in the throes of organising the foundation design I see the location of the ASHP base will impinge on the required safety zone around the Vaillant Arotherm due to the position of the side door. I have now slid the location of the base further to the front which means the fan unit will protrude about half it's length past the front wall. This installation is part of the house package and their designers have raised a concern that the unit will be exposed and not function as well as one fully against a wall. Their suggestion is to put it against the front wall. Well they can tell my wife that, I'm certainly not! Vaillant suggest the unit can be remotely sited or placed on a flat roof so I can't see the problem. Is there a problem? If there is I'll come up with a screen for the height of the unit.

We also prosecuted where it was appropriate. Oddly the local paper often got wind of when those cases appeared in the local court. This had the extra value of reminding the local contractors/developers that the rules were there..... Mind you that was in the days when LA offices were properly staffed. My first had five teams of three under a chief officer as well as two dedicated admin, an ex. fire officer to check commercial and access to the Council's own structural engineering team in the architects department. I was one of two trainees on a properly constituted training scheme. The LA area I live in now has two professional staff covering 1700 sq km.

Well when I was in Building Control I inspected every new house on completion and all other statutory stages. Upon the very first visit to the site I had been taught to make it clear to the site manager that BC needed to see every foundation excavation and every drain run. My colleagues and I would help them out by making two or three visits a day during the initial busy groundworks phase but we needed to see it. Inevitably one would find a plot concreted before inspection. Having to excavate down the side of the concrete to expose it usually meant it only happened the once. Once the superstructure was up though I agree it's hard to see behind plasterboard and paint but I made a point of looking in every loft space because it's there you can see the bones of a building. We insisted on every plot having a drain test as well. You can usually get a feel for how well the site is run as it proceeds. A good site manager can be trusted more than a poor one but ultimately it was my name on the file as the officer signing off the plot. I should point out that this was across all the LA's I worked for. The change in style of the 1985 regulations made everyone's life easier, but the fragmentation of BC into private and public systems hasn't helped at all and the overall standard has fallen away over the years. But a sample??? how's that work?

You would have had a design stage SAP calculation done before work started. That assessed the proposed design using the wall, roof, floor constructions, glazing specification along with the heating and ventilation system you intended to install. The as-built SAP basically goes through that again taking into account any changes you made and comes up with the final rating which should be no worse than the original design SAP. Usually it's the same assessor that does both (and it's often cheaper that way - check back to see what the original quote said about this). However, the one you have approached needs: Your confirmation that you have used the same specification for the build as for the design. Builders often substitute materials and even construction methods. If you did change anything then list it for the SAP assessor. The type of ventilation arrangements you have employed. Is it background vents + extracts + opening windows or is it Mechanical Ventilation and Heat Recovery. Tell them which. If it's MVHR then they'll need the details of what you installed. The make and model of the ASHP is going to be easy - your husband will have the installation info and the purchase details. Not sure why they need the commissioning certificate unless it gives specific performance details of that installation. The performance of that heatpump will be entered into the standard computer model which generates the SAP rating. Likewise the hot water cylinder. Again tell them the certificate will be coming but can they just run the model with the technical information. Then hopefully you'll get a final as built SAP. Collect as much certification as you can and hand it to the BCO. They'll tell you what's missing and then concentrate on obtaining that. It cuts the task down to manageable chunks that you can handle.

3 weeks! When trying to sort out our new connection I found AW really helpful. Not sure who you talking to. Might be worth a try speaking to their new connections team "about a new supply" and then spring the query onto them as arguably it is a new supply of sorts..... Glad the FA were helpful.

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.