kandgmitchell

Hi, I appreciate the replies. I've now put in the neighbour's address to the BT site. They are the only line from the pole and that pole is within an easy in the air run to our plot. The broadband speed is 32-36 Mb for "fibre essential" and 32-50Mb for Fibre 1. No difference if broadband only or broadband with phone. Given that the world is moving on line I guess I ought to be looking for better? I'll register the plot with OP - we have an address registered but not yet on the Royal Mail permanent address list (that'll change once we occupy the caravan). In the meantime I'll explore the 4G options. So complicated - give me concrete, timber and steel anyday!

Hi, We are well underway with the organisation of the self-build on an empty newly approved plot. Service connections for drainage and water go in shortly, power ordered. The static caravan delivery arranged. So, moving into a caravan in a rural spot served by a private road on the outskirts of a village. One other house closeby that is served by a BT pole whose line comes across the fields off into the distance. I need a strategy for the next say 12 months. Mobile service is non-existant on my present provider so intend moving to Giff Gaff which piggy backs O2 as that seems to have some coverage. Will need broadband to keep modern life going. So, 1) do I try to get an openreach service to the static then move it to the house when complete. 2) Go fully "wireless" in the 'van and then use that same system in the new house giving up the old copper line type of thing altogether. 3) Live with mobile broadband with a dongle thingy and get openreach to put a new line into the house when finished. Now I'm in my late 60's and whilst technology is wonderful I do tend to shout a lot at it and cannot make out the endless acronyms that "techy" people use. What have previous caravan livers done through their self build?

Guess you're not going to get the full benefit of 125mm insulation as the bottom 25mm is bridged by the rafters. Did a quick check with a U value calculator and it's 0.178 with it all on the joists and 0.183 with it as you have it. Both round up/down to 0.18W/m2K. Put a decent vapour barrier behind the ceiling and it's unlikely to come to much harm as the deck material has 100mm insulation over it which used to be the spec anyway. This should keep the underside of the waterproof layer above dew point.

Never heard about absorbing humidity - whatever next! Easy calculation - flat roof load plus some blockwork gives the total load carried by the lintel then the manufacturers load/span table tells you what load those lintels carry over a particular span. As long as the lintel capacity is bigger than the actual - job done.

Structure wise as long as the concrete lintels can carry the load then there is no problem. Ask the merchant who the manufacturer is, jump on their website and get the load capacity at that span and show the BCO. Providing proof normally closes these things down. What about a cavity tray, has that been provided over the lintels; is that what the query about damp was about?

Well you're going to have to make some decisions for a bldg reg application! The internal layout for instance can impact on structure, means of escape in case of fire, access for the disabled, ventilation, overheating; need I go on? Even so that architects suggestion that all that would be needed is "the walls would have a U value of 0.18W/m2K" would be a bit wide of the mark, he'd be asked "how do they achieve a U value of 0.18W/m2K?" by most BCO's. Not sure you need the "full technical details of the stairs" for the joiners, as above get the basic configuration onto the bldg reg plans and then get the joiner to measure and make them. Electrical layouts? You should be able to mark up a drawing with plug sockets etc. At this stage it looks like you need something in-between.

Table 4.2 of Approved Document L Volume 1 - Dwellings - it's an existing building. However, if the annexe is to be a separate dwelling then refer to paragraph 11.5 of that document, because that is a change of use, in which case new elements should still comply with table 4.2 but existing elements need to be brought up to comply with Table 4.3.

Plus the window needs to stay open without being held. With that opening you may struggle to meet all the requirements I'm afraid. Oopps just read your post again - did you say en-suite? The requirement to provide escape from rooms on the first floor applies only to habitable rooms, and bathrooms (and thus en-suites by association) do not need their own escape windows. See Para 2.2 of Approved Document B - Fire Safety: Volume 1 Dwellings. If of course the bedroom windows don't meet the requirement and the BCO was offering making the en-suite window act as an alternative, then you are back to square one!

Yes, congratulations. Wait for the fomal notice of permission and check for conditions.

so presumably you have some drawings prepared that the structural engineer useed for their steel design? Can you share them?

Well I'd argue that the principle for meeting at least one of the three bullet points plus most of the three lines below must have been established by the approval of the outline application otherwise it would have been refused. The only part of the policy that refers to matters more properly dealt with under reserved matters is "comensurate with the scale and character of the area". It is more likely that an oversized house will fall foul of that requirement than it would simply if it would be too big for local housing needs. As mentioned above you need to reference the local area in terms of size, shape, relevance to plot and materials. If you can do that you are chipping away at all those reasons why it should be refused reserved matters approval. By all means lean on the self build bit as well but that alone will not get a three storey glass cube approved amongst stone built thatched 1 1/2 storey cottages. PS - that last bullet point about affordable housing is often put in policies to allow Council's to ignore their "can't build in the countryside" policy if a scheme by a social housing provider or the like proposes to build homes for rent on some odd bit of rural land, often for local renters. Usually the same land a market driven developer would be refused permission.

Applicable to England. Look at paragraph 0.8 of the Approved Document to Part L - Conservation of Fuel and Power Volume 1 - Dwellings (it's on line). The approved document sets out the basic standards that, if followed would comply with the technical requirements of the Building Regulations. So that paragraph gives examples of certain types of buildings that do not have to meet all the energy efficiency requirements. Sub-para a) covers listed buildings. As mentioned above if your dwelling is more than 1000m2 then some consequential improvements may be needed if you are extending, but again the fall back is para 0.8 for listed buildings. This is building regulations only - see JohnMo above, listed building consent is much stricter than planning consent and there are big fines for getting it wrong.

Not necessarily in the "Alice through the looking glass" world of planning. After a successful appeal against outline approval for our plot and a subsequent renewal of that approval, in the last few days of my own full application (long story) the planner raised potential contamination. When I expressed surprise (expletive deleted) that this hadn't been raised at all before; her response was that no-one had asked that department..............

It might even be written in coherent English!

So the chances are then that the original studwork forming the front of the house was built off the outermost floor joist (although there could be a support beam within the studwork above the floor). Odds are the pier does help prop that joist so that it only has to span the window as the greatest opening which a 7" x 2" obviously does. In reality the loads from the studwork are quite low due to the large upper floor window. However, there are a couple of solutions; coach screw a steel plate to the back of that outermost joist to stiffen it up or have a simple steel box frame made to both act as your new wider door frame and support to the joist. Once upon a time a small local structural engineer would charge you a few quid for an A4 sheet of calcs to prove either the joist without the pier or what plate/box frame would be needed. You'd toddle off to building control, pay a fee for a building notice and hand over the calcs. They'd make one visit when it was done and that would be it. Now that engineer is a "multi-disciplinary" practice that will sell you the entire package including site visits at vast expense. Your local Building control has amalgamated with the rest in the county, relocated to posh offices miles away and no longer has time to deal with a small job like this. " please submit your application on line and our staff will respond the next time Jupiter aligns with Mars". And they wonder why someone like you will speak to the local steel fabricator buy a piece of steel say 8mm thick, 150mm deep, long enough to span past the outer piers, has it drilled and coach screws it to the joist with the pier out of the way and the joist supported by an acrow. But like a good citizen you wouldn't.

Mmmm, so only a timber "joist" - what sort of size?

Chin up! She will have to write a report and make a recommendation. This gets passed to a manager to assess before the decision is signed off. A more experienced eye may take a more pragmatic view of things. Furthermore, often, when presented with a specific complaint by a neighbour, parish council or other body the planners will ask for the additional information just to prove after an approval that they had taken those issues seriously. Some cynics may describe that as "covering one's a......." but it happens.

The restrictions within Class A for properties within an AONB (here noted as article 2(3) land) are as follows: In the case of a dwellinghouse on article 2(3) land, development is not permitted by Class A if— (a)it would consist of or include the cladding of any part of the exterior of the dwellinghouse with stone, artificial stone, pebble dash, render, timber, plastic or tiles; (b)the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse would extend beyond a wall forming a side elevation of the original dwellinghouse; or (c)the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse would have more than a single storey and extend beyond the rear wall of the original dwellinghouse. You don't seem to be covered by any of those exclusions. So that facade above your garden room is timber studwork covered by T&G and then shiplap? Presumably something is supporting that studwork across the space between the two block piers (whether or not the middle pier props it)?

Surely the only part No. 5 would see is the small section of dormer flank that rises above the party wall that separates your and No. 3A's outrigger and even part of that is hidden by the existing chimney stack. The elevation drawing is going to be minimal so try to provide it. Dimension the additional height and emphasise the distance from the windows in No 5. If you can, I would use the proposed rear elevation and add the position of No. 5's windows in their outrigger and project a line upwards to try and show the impact of your dormer is minimal (assuming it is, if not then stay quiet). Hopefully your architect can respond quickly. It's the usual approach from planners these days. You wait forever for a response then suddenly they must have the additional information within a few days............. nevertheless get it done to oil the wheels and remove any excuse to refuse.

Stil not entirely clear what is exactly behind the exterior insulation at first floor level. Thus the pier could be propping that using part of it's depth, the balance stopping at door head level. Some closer investigation is called for. Building reg wise, if the pier is non-loadbearing then there's no alteration to the structure if it's removed. If the space is unheated and remains so then there's no change there either. It would appear therefore that your proposal is not "building work" as defined by the regulations. As to planning, isn't this an "alteration" to a dwelling house and so falls within Class A of the permitted development rights afforded said dwellings and thus doesn't require a planning application?

Interesting approach ... submit a section 73 application to vary or remove the condition. It could work - might be a fall back if planning is refused. Since it'll take as long I'd go the planning route first. Would the planners refuse an obscured glass, fixed shut window onto a stairwell? I'd give it a shot. Is it a "party wall" - probably not as "a wall standing wholly on the land of one owner ceases to be a party wall where next door ceases to enclose on it" (Anstey's Party Walls - RICS Books). The bit forward of next door where the window is to go fits into that description I'd say. Just for completeness: The existing house flank wall needs 30 minute fire resistance as it's an element of structure (assuming no floor level above 5.0m) (Table B4 Approved Document B Fire Safety Volume 1 Dwellings). Any "unprotected area" in that wall (i.e having less than 30min FR) is limited in area to prevent spread of flame from one building to another. Paragraph 11.8 of AD BV1 says that unprotected areas in a wall on or less than 1.0m from the boundary should comply with Diagram 11.5. That diagram, along with Para 11.11 shows that unprotected areas of less than 1.0m2 can be ignored (there are minimum distances from other such areas). Thus keep your window masonry opening to less than 1.0m2 and it doesn't have to be fire resisting or such like, simply double glazed with a U value of no less than 1.4W/m2K or band B grade to meet thermal requirements. So, a fixed, obscure, double glazed panel 1.4W/m2K or better, of no more than 1.0m2 in area will a) comply with building regs and b) hopefully find favour with the planners. Phew! but still think a sun pipe would be easier!

No access panel required. Since this presumably has a flat ceiling then 300mm of fibreglass quilt? It sounds like it's not going to be a "porch" if it's going to be part of the thermal envelope so what does the building reg application say?

That application they referred to dates from 1972 and may have been for the original house. It's not that unusual for PD rights to be removed if sites are tight. So it's a planning application plus bldg regs if it's not a porch. I visited a similar situation years ago to find the neighbour busily cutting off the window cill of the newly installed window because it overhung his property. I think he wasn't pleased about the installation! Talk to your's nicely as you'll need access to put that in properly..........

Well that doesn't look too bad at all. It can be chaotic with planners at the moment. The planning officer for our plot in Lincolnshire lives in Devon and works from home using photo's of the site taken by admin staff. All you can do is push a little harder, not in a mean way but make contact by email at least once a week now she's done her site inspection. Ask when she expects to write her report, ask if it will be an officer decision or will it go to committee. You have to be visible I'm afraid or you'll go to the bottom of the pile. Gentle encouragement may just work to get you off her list of jobs.

Looks Ok from here too - the route can be at an angle and unless the handle is really awkward that should comply.