kandgmitchell

If you want a UK based engineer and especially if you may need some on-site help, try Structural Engineers Cambridge Ltd. That's Charles Tallack's company. He's a very practical guy capable of sketching you out a sensible solution to a problem whilst standing in pouring rain whilst knee deep in mud with concrete waiting to be poured..... Based on the outskirts of Cambridge he knows the Eastern counties well and is easy to talk to and always very helpful.

Right, what is enforceable is the Requirements of Part C - Site Preparation and Resistance to Contaminants and Moisture. In particular C2 Resistance to Moisture. C2 states: The walls floors and roof of the building shall adequately protect the building and people who use the building from harmful effects caused by; a) ground moisture, b) precipitation including wind driven spray, c) interstitial and surface condensation; and d) spillage of water from or associated with sanitary fittings or fixed appliances. OK so it is only paragraph b) that is an issue here. Section 6 of the Approved Document applies to roofs. It gives three concerns : precipitation from the outside, interstitial condensation, risk of condensation on the underside of the roof covering. Here we are considering slates so interstitial condesation is not an issue and if the roof is a traditional cold one with adequate ventilation then there is little risk of condensation on the underside. What is left is keeping the rain and snow out. Paragraph 6.3 states: Roofing can be designed can be designed to protect a building from precipitation either by holding the precipitation at the face of the roof or by stopping it from penetrating beyond the back of the roofing system. Paragraph 6.4 states: Any roof will meet the requirement if: (b) it has overlapping dry joints, is impervious or weather resisting, and is backed by a material which will direct precipitation which enters the roof towards the outer face (as with roofing felt). Finally Paragraph 6.6 states: Roofing systems may be: (b) weather resisting including natural stone, or slate, cement based products, fired clay or wood. Sorry it's long winded but that is what the LABC should consider. So they cannot insist on BS 5534 being used but they are using it as a reference to base their judgement on whether you satisfy the above. However, the Approved Document right at the start states: "Approved Documents are intended to provide guidance on some of the more common building situations. However, there may well be alternative ways of achieving compliance with the requirements. Thus there is no obligation to adopt any particular solution contained within an Approved Document if you prefer to meet the relevant requirement in some other way." (Bold in document). Consequently you can refer to other guidance particularly specialist historic building documentation to support your arguement. Certainly a SPAB document is appropriate in the circumstances and they ought to listen to reason. I would also pay particular attention to the underlay or consider a product such as Isoline by Onduline which is used for slates/tiles below the recommended pitch. It's a polite but firm approach challenging their position, explaining the age and appearance of the building and how you have reached out for further advice. It's all about appearing to concede whilst not!

Blimey, what a palaver over a detached garage. The structural engineer should stick to structural engineering rather than worry about moisture prevention, loads of garages are built as single skin. As for the BCO they need to read Regulation 21 - Application of Energy Efficiency Requirements. Paragraph 1 applies them to buildings, paragraph 2 then exempts those buildings listed in paragraph 3 and Paragraph 3 says (d) standalone buildings other than dwellings with a total useful floor area of less than 50m2. Patently a garage is not a dwelling. This is the statutory legislation, the Approved Documents are simply guidance on how to comply. It's always useful to start at the top just to see if there is a legal basis is for some of the more extraordinary demands one hears. In this case Part L doesn't apply to your garage but should you wish to insulate it then that is entirely your own choice as to how much insulation you use and the Building Regulations have no opinion on that.

ETC is right, your window can be up to 1.0m2 and will obviously open inwards if the neighbour has erected a fence across it. However, also as pointed out if you can't use the window to escape out of then you have an issue as the room is an "inner room" i.e escape in case of fire is through another room - the dining, kitchen area. I would think you will need to extend the side wall of the bathroom labelled as 2550mm across the hall to meet the room in question. A door will be needed into the dining/kitchen off what is now a hallway. All rooms will then open onto a hallway with a direct exit and thus comply whether or not they have escape windows. You then only have to comply with the size limit and the ventilation as above.

With the planners setting the opening height of your windows at no less than 1.7m you can't satisfy Para 2.1 (b) above. I presume this is to stop occupants peering out, it usually is. Your alternative is to provide a protected stairway (2.1 (b) above. So basically a stairway down into a hallway with a direct final exit. The partitions forming the hall need to be 30 minutes fire resistant and all doors that open into that hall from habitable rooms and kitchens need to be FD20 standard (albeit they're hard to get as more FD30 doors are usually sold). The route must be direct and so the stair can't land in a room (i.e be open plan).

It's a pretty rare ground floor window where the floor level inside is 600mm + above the external ground level. So normally the requirements of part K apply which says you need guarding if a person can fall more than 600mm. So, if your floor level is say 200mm off the external ground level then the cill height of a window can be at any level as you cannot fall more than 600mm..... If you want to keep to 800mm high cill heights at first floor level, restrictors will only work if the openable area with them in place meets the requirements of the openable area needed. Otherwise guarding will be needed.

This bit of Part O is madness. Suddenly just because the weather is getting warmer we may be at greater risk of falling out a window that has been left open! It does say "falls from height" so I'd argue that wouldn't apply to ground floor windows. It's certainly challenging if you need to combine both means of escape with a window needed to reduce potential overheating in an upstairs bedroom...........

Have a look at section 56 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (it's on line). That section sets out the time when development has begun. You seem to be relying on paragraph 4(c) "the laying of an underground main or pipe to the foundations, or part of the foundations of a building". I would suggest that you would have to take the pipe from the soakaway right up to the location of the proposed foundations, not just stick in one length of drain. I'm slightly cautious because argueably there are no foundations are there? If you are concerned that the LA may be awkward (if perhaps it was a contentested site) the most secure way is to dig just a small section of foundation trench, then there is no possible dispute because paragraph 4(b) is clear. Get that inspected, photographed (and then backfilled) and write formally to the LA with the evidence advising that works have materially started on site in accordance with Section 56. The whole hog would be a LDC but it would take a really difficult LA to try and overcome that evidence. Is there a reason that they would take such an extreme approach?

6 months for a single house plan check! Are they serious? Let's ignore warranties and just deal with Building Control. Two systems - LABC and Approved Inspector (AI). The LABC system is the default - they can't refuse an application. All LA's publish their fee scale and these are meant to to be pitched at a level to cover the cost of providing the service. They are the enforcing authority and can prosecute for breaches of Building Regulations. If an AI cannot certify a project as complete or feels they have to withdraw, then the scheme reverts to LABC control. They tend to be cheaper than AI's but you only have a single choice within your Council area (although many LABCs have amalgamated across several local authority boundaries). Some LABC offices are good, some are poor and not always fairly so. My plot is in an area where I discovered on Tuesday, only has two full time staff left in post. It brings in three agency staff for three days a week to help out but will not up salaries to attract staff. How can that provide a service? AI's are private companies. They charge what they think is reasonable for their services. They are not limited to a geographical area but they may add to their fee estimate if the site lies a long way from their office. Again you can get good ones or bad. Depends whether you simply want that piece of paper at the end or someone actually checking what you are doing complies. I tend to use AI's in areas where the LA is poor, but are happy to use LABC where they work well (that's for my client's benefit). Going back to the 6 month plan check. Section 16 of the Building Act 1984 requires a LA to pass or refuse a deposited plan within the "relevant period" which is 5 weeks from the deposit of the plans (which can be extended by up to two months with agreement). If the plans are approved by the LA or not refused within the relevant period, then the LA may not institute enforcement proceedings in relation to the proposed work that is carried out in accordance with those plans. In effect, if the plans aren't refused within the statute set period then effectively the scheme can be built in accordance with those plans regardless. So a six month plan check time is worthless. If the plans aren't refused in five weeks then you can proceed with the scheme as presented to the Council. AI's aren't so constrained, they tend not to worry so much about the plans as they are required to certify completion. Since the work on site is more important anyway they tend to focus more on that. It's a lot more flexible although I have noticed that they get a bit edgy about projects taking a long time to progress on site (something to do with their registration organisation). LA's on the other hand are happy for jobs to take years....... So, if you don't have a good reference for an AI then don't ignore the LA option but try to ask around local builders if you can to get feedback on their performance.

The latest Part R - i.e gigabit ready infrastructure does not apply to works started before 26th December 2022 or for works for which an application was made before that date with the proviso that works start on site within 12 months of that application.

Just a follow up to this with many thanks to @Omnibuswoman Sent a letter to HMRC in April with all the details their phone line suggested. Got a letter from them last month asking for all the information I had already given them. This week we found they had repayed the whole amount plus nearly 70 quid interest. For this alone, membership of this forum has been worth it let alone the other useful stuff I keep finding. Shame the refund just covered the archaeological survey so it's not spare as such but certainly very, very welcome.

Hoops? How long have you got??? First, your proposal can't: Be in a national park or conservation area, area of outstanding natural beauty etc. Extend a dwelling built before 1/7/1948 or after 28/10/2018 Extend a dwelling where you used this provision already No end up being over 18m high Extend more than 7m higher than the existing Extend more than 3.5m above the highest part of the rest of the row Have a floor to ceiling height of more than 3.5m or existing floor to ceiling height Be anywhere other than on the principal part of the dwelling Have any visible support structures Involve any engineering works other than works within the curtilage to strengthen walls or foundations (but what about shared party walls??) Then you have to meet the following conditions: Match the materials of existing house No windows in any side wall Have the same roof pitch Remain a single dwelling But before all that you need prior approval from the LPA on: Impact on neighbours of overlooking, privacy and loss of light Impact on external appearance (principal elevation only) on design and architectural features Air traffic (??) Any protected view Then after all this you need a report on how you intend to manage construction e'g hours, noise, dust etc. And finally do it within 3 years of getting all this. This is paraphrasing, you'll need to see the exact details but good luck!

But £449 for set up and £75/month ?

I think you'll struggle to argue that the principal elevation doesn't front a highway and thus any alteration under Class B would not be permitted facing the road. You could try arguing the distance, the garages, the levels but that'll have to be done via an appication for a certificate of lawfulness which odds on the LPA will refuse. That'll have to be appealed and you'll spend a year probably to fail. You could try Class AA but there's a lot of hoops to get it to be PD and then you need prior approval from the LPA. If you want to try be prepared to be in it for the long haul but good luck.

Agreed. See diagram D5 on page 144 of the Approved Document to Part B Volume 1 - Dwellings (it's on line) You count the number of storeys at the point where it has the greatest number but exclude any basement storeys.

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?