kandgmitchell

That's right, have a look at "Permitted Development Rights for Householders" - Technical Guidance - issued by the goverment. Page 15 illustrates your situation i.e a stepped "principal elevation" (front isn't used). You can't extend beyond the walls forming the principal elevation and that includes the wall forming the set back.

That's still the current guidance, see Paragraph 2.10 of Approved Document B Fire Safety - Volume 1 Dwellings 2019 (inc 2022 ammd's). There is one extra caveat - the cill height should be no more than 1100mm off the floor. Those hinges shown often cause a problem as the casement then intrudes onto the clear opening, as Redbeard says "other hinges are available"......

Building Control do not get involved in how the works are executed when operating under the Building Regulations. However those same officers may be operating under Sections 77 and 78 of the Building Act which gives the local authority powers to act in the case of dangerous structures. That building or structure just has to be dangerous - not dangerous to the public. In an emergency situation they can take steps to remove the danger immediately.

The OP's is a definite "do this before then" type and must be discharged. But agree there is little consistency across LA's

No, a section 73 application is to either vary a condition or have it removed. Instead you'll be applying to discharge the condition, i.e demonstrate that you have complied with what the permission required you to do. A different animal. So it'll be pictures of the material being used, manufacturers literature, colours and in the case of the windows and roof lights, cross section details (probably available from the manufacturers website). Obtain samples if need be. Submit your application with the fee. Get a reference for the application and add that to any physical samples and drop them off (Council's don't seem so keen as they used to about physical samples). Remember, if you have other pre-commencement conditions to discharge, then do them all at once as there is a fee per application but you can lump several conditions into one discharge application. They are obviously not keen on uPVC so it's something else for the windows!

Building Regulations : First thought - is this extending an existing detached garage? Does it take the floor area over 30m2? If no then the resulting building is still exempt (assuming built mainly from non-combustible material if within 1.0m of the boundary). If yes then it's not exempt and so will require regs. However if it is still less than 50m2 and stand alone, then the energy efficiency requirements don't apply so the choice of insulation is yours to make. Planning: If it's at the back (and no road behind) then max height of 4.0m for dual pitched roof with eaves no higher than 2.5m. Otherwise 3m (presumably for flat roof or single slope). However if it's within 2.0m of a boundary then height should not be more than 2.5m.

Well in England the height of the top storey is measured from the lowest ground level, so if that meant it was more than 4.5m high, then the rules applicable to floors over 4.5m apply, even if there is an "upper" ground level (although there may be some flexibility depending on layout). I'm afraid Scotland is a different world..................

Thanks for the responses. I needed a ball park figure so I could compare the cost of one procurement approach over another. One had the ASHP and MVHR costed in and the other didn't. I've now got a better idea of how they compare.

Not in a bungalow...............

Cheers Conor, that'll do for now - it just helps me compare one with another at this stage.

I've posted this up on the ASHP thread as well but not sure whether it belongs here.... I'm working on a cost comparison between build it ourselves with frame and raft and using a turnkey operation (quoted). I've just got back an estimators on line document which prices most things for us doing it but omits the ASHP and MVHR. The design is 178m2 of simple rectangle shape. Walls at 0.11 and roof at 0.1, insulated raft and triple glazed windows. Assume a very good Air tightness. I need a budget figure for an ASHP installation and a MVHR as these are included in the turnkey price and I need to compare the overall costs of each approach. Thanks in anticipation.

Hi, I'm working on a cost comparison between build it ourselves with frame and raft and using a turnkey operation (quoted). I've just got back an estimators on line document which prices most things for us doing it up but omits the ASHP and MVHR. The design is 178m2 of simple rectangle shape. Walls at 0.11 and roof at 0.1, insulated raft and triple glazed windows. Assume a very good Air tightness. I need a budget figure for an ASHP installation and a MVHR as these are included in the turnkey price and I need to compare the overall costs of each approach. Thanks in anticipation.

Warranty is not really an issue here as Clueless2023 doesn't seem to be dealing with selling a newly built house. There'd be no warranty on this. Right, the extension may be PD in which case there is no obligation to get a certificate of lawfulness so the owner may have just built it. If it wasn't PD then more than 4 years have passed so no planning enforcement. It may or may not have building regulation approval. Built in 2016 it's too long ago for there to be any action by local authority building control. Just let it be and get on with the hip to gable job. If you want to avoid a query later then get a certificate of lawfulness for your roof extension (and building regulation consent) but I wouldn't bother with the 7 year old extension now.

Ditto Temp, there is no self help escape from a second floor room. First floor you can lower and drop. The Approved Document to Part B actually says this: Dwellinghouses with one storey more than 4.5m above ground level 2.5 See Diagram 2.1c. The dwellinghouse should have either of the following. a. Protected stairway – a stair separated by fire resisting construction (minimum REI 30) at all storeys, that complies with one of the following. i. Extends to a final exit (Diagram 2.2a). ii. Gives access to a minimum of two ground level final exits that are separated from each other by fire resisting construction (minimum REI 30) and fire doorsets (minimum E 20) (Diagram 2.2b). Cavity barriers or a fire resisting ceiling (minimum EI 30) should be provided above a protected stairway enclosure (Diagram 2.3). b. Alternative escape route – a top storey separated from lower storeys by fire resisting construction (minimum REI 30) and with an alternative escape route leading to its own final exit. The diagrams referred to above show doors opening onto the protected stairway as being E20 (or FD20) fire doors. If your BCO is co-operative then he may accept good quality existing doors. Trouble is that following the Building Safety Act there is a move towards specific liability for decisions of this nature. If you were a BCO why would you open yourself to that sort of responsiblity? The simple answer would be - prove your doors are equivalent to the standard or change them for ones that are.

You really need to return to the planning condition. That is what you have to comply with - no more , no less. Our's required a written scheme of investigation to be agreed with the planning authority. The County archaeologist had commented on the planning application and raised a specific issue. We knew we were in for some level of site investigation. Ultimately it cost us £4700 odd to get a 16 page report saying nothing was found. I sent a copy of the condition along with the comments made on the planning application to several firms to get a quote. Be careful though as several left the conserving, cataloguing and bringing in specialists where required to deal with finds as extras. Given that you have no idea what may be found, we settled on a fixed figure leaving all extra work at the expense of the firm we employed. Of course they won in this case as there was no extra work but talking to the guys actually on site, they reckon on a 50% hit in villages with an almost certainty in a town with any age. I am afraid this is the approach now, the planners want reports for flood risk, bat and bird roosts, ecological impact, environmental investigation, highway impact, residential sound impact, overshadowing etc etc. No one in authority can make a decision these days without having their hand held by an expert funded by the poor soul trying to use their own land. Ho Hum!

Me I'm afraid. Being new to the site and with a build about to get underway I've been reading a lot of these threads as they relate to all the issues I'm about to deal with. More old threads may yet come alive!

Ditto saveasteading. Leave the open trench for 6+ months and the sides will have fallen in, the bottom will have softened up and you have a falling risk for persons and wildlife. Getting a machine back close to that to clean it up may be tricky. Save the carting away and put the dig back in for now would be my approach.

Well we are new to this site but this one thread alone has proved it's worth. We purchased our plot last November and paid the £4500.00 sdlt that our solicitor said we had to. Having read @Omnibuswoman thread we spoke to HMRC to confirm and have sent off for a refund (Plot @ £150K so 0%). When I requested a copy of the SDLT form we filled in originally from the solicitor and told him why we wanted it, there was no acknowledgement of having given us the wrong advice whatsoever! If we get the tax back (this is HMRC after all) there'll be a contribution to the site's running costs coming.....

It was used as a building for rearing rabbits for meat and so was agricultural. The original owner built it (and used it) as a route to get initially a caravan on the site and then replaced it with a house. The rabbit trade then surprisingly ceased and the building stood unused now tucked away behind a hedge. Luckily it had never been put to any other use so was still technically agricultural. It only had an earth floor and to be honest was very poorly built. However, it is an example of what can get through as a Part Q conversion - in this case as two dwellings. Eventually used this as a "fall back" position so as to gain full planning approval for a pair of replacement semi-detached single storey barn lookalikes. Would not have wanted to have been forced to convert it!

Well George, got this one through as a Part Q. Remember, works inside a building are not development for the purposes of the Town and Country Planning Act.......

I'd have to say I've walked along plenty of concrete farm "roadways" when out in the countryside. If you wanted to go down that route then some local evidence of that type of agricultural access might strengthen your arm a bit. However, nearly half a kilometre of concrete road may be a bit dear. The alternative is going to be a compacted crushed stone approach but that's probably not going to be a lot better than what's there. I think I'd decide what I would prefer and then look for evidence of it's use elsewhere and argue my case a bit.....

Many thanks Bonner, my site is only a few miles away so def will give him a call.

Hi Bonner, Just starting in Nrth Lincs - no chance of that electrician's details is there? Cheers

How do you comply with Para 4.42 of the older Part F - Ventilation which says: The Regulations require: air flow rates for mechanical ventilation systems in new dwellings to be measured and a notice to be given to the building control body. (The new Part F is more complex but it is assumed the work referred to started before June 2022) There are no requirements in the english building regulations to provide a method of cooking.

I'm trying to get Northern to confirm if I can adapt their "in-situ build" dimensions a bit so as to use a pre-formed kiosk. Don't know why they simply do not choose a standard size and offer either their own version or suggested manufacturers, perhaps with a nice logo!