kandgmitchell

Hi, I'm having this issue too. Northern Power Networks when asked, have given me a kiosk detail showing a brick built one. The internal size is 1000m w x 1050mm h x 560mm deep. The ready made kiosks of course are nowhere near that actual size and so Glasdon for instance is suggesting their 1200mm wide x 1500mm h x 600 deep version. That's a) enormous to have in front of the house and b) expensive. I may have to build one, but would prefer a neater modular unit, but not big enough to rent out!

The benefit of a back inlet gulley for ground floor appliances over simply connecting them to a svp is that if the drain blocks the gulley overflows outside. Without a gulley the first you know of it is when the appliance itself stops draining and you have sink full of yuk. Both work but a BIG is also useful for pouring away horrible stuff in buckets................

You will not need any electrical layout drawings for a Bldg Reg application. At completion you will need to hand over a copy of your electrician's certificate to the BCO. Be aware Part M relating to disabled use sets minimum and maximum heights for switches, sockets etc but layout within rooms is not controlled. Ventilation in dwellings is controlled by Part F Volume 1. The requirements are performance based requiring a certain number of air changes etc. They are not so concerned about routes of pipes and layouts of inlets/outlets in rooms. Have a look at paragraphs 1.67 through to 1.83 in the Approved Document to Part F. They give guidance on how the Regs control MVHR. The important bit is the commissioning and testing when complete as again you will need to provide a copy of the test certificate. So a performance specification is probably more useful to show compliance than a layout plan. The BCO doesn't need to see the UFH layout plan. There are some fairly basic requirements for UFH in Part L Volume 1 Paras 6.28 to 6.32 but the layout is more a design matter for the heating engineer to meet your heating requirements. The layout ought to be kept though and added to the information on the system as part of the "handbook" for future owners. Remember if information isn't available prior to the building reg application being submitted it can always be added when available (obvioulsy it's more helpful if that's before the work is carried out). If the BCO thinks that something critical to showing compliance is missing then they'll ask for it.

You need to look at Building Regulation Requirement H3. This sets out a hierachy of disposal with first choice soakaway or other infiltration, the second is to a watercourse and finally the third is to a sewer. The Building Regs application should describe the method that is approved and the location of a soakaway is not critical just positioned so as not to damage the foundations of the subject building or others (usually 5m away). The downside to connecting to a sewer, especially a foul sewer is that in a heavy rain scenario all that sudden surge of water ends up in the local sewerage works which isn't designed for it and hey presto there's that discharge Fergal Sharky gets annoyed about (quite rightly)

As saveasteading says it'll be almost impossible to prove an existing soakaway still performs in the same way as a new one. If you want to design a soakaway then you need BRE Digest 365, carry out the percolation test and use the results in the formula's provided. The truth is that owners don't want that bother and builders want it even less, so the approach was "dig a hole, fill it with hardcore and run a drain to it". 9 times out of 10 it just worked and no one thought any more of it. These days with flood risk assessments, specialist designs for all parts of the build and everything certificated, that approach doesn't work any more. So the cop out for BC is to say "yes you can use it but prove it's OK". Ultimately you'll be making a new one unless you have a very understanding BCO.

The first two matters are: Will the existing soakaway be at least 5m from the new dwelling, and is the roof area of the new dwelling larger than the original. It needs to be yes to the first and no to the second. If is isn't then really you've fallen at the first hurdle. However, usually old soakaways are a rubble filled pit. Over the years both the pit and the drain to it get silted up, sometimes completely. To be honest I'd be considering replacing the old with a new which tend to be based on rigid plastic perforated crates. These hold more water whilst it percolates into the ground and are thus more efficient.

Thanks guys, I presume she was just having to warn us about the lower figure. From what I'm getting is that we can agree the supply now and press on with the detailed services design, confident that there'll be enough juice to support any proposal put forward.

Hi, We had got a budget quote for a new supply from Northern Power Neworks for our new build. Whilst talking to a very nice lady she mentioned that 3 phase would be available to the site for an extra £300. This seemed like a deal to future proof (it's an all electric house ASHP, EV charger PV etc. Another very nice lady met me on site yesterday to agree the cable route and finalise the quote (which is of course more than the budget). She had a warning though they can only supply 30kVA at three phase - if we wanted the full 45kVA they would have to renew the existing cable probably back to Sizewell B or somewhere. Now having just finished the structural design and working on all the other bits a new build needs I could do with a quick answer to "will this be a problem" as I could do with accepting this quote to get a connection to site for our impending static caravan to hook up to. Thanks in advance

Well our planning approval in Lincolnshire was quite specific. No development until a written scheme of investigation was approved by the County Archaeologist. Then that investigation had to take place and be reported on. No desk study here, two trenches, one 25m x 1.85m and another 5m x 1.85m. This was due to the site being about 250m from the medieval church and there was the "potential" for remains of the medieval village being found........ Work done yesterday, the site is now like the somme as they dug as much as 1.3m deep. Found nothing at all (thankfully) so we move on. Just had to suck it up. At least I could take a soil sample for testing.

Deejay - you do have a little longer. Assuming you either deposited plans with a local authority or gave an Initial Notice to a local authority via an Approved Inspector prior to the 15th June 2022 then you have until June 15th 2023 to commence work on the building in order to avoid compliance with the post June 2022 revisions to the Bldg Regs.

Not at all sure this will apply to self builders. Section 144 which imposes new building warranties starts with, "this section applies where a person (the developer) carries out a development in England that results in the creation of one or more dwellings" Paragraph 6 then effectively defines "carries out a development" as construction of a building with a view to "granting of or disposing of relevant interests in one or more dwellings" i.e selling the dwelling on to a purchaser. It appears therefore that if you are not building the dwelling with a view to selling it to a third party then there is no statutory obligation to obtain a warranty. I presume that will not prevent you selliing it on in the future once you have lived in it. How long the gap would have to be will only be tested should a case get to court. I would have thought the secretary of state would be unlikely to pursue an individual in the first place and then only if they could "beyond reasonable doubt" show you had no reasonable excuse to sell on without a warranty. I'd say if you've lived in it a year, hate the area or divorce the partner and decide to sell up the SofS isn't going to come after you!

I think you will find the explanation for the refusal of the change to the garages in the officer's report on the file. It seems you were seeking to change the description of the planning permission (which included demolition of the garages) using a Section 73 application to change conditions on that permission. That can't be done and the courts have ruled on this. It seems you have fallen foul of administrative rules rather than a dislike of your proposal. If I recall (I looked at the files some days ago) the officer goes on to suggest the route to take to get to where you want to be. Just because you have large extensions approved, your PD rights will not be erased but they may be affected. Often it makes sense to carry out PD projects before implementing an approved scheme. If you don't, then be cautious and read the Permitted Development rules carefully as they often refer to the original dwelling as a baseline for locations and dimensions - not the dwelling as extended.