kandgmitchell

Not sure what you means by a "SAP's test"? How it normally works is that you submit a SAP calculation (actually it's a suite of calculations) as part of your design, this demonstrates that your proposal meets the requirements for new dwellings for energy efficiency. Then at the end of the work the process is repeated using the "as built" information (e.g the actual pressure test result rather than an assumed one). That final calculation should be no worse than the original "design" calculation. So you don't need that first SAP calculation before you appoint a BC body but you will need it when you submit your application to them.

I'd say this is pretty standard these days. Usually best to go along with it, there's not much alternative to be honest.

We used 127mm x 76 UB's and dropped the sleepers into the flanges. Painted the steels in Everbuilds Black Jack bitumastic paint first. Doesn't get sticky in the sun and I would expect the steels to last a very long time and it'll be my children replacing the treated sleepers I reckon.

My thoughts would be to apply for planning permission for the sub-division of the main dwelling but include the annexe in one or other of the gardens (with an eye to a future use) but making the extant approval and start for it clear in the application. Presumably the council would no objection to approving the building again per se i.e scale, mass, appearance but may of course raise a concern about how it's use would now relate to either of the divided plots. If the sub-division was refused then simply proceed with the original annexe as approved.

It is or at least it was 6 years ago when we bought a half finished project and found the owners were paying Council Tax on a shell with no floors, no windows or doors and no services connected. When we queried this the Council said the only way was to get the VA to remove it from the list. The VA inspected and agreed it could be removed from the valuation list and so no CT was payable. We got it re-valued and put back on the list upon completion and luckily sold it before the CT was due (that council allowed 6 months free for empty properties).

Not sure how removing the doors will improve the situation? Even a non-compliant closed door will hold back smoke within the living room for a short time. A three storey house requires a protected escape route for the upper floors. Those on the first floor in extremis could hang from the first floor windows and drop to the ground, those on the second floor can not and so need the security of being able to get down the stairs, hence the protected route. This is the requirement: Loft conversions 2.21 Where a new storey is added through conversion to create a storey above 4.5m, both of the following should apply. a. The full extent of the escape route should be addressed. b. Fire resisting doors (minimum E 20) and partitions (minimum REI 30) should be provided, including upgrading the existing doors where necessary. The glazed side panels will need to be addressed as they need to be 30 minute fire resistant as well. Didn't your designer mention any of this?

One issue I had with our raft which was 250mm deep was getting the correct cover to the steel plus the thickness of the main bars, plus the thickness of the strirups which fit around the main bars, then the space between the upper and lower main bars, the bars and strirup depth again and finally the bottom cover. It's surprising how soon all that uses up the depth of the perimeter insulation on site that you bought compared to the SE's drawing!

We had 3 phase supply and the 150mm is what they wanted to the cabinet. As far as I'm aware extruded polystyrene is very closed cell and doesn't absorb water whereas expanded does hence the drainage requirements for the latter. We used extruded and it certainly was waterproof.

You have what's known as a "cold roof" i.e the insulation is at ceiling level leaving the loft space cold. The loft should be ventilated to remove the moisture. It looks like there's plenty of insulation, is it blocking the eaves ventilation route (if there is one)?

Well one thing is those aren't celcon high strength blocks. If they were then they'd be smoother and have a black coloured band painted on the ends to identify them. It would be interesting to know what the blocks were as their insulation value could be a lot less than the celcon's, leading to the wall having an overall lower U value. Wouldn't affect the draught problem though, has to be air running down the back of the plasterboard somehow.

A change of use in planning terms will still require a "full" planning application. Your council may well require various reports etc to support the application. If you look on their planning website under "validation" many Councils list what they require to be submitted against the type of application being made. You'll also need a Building Regulation full plans application.

Absolutely - that new bedroom would be cut off from the flat exit by the room with the highest fire risk; the kitchen. The flat was deliberately designed to have it's bedrooms nearer the exit door than the kitchen. I'd also expect that there was a door on the opening from the kitchen onto the inner hallway originally. As to the structural bit, you can just see the arrangement of piers holding up that large ceiling beam. Doing all those changes within a flat is going to be a very big ask.

We used the left over 150mm rigid electrical duct Northern Power insisted we use for our power connection. Cut into short lengths and slid over the drainage connections. It was cut tight to the insulation and then the gap within the duct around the drain pipe sealed with foam.

That wouldn't work. The FENSA system works by the installing company serving a notice on the Council which effectively suspends their involvement in the work under the approved contractor scheme. The Council keeps a record of these notices. No notice then the OP would be responsible for the installation and thus open to enforcement. However, the risk of such enforcement is so low now that building control is so fragmented. It would take a lot of effort for a local authority BCo to notice the replacement windows in the first place then decide to check if a FENSA certificate/application had been lodged, then follow up with an investigation. After all that they would need to get authorisation for prosecution. With current staffing levels that just isn't going to happen. What may be an issue is when you come to sell and the buyer wants some proof of either an application or a FENSA certificate. If you're not selling in the near future then once several years pass, who cares? They are windows for heaven sake.

Well this is the ventilation requirements when replacing windows..... my bold Existing windows without background ventilators 3.15 Replacing the windows is likely to increase the airtightness of the dwelling. If ventilation is not provided via a mechanical ventilation with heat recovery system, then increasing the airtightness of the building may reduce beneficial ventilation in the building. In these circumstances, it is necessary to ensure that the ventilation provision in the dwelling is no worse than it was before the work was carried out. This may be demonstrated in any of the following ways. Building Regulations 2010 Approved Document F Volume 1, 2021 edition 25 F1(1) a. Incorporating background ventilators in the replacement windows equivalent to the following. i. Habitable rooms – minimum 8000mm2 equivalent area. ii. Kitchen – minimum 8000mm2 equivalent area. iii. Bathroom (with or without a toilet) – minimum 4000mm2 equivalent area. b. If the dwelling will have continuous mechanical extract ventilation, installing background ventilators in any replacement windows which are not in wet rooms, with a minimum equivalent area of 4000mm2 in each habitable room. c. Other ventilation provisions, if it can be demonstrated to a building control body that they comply with the requirements of paragraph 3.2. So paragraph 3.2 says..... 3.2 When other building work is carried out that will affect the ventilation of the existing dwelling, for example: a. replacing a window or door b. doing energy efficiency work the ventilation of the dwelling should either: a. meet the standards in the relevant approved document b. not be less satisfactory than before the work was carried out. NOTE: Ventilation through infiltration should be considered to be part of the ventilation provision of a dwelling. Reducing infiltration might reduce the indoor air quality of the dwelling below the standards given in Appendix B. Infiltration is defined as: Infiltration The uncontrolled exchange of air between the inside and outside of a building, through gaps and cracks. Given you are replacing existing upvc windows with more thermally efficient ones it is unlikely that you are going to make the ventilation arrangements any worse than they are now (unless the ex. have trickle vents).

Part O changes the traditional guarding rules though. If you need to keep a window open wider than 100mm in order to avoid overheating, then the cill height (to avoid falls) becomes 1100mm if there is no other guarding to the opening.

Nope: Schedule 2 of the Building Regulations...... CLASS 7 Extensions The extension of a building by the addition at ground level of— (a)a conservatory, porch, covered yard or covered way; or (b)a carport open on at least two sides; where the floor area of that extension does not exceed 30m2, provided that in the case of a conservatory or porch which is wholly or partly glazed, the glazing satisfies the requirements of F3[F4Part K4, K5.1, K5.2, K5.3, and K5.4] [F3Part N] of Schedule 1.

I think you mean a 3rd party country. I know the government is doing it's best to turn us into the former but be fair they've only had six months so far, give them a bit more time.................

Don't forget cowardice or political expediency. Councillors can vote against an application that has a lot of local opposition despite a recommendation for approval by officers - that way those nasty government Inspectors approve the scheme not us councillors who want your vote next election time to stay in post.

If it's a porch erected over a retained door and is less than 30m2 floor area then it's a Class 7 exempt building (note the need for the glazing to comply with safety requirements).

Well a door head is about 2.0m so use that as an idea of the headroom you'll get. I recall seeing such a loft conversion years ago. It was for the owners children so they offset leack of headroom for much needed floorspace.

2.3m was the old minimum before the re-casting of the 1985 regs so most new builds used that as a standard. 2.0m is tight and is the minimum over a stair under the current regs. It could be done at a pinch considering most of one's time in a bedroom is spent horizontal!

We have been living in our Danwood for six months now. Our design but adjusted for their construction methods. Very pleased - it's such a change to come home to a warm house where every room is comfortable, well almost. Just had their heating engineers out today to solve a poorly heated bedroom. This had been reported through their online reporting system and engineers were out within the week. They found the thermostat connections to the underfloor valves were mixed up and we were thus adjusting one bedroom and actually setting another. Still they were efficient and pleasant, soon fixed it and all going well. This is something we were pleased about with Danwood, very professional. Be aware though with the foundation requirement. They did spring a need to add our own additional floor insulation on us at the last moment. What they specified in December 2023 did not quite meet regulations which they claimed had recently changed (well actually June 2022 chaps...). We consequently did an insulated raft on medium shrinkage clay but with trees some distance away. No problem with BC - foundations were inspected then we provided photographs. The whole thing was done in 8 weeks. I think BC recognised that this was a factory assembled building made to a high standard. Fully designed out with full superstructure calcs by UK engineers. The construction is a well oiled machine and they didn't skimp as far as I could see (which was every evening after they'd left!). Be prepared for lots of left over timber, we still have a stack under cover for all those small jobs coming up in the garden.

Sorry to hear that, I'm afraid over the years I've learnt never to trust planners and to plan and obtain conformation of each stage with the appropriate approval notices. I was taught by an ex. senior planner turned consultant to "slowly, slowly catch your monkey".....

This was converting some substantial stable buildings within the client's domestic property into living accomodation for their daughter. The Council argued that this created a separate dwelling and thus required planning permission. I argued that all buildings within the planning unit had the same use i.e domestic and if the buildings were used by the family as an adjunct to the main house they weren't a separate dwelling. The Inspector agreed but picked up on something I (and the Council) missed - a lean-to shed used to house a lawn tractor was shown as demolished. The Inspector said this created a requirement for planning consent and thus the Certificate was refused. The client decided to convert the stables and leave the shed in place and ignore the Council.......