kandgmitchell

Well it's patently an inspection cover installed to give access to whatever is under it. That could be a drain, soakaway or secret nuclear bunker.............. Lift it to find out......

But both Building Control Guidance notes 1 and 16 clearly say that only permanent restrictors are acceptable as ways of preventing falling, and in respect of windows used as escape routes BCA Note 16 says: Window restrictors. Window restrictors are not considered to be an alternative to a permanent guard in any of the diagrams in this guide. Reference should be made to BCA Guidance Note 1 - Glass guarding and restrictors to low level windows above ground floor level in dwellings and then BCA Note 1 says: Openable low level glazing as Escape windows. Where low level windows are also designed as escape windows, “permanent” restrictors would not be suitable as they would prevent the window opening wide enough to allow escape. Low level windows fitted with restrictors that can be easily released, would be acceptable but only where suitable guarding is also provided. To be suitable for means of escape, the top of the guarding should be between 800mm and 1100mm above the floor level and the minimum dimension (450mm) and area of the opening (0. 3m2 ) should be measured from the top of the guarding up to the top of the opening. (My emphasis). If your BC provider decides to follow this guidance (which echo's Part K) in order to avoid risk, then so be it. Departing from such technical guidance would be at the discretion of the person signing off the work, some may allow releasable restrictors only but there would be many that wouldn't.

So new joists have been added to beef up the original joist which acts as a trimmer for the new opening. Probably not critical that the new joist bears onto the brickwork as it's shear forces at the bearing that becomes important and it always surprises me how joists turn out to be very capable when you think they shouldn't. However, it's simply good practice to have all the members properly packed up off the loadbearing walls so get some shims into those gaps. What is not clear is how the new and existing trimmer joists are joined along their length - there appears to be a gap between them. If they are going to share the loading imposed by the trimming joists, then they need to be properly connected. I'd be bolting those together with spiked disc washers between so they acted as a single unit, simply bunging a few screws or nails in at random is just not enough. And echo comments above, this is a very risky cold roof arrangement.

Assuming BC have signed this off the options are: 1) Leave things as they are and deal with any problems when and if they arise, 2) Leave things as they are but add the IC to at least make some of what's been done roddable and then deal with any problems when and if they arise, 3) Rip it all out and do it properly. If BC haven't signed this off: 1) Let sleeping dogs lie and apply the above options, 2) Arrange for the final inspection and await BC's reaction and deal with their requirements. I can't see many other alternatives

I'd run it past BC first but I can't see why it wouldn't work. The purpose of the rocks/hardcore is to fill the hole so the surface doesn't fall in but leave voids for the rainwater to be held whilst soaking into the sub-strata. If you have another material that can perform both those functions then where's the problem? The one issue may be how strong the filled ground would be, but down the side of a field does it matter? Getting a handle of the void volume in such a scenario may be an issue but be a bit conservative and propose it to BC.

Well the new IC will certainly help to gain access but you can't rod the side branches from there. This is presumably Scotland so the administrative regs are different from here in England. Has all the work been signed off by BC?

Obviously not a self build but an appeal to BH for material ideas... I need to build a double throne for a local theatre pantomine. The seats are back to back and have a large back panel separating them - the idea is that The Beast sits in one and when rotated, the Prince is magically revealed. The seating and rotating plinth are not an issue - it's the separating board. The initial thoughts was to cut a chipboard panel to create a sort of sun-burst pattern but as a flat panel it's not really fairytale enough so I thought why not have the individual "rays" curving in over the throne alternately, painted up in purple and silver with a bit of netting it would look more impressive. Now the rub, I need to find a way of creating those curves within the thickness of the separating board, obviously chip board or mdf will not bend so any ideas... oh yes you have!

Given the location of the drain run which seems to be between the retaining wall and the house, I can't see a BCO having any issue with limited concrete cover. You could haunch it up if need be but that may look a bit ugly.

My error as well, I thought it was the extension that was 5m from the tree. If I was was building a non-bldg reg outbuilding that close to a tree I'd be looking to do it in the simplest manner possible, as unless you do some serious foundation work the tree will have an impact. So I'd go for a lightweight flexible structure on a simple base. Building a rigid masonry box that close to a big tree is asking for future issues

Horse chestnut 5m away.... I'd design for piles from day one as I don't think digging to China is far enough from Pinner

If this is for a pre-application approach to the LPA why do you need a Design and Access Statement? There wouldn't be any "statutory consultation process" because what you are asking for is an officer's opinion on your proposal - it's not a formal planning application. If you are considering outline planning then you don't need elevations and floorplans. Outline is just that - is the principle of two bungalows in this location acceptable. Detailed design would come later because you would "reserve" that matter until after outline approval was given. As for liason with the case officer - well good luck with that! There are some on here that have had good experiences of pre-app's; getting decent feedback and a good steer as to the LPA's reaction to a formal application. There have also been examples (and I've had some myself) of pointless pre-app's where you get no real insight and because it's a single officer's opinion the LPA goes it's own sweet way upon formal application. I'd get another quote elsewhere for both doing a pre-app for you and a formal outline planning application, so you can compare whether to ask nicely upfront, wait for ages and then have to apply formally, or simply just get on with it and give it a go. If you are successful then you have the choice of selling on the land with outline approval or going on with more detailed design. However, I'd not bother with the latter unless you intend to build out as any buyer is likely to change the design to suit themselves anyway.

Mine certainly was - I had to search hard to find the larger duct for their three phase cable as only a few places kept it in stock

As mentioned above you are obliged to build to the approved drawings. Do they specifically set out dimensions for the build and to what degree of accuracy? 18.8m could be anything up to 18.85m really, so arguably you could be only 25mm over Quite honestly I'd be very surprised if the planners got upset by a variation of 0.04% in a dimension caused by cladding thickness; they've got bigger fish to fry.

I remember when the PP first arrived. No more printing seven sets of drawings and copying forms in triplicate. In those days I had a proper office photocopier with an automatic sorter attachment as well as a huge A1 copier and a plan printer. It was one of the kids jobs after school to walk the post down to the village post office in the form of large packets addressed to local authorities. Then along came the PP which was free to use and you could load everything up digitally and send it off through the web. Great! Over the next few years the large office machines went ( two guys bought them to send to Africa I think) along with most of the filing cabinets. All shrunk to a computer, a screen and a box of floppy discs and even they went to be replaced with a solid state external drive. The PP then went private ( now doubt to improve customer experience - it always is the excuse) and started to charge, I think £25 at first, then gradually it has crept up and up to the point where it's better to send an application direct now that all LA's have adopted the digital world.

I'm not trying to add to your woes but take yourself on line to the Planning Portal and look up Approved Document C and go to page 30 and look at Diagram 9(b), does your arrangement look like that? A tray should have a significant slope outwards to prevent water reaching the inner leaf. It should definately have weepholes otherwise water can't drain away.

So it's a tray dpc then where the inner leaf level is higher than the outer leaf level so as to direct any water ingress to the cavity out to the external leaf (and thence via weepholes). It's just that in the photo the dpc looks flat across the cavity rather than sloping as per the drawn detail - although even that doesn't have the 150mm min drop from the inner leaf dpc to the tray as per Approved Document C diagram 9(b).

Is that a dpc laid flat across the cavity?

My site is in North East Lincs whereas my case officer lived and worked in Devon. No site visit, she relied on photo's of the site taken by a local officer.

Mmmm - if only that were true - I spent many years in Building Control and came to the conclusion that many architects hadn't a clue whether their design complied with the requirements or occasionally even if they would be buildable. As for SE's I had to point out to him that the steel bars in the raft he designed for my house wouldn't all fit into the depth of concrete he'd specified given the spacing, so even those with PI can make mistakes.

None, I'd got distracted by references to BCO's in other posts. However, I would say that the National Building Regulations do require reasonable precaustions to be taken against risks from contaminants such as Radon. Why a planning authority feels it needs to get involved in such technical matters surprises me. Given an LPA covers a specific and limited geographic area it should know whether Radon is a particular risk, and if it is then by all means put an advisory on the permission but leave it to those qualified who will check the design for compliance both on paper and on site to deal with it.

That was my belief as well. Check all the paperwork you got with the "as-built" SAP and, as mentioned above check your address on the on line register of EPC's.

Ask the BCO if a Radon Georeport on the site from the British Geological Survey would be sufficient - they cost £55.44 inc vat. You just need a postcode or national grid reference, order on line and get a pdf back within two days. It complies with BR211 so should be sufficient for them.

Looking at Regulation 3 the BRegs apply to "the erection or extension of a building". Regulation 2 defines a building as "any permanent or temporary building but not any other type of structure or erection". I think you would have to agree that what is proposed is a building - not say a communications mast (which would be a structure for instance) or the Angel of the North which would be an erection. Schedule 2 exempts certain types of "building" from the regulations and Class 6 covers small detached buildings. In your case it's over 1 metre from the boundary so the type of materials used aren't an issue and it's under 30m2. However, to be exempt it also should not contain any sleeping accommodation. That's the issue, your proposal will, so it cannot be an exempt building. If it's not exempt and it's a building then the BRegs apply. However....... if you are only going to use it for six months, it could take the LA that long to discover what the situation is and to react to it, if at all. Not suggesting you ignore the law of course but just pointing out the reality of modern life when LA resources are stretched. Once you stop sleeping in it then it's exempt.

Absolutely - there are no specific limits set out for any of this. You will find that each planning authority will have a local plan which may include policies with general requirements such as "respecting local context etc" or they may delegate slightly more detailed advice to "Supplementary Planning Guidance". In simple terms you may find it hard to gain approval for a three storey town house in a row of bungalows not because of specific eaves or ridge height but the whole design being inappropriate in that location. Start with the planning section of the Council website under Local Plan and check for any supplementary guidance issued.

Your surveyor is "professional services" as was ours and the archaeological dig we needed. You pay the VAT and can't get it back. "Services" without VAT are the electrical, gas, drainage etc which "service" the house. Like Jack we had mixed invoices and simply struck out the items which were not claimable. Ours has just been paid and they didn't raise any queries on what we included or how we presented the invoices.