EdHat

Fill the footings then you're ok. The PWA only applies to the footing works so it will be too late once they're complete.

PIR overcomes that but won't have the same acoustic performance as the mineral wool. How important is sound performance? I would probably go PIR and an acoustic plasterboard. If you keep the r-value of the inner insulation layer lower then the outer layer (and have a good VCL) you generally overcome the interstitial condensation risk. But that will limit you to about 90mm mineral wool depending on exact lambda. If you are confident you can get the install the VCL completely airtight and their aren't any high humidity rooms directly below, then the risk of interstitial condensation is going to be very low even if you fill it with mineral wool. You could add a layer of multifoil insulations beneath the mineral wool which will improve thermal properties and double up the VCL, but it will be expensive.

I know of a similar situation so I can comment as to what my LA planners agreed. - Had PD for a ground floor extension. - Applied for PP for a part single storey part two storey extension which would breach the 45degree rule. - The single storey portion was the same as that approved under PD. - Planners understood that if the ground floor portion was constructed under PD then the two storey portion would get PP and the result would be the same, although with a lot more work finishing the ground floor only to add a first floor. They agreed to include the ground floor in the application and waive the 45 degree rule There exact words were "The ground floor extension would require planning permission if it is not fully completed before the first floor works start. Obviously it would not be reasonable to require the ground floor extension to be fully roofed etc to allow the first floor to be built, and as such, I take the view that although the ground floor extension should be included in this application for planning permission, it would not cause any additional harm whether it is built by itself (under permitted development) or with a first floor addition. As such, I would not be looking to refuse the application on the basis that the ground floor breaks the 45 degree rule, as long as the first floor extension is compliant." At the moment you have two separate permissions, not one for the combined structure. You should resubmit but mention you have PD for a portion and make the point that if you complete the PD and then applied for PP for the extra, the result is the same, so it would be unreasonable to enforce the 45 degree rule.

Although it is not unusual to see slates laid onto the barge board with no undercloak and mortar, you should bed all tiles or slates on an undercloak or use a dry system. I agree dry verges made up of individual caps do not look nice. A wet bedded verge isn't that much maintainance if done correctly. Make sure the undercloak is bedded, projects the right amount and tiles are bedded on a min 100mm wide bed of mortar. Often tiles are bedded and mortar is left recessed and pointed up after, and then that falls out. If done right, by the time it needs looking at plastic dry verges would be faded and looking poor. Bear in mind if, you are considering interlocking tiles each will need to be clipped at the verge which effects the aesthetics of a bedded verge. 1. There are continuous dry verges available for tiles. I would avoid darker plastics to delay the fading. 2. With slate, if you don't want to bed them just use a continuous dry verge, they look very neat imo. 3. At the eaves? Why don't you want weight on the fascia? You can use an over fascia vent to provide ventilation between the fascia and tile/slate. Some roofers still use tilt fillets with 5u felt but eaves support trays are generally more popular now. This is to support the underlay not the tiles/slates though. If you don't have a fascia you would need a tilt fillet to support the tiles/slates.

That looks poor in the photo. The bond is not uniform in the corner with large gaps between bricks. The corner of a bay is a crucial point to do right, as it is often subject to point loads around openings and ties the sides with the front. The brickwork also protrudes into the cavity which is going to cause cold bridging and be vulnerable to moisture bridging the cavity. Regarding the messy/lack of mortar to joints and snots in the cavity, just because it's common doesn't mean it is acceptable. I would be particularly concerned with open joints as it has a full fill insulation. Does your insurance cover allow you to appoint your own surveyor to specify and oversee the works?

It is going to look different as you've got dry ridge/hips now whereas previously you had a wet system (bedded on mortar). The British standard now requires ridges and hips to be mechanically fixed which is best achieved with a dry system, with wet systems generally only now used for repairs. You've quoted the planning permission but what did the architect's plans state regarding materials and fixing method? I wouldn't worry about the difference in the actual appearance of the tiles as they will weather in over time. The installation looks poor though. Note the following: - The hips shouldn't be unaligned like that. If they've fitted a hip batten I don't understand how that would have happened. - They haven't clipped the cut tiles along the hip. I can see what looks like 2 lead tingles, one is loose, but every cut tile should be clipped at bottom and top. - There are large gaps between the membrane and tiles which will be vulnerable to driving rain. The membrane should be dressed to and adhered to the tiles below. - The chases for the stepped lead flashings haven't been fully sealed. - Flashing looks like it might be too long and there isn't enough cover down over the tiles, particularly on the hip. Max length (assuming it's code 4 is 1500mm and there should be min 150mm cover over tiles.

As Mike said this should have been calculated. I would be more comfortable with your suggested option 1 as the roof to the ground floor section, which all the water is discharging onto, looks to have quite a low pitch, especially if it is a double lap plain tile like the main roof. Pitch and flashing type make me think it must be a single lap interlocking tile.

A colleague used it on a high end extension recently after the renderer said they'd rather use it and there'd be no cost difference from the specified sand and cement render. The finish achieved wasn't great but it wasn't that bad that he could confidently say it needed redoing. The K Rend rep came out and said go over with another coat which the renderer did with no additional cost for the client.

Weep holes are important but a lack of them doesn't often result in water ingress unless in very exposed locations. Were you able to confirm there is a cavity tray when the weep holes were installed. You mentioned the lintel has a integrated cavity tray. Can you get a product reference as I'm not aware of these. Usually you have a separate cavity above the lintel. This protects the lintel and has stop ends to stop water running of the ends of the tray, If you have a galvanised steel lintel, the fixings through the head of the window would have damaged the galvanising on the lintel, especially if the fixings were corroded, so it would be important to make sure the lintel is protected by an intact cavity tray. Storm Dry has it's place but shouldn't be necessary on new work done right. I'm surprised to hear a BCO accepting it as an alternative to a cavity tray, An issue with Storm Dry is when cracks eventually form in it through movement and deterioration of the masonry it can allow moisture in and trap it in the wall preventing it from drying out as most of the wall is still waterproof.

Hi all, Been visiting this forum for some time and was hoping some of you may be able to give some advise for my situation. My wife and I are hoping to build a house in my parents garden. I have got planning permission already (although am about to resubmit). We have been saving into LISAs but before we put another £16k in in March & April I want to make sure we can get the bonus We intend to purchase the land from my parents with what we have saved in the LISAs rather then for the full value of the land, just so that we can get the 25% bonus. I understand you can use the LISA and get the bonus when buying land to build a house, but you need a mortgage. Is it possible to secure a self build mortgage to buy the land, so we get the LISA bonus, but then don't borrow any money at that stage? If we are buying the land for say £40k when it is worth £280K how does that affect things? I'm hoping to use the equity we then have in the land to secure further stage payments. Thanks in advance for any advise given, even if it's just who I should be speaking to for advise on this, mortgage provider or conveyancing solicitor?

NHBC standards are useful.