MintSprint

New development is treated differently (less stringently) than impact on existing development.

Yeah, if you comply with the 45 and 25 degree rules, they're redundant (in fact the methodology in the document we're talking about basically says that if you comply with the 25/45 degree rules, you don't need to go any further) In fact, you've got to be doing something completely horrendous to fail the full analysis; the standard they set isn't terribly high.

OK... let's have some fun. What have I said that you dispute?

I'm sorry, but on the very good evidence of a number of things you've said on this thread so far, I don't.

Approved Document A to the Building Regulations may be useful, if you're trying to do it without soil testing or the input of an Engineer. Pages 36 and 37... In the absence of testing to determine the MPI, depth will need to be to the satisfaction of the Building Control inspector, and they will certainly want to be below the level of any evident intrusion by tree roots.

This is the correct answer. Both fees and 'service level agreements' vary from Authority to Authority. In my experience, it can vary from 14 days up to 'we'll do it when we get round to it, but active applications take precedence'. Speak to the Planning department and ask them, if it's not already on their website.

So, to make sure I understand: you're proposing demolition of one half of a semi-detached bungalow to provide the access, then building a new 2-storey dwelling behind?

It depends whether you have a 3D CAD model they can use; as above, if one is available, it's actually a pretty quick and simple process, these days - certainly no more than a £few hundred. If you have to do the background work to support it, it'd be a bit more - a high 3-figure or very low 4-figure sum.

It wouldn't have been. You have misunderstood if you think that was the case: it would have been offered up and built into the S106 agreement in due course, had you accepted that offer. As I said, I've been involved in these sorts of negotiations many times. If it's village halls we're talking about, then this is one of mine, agreed on exactly the basis you outlined (along with a MUGA; and the village hall in this case was net Zero Carbon): The fact that CIL has not completely replaced S106 is its big failing, of course - we're routinely seeing both a CIL payment and a separate S106 on many, if not most, major developments.

Be careful of this one... it's why I'd been careful to qualify my comments above by saying that you need full end bearing, The stud cluster specified by the Engineer is what's necessary to transmit the load from the RSJ to the foundations. The bottom flange of the RSJ has to cover the entire stud cluster (and if it doesn't, it's normal for the SE to specify a steel 'spreader plate' that sits under the flange of the RSJ, on top of the stud cluster to its full width), in order to do so. You can fit extra studs to 'bracket' the RSJ, if you like, but obviously they won't be actually carrying any of its load, so you'll still need the full complement of studs as specified by the SE for that stud cluster, as well. Obviously, this arrangement locates the end of the beam side to side, but does nothing to restrain it longitudinally... but as above, it shouldn't need to.

Oh, and: If you understood the Planning system a bit better, you'd appreciate that (surprisingly for many people), this is perfectly legitimate negotiation on 'planning gain'. It is embedded in, and supported by, Planning law (specifically, Section 106 of the T&CPA). I've done the same on many occasions. CIL was intended to make the process more transparent and equitable, but hasn't been entirely successful.

Possibly because of members reluctance to employ the necessary Planning Consultant to prod the Planners with a sharpened stick? One regrettable tendency that I have noticed is for Planners to run rings around people they have mentally flagged as 'amateurs'. They think a lot more carefully when they know that they're dealing with a Chartered Planner at the other side of the table. Like any other public servants, they become lazy and slapdash when there's nobody there to keep them on their toes. But more likely, as I said: The example we've just covered with @AnonymousBosch is a fair demonstration of that: dig a bit deeper, with sufficient understanding of Planning law and process, and it frequently makes perfect sense (...well, within the arcane limits of the Planning system, anyway).

Yep, that's why I suggested to confirm with your SE. As @Mr Punter says, it is more normal for the floor to restrain the walls; it would have been conceivable (albeit unlikely) that the RSJ might have been designed to contribute to this, or to form part of a sway frame that contributed to racking resistance (in which case there'd have been a steel post instead of cripple studs and a rigid connection between the two at the top of the post), but in that event your SE would have clearly known about it. If the SE don't care, then you're safe to assume that the beam is simply supported and serving no restraining function, in which case it can simply sit there (provided, as I said, that it's aligned correctly and has full end bearing).

Well, if the SE hasn't specified any restraint, then provided it's aligned correctly and with enough bearing, it doesn't need anything. It will happily just sit there... steel beams are not noted for their ability to float away if they're not bolted down.

Ask your structural engineer, but you don't necessarily need anything. Once the RSJ is under load, it won't be going walkies...