DevilDamo

I think that should be ok as guarding us usually required where there is a difference in height of over 600mm. Would like somebody else to review and comment on that though.

If you have been chasing them but without any luck, see if the CICAIR can help… https://www.cicair.org.uk

In relation to question 1 and in some instances, LPA’s may look to retain certain design features that other properties incorporate. But each application is determined on its own merits.

Which is why advice provided during pre-app is caveated that it’s the informal opinion of the officer and does not represent the decision of the Council. I’ve never liked it.

It’s called a Final Certificate. You should first try the Approved Inspector. Failing that, your LA should have a copy but on the basis the works have been inspected and signed off by the AI.

They have only removed Class A and Class B. You can still carry out other PD works providing they meet the requirements. Because you’re in the Green Belt, don’t think that a re-instatement of your PD rights will be plain sailing.

Maybe so. But complying with Planning still comes first.

The main thing to note is that Planning comes before Building Regulations. So you can’t contravene any Planning requirements with the aim of satisfying Building Regulation requirements.

In relation to extensions or alterations to existing dwellings, the amended ADL isn’t a whole lot different to the old ADL. Providing you know where to look, you’ll be fine. The main change is the reduction in u-values and the table is easy to follow.

What condition did you have that related to windows? Is it the standard no openings below 1.7m above floor level and to be obscured on an upper side elevation? If so, is that the condition you are Appealing against?

It would be deemed as an extension to an existing dwelling where there is a lesser and more relaxed approach to u-values.

The u-values would be based on the outbuilding being an extension to the existing dwelling.

Although it wasn’t specifically requested by Planning, one of my clients’ neighbours requested one. They were concerned about the loss of light to a stair window. We ended up having to slightly re-design the extension.

The reason I asked is because discussions during the formal determination process now appear to only happen if the applicant or agent have initially sought pre-app advice. It’s part of the NPPF. Each application is determined on its own merits, etc…

Email what you have now to a SAP assessor, they’ll calculate it and tell you which areas need improving. But for starters, a 100mm cavity would not comply and that was been before the rules changed last year.

Did you initially seek Pre-application advice?

Yes, I have seen that. It and other sources state certain qualified consultants can issue PCC’s but whether the LABC can is another thing as it may be down to a particular individual and their own PII. The situation is a new build property that is nearly complete without any warranty from the outset. It’s a self-build so I’m finding out what options they have… retrospective PCC, structural warranty, completed house warranty, etc…

Can LABC issue a PCC upon satisfactory completion of a new build development?

I agree. I think the main issue here is that because the drawings show and note insulated cavity walls, that is taking the building more away from what is known and seen as a garage and more a habitable space. And this is why the BCO is requesting a fully compliant building. If they stuck with a single skin garage, then once inspected and signed off, the OP can do what they want.

This is what I would consider the principal elevation as it contains the main architectural features… in addition to the front door. So a suitably designed outbuilding positioned behind that blue line would imo be considered PD.

The OP said it would be heated for if/when they decide to work in there. So this appears to be more of a heated outbuilding as opposed to an unheated garage.

I think you’re right as the Introduction in Volume 1 states that it only covers self-contained dwellings and not rooms for residential purposes of which this outbuilding would be. I’ve had BC tell me in the past an outbuilding that has ancillary or incidental use to the dwelling would need to meet the same u-values as if it was an extension.

Yes but why is the OP stating his engineer is spec’ing external cavity walls, albeit meeting the pre-June 2022 regulations?

No it isn’t. PD doesn’t have a limit but has to be seen to be incidental to the dwelling house.