IanR

I'm not exactly clear on what you are asking. Are you asking whether adding a mezzanine to an existing building, that involves only internal works, would not fall within the definition of development (as defined by section 55(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990), whether it's a dwelling or an out building? If that's your question, then yes. (caveat, I'm assuming your outbuilding has a lawful use as residential) Even if its current Use Class is not Residential it will still be lawful, as long as the inclusion of the mezzanine does not stop the building from functioning in its lawful Use Class.

Yes, no habitable Mezzanine, just a ceiling over the ground floor. That makes it an easy decision then, remove them from the plans you submit and forget about them

Crikes, you've done a lot without having permission, that puts some pressure on you... If the LPA are unlikely to engage, I'd not change anything on your build yet, but re-submit planning without dormers and showing a cold roof, justifying the 1st floor ceiling structure, which in the future will become your mezzanine. Retain all fenestrations that were in the original building's 1st floor area that bring light in to that area. Maybe show a couple of light wells in the ground floor ceiling that indicate borrowed light entering the ground floor from the 1st floor storage area, to justify retaining the old/original fenestrations. Close off the stair way opening to mezzanine to no larger that a loft hatch. There is no need to show the structure of the 1st floor ceiling on your planning drawing, just minimum info showing ceiling position and thickness above, labelled as insulated. Submit your revised planning and keep your fingers crossed. If successful you could then submit an amendment to planning for the dormers, but I think this is unlikely to succeed without the mezzanine justifying them - Catch 22! Once the build is complete, you will be able to lawfully reinstate and use the Mezzanine, without planning, as it would then not be classed as development, since it would be internal works only. With the Mezzanine installed/reinstated and lawful, now is the time to submit a planning app for the dormers if you really want them. But you will have had to have removed them to finish the build in line with what you hopefully get permission for, and then apply to add the dormers to improve the functionality of the mezzanine. - The mez must already be in use before the planning app for the dormers is submitted. The LPA then has to consider the chance of loosing at Appeal what is "just" a minor increase in building volume, but they may have a good argument for you not having the dormers.

I think you are reading a whole lot in to my post that I didn't actually say.

If the dormers were not included on the original outbuilding, then their form on the new outbuilding is linked to the mezzanine, so it is quite possible that if you re-submit without the mezzanine being in use, they would probably say they are superfluous, and as they add to the size and volume of the new outbuilding, push-back on their inclusion. The material choice though isn't directly linked to the mezzanine, so if they have accepted your new materials, there shouldn't be a problem. How well does your LPA engage? If you know there will be a chance to discuss their issues during the consideration period, it may be worth re-submitting with the dormers included, but the mezzanine not in use, and be ready to update your drawings without said dormers, if they do push-back against them. It depends if they really don't like the dormers, and that is their priority reason for rejecting your initial application, or if they are avoiding setting a precedent for the floor area increase. You say you have engaged a planning consultant, are they not able to get you an informal steer on this? That's the whole point of paying for a planning consultant.

Not really, once the contract is complete and technician/SE/frame designer/architect has been paid for their service, I would expect to be free to do as I see fit with the CAD files generated by the prior engagement. The contract would of course have to be structured for this. Easy to do when the client is the hub and is engaging directly with each of the collaborative elements of the process, but more difficult if the client is contracting a turn key solution from one of those individuals, who is then engaging the other elements to deliver that solution.

It does high light the need to get it agreed before you engage your chosen technician/SE/frame designer/architect. For me, native CAD files (or a neutral file format as a minimum) have to be included for collaboration and as the final deliverable. Native CAD files are no different to manually drafted "Originals". PDFs are more akin to the blue-lines and sepia copies of the past.

Have you included changes to the exterior (from the original out building) that are intrinsically linked to the inclusion of the mezzanine? I suspect you may have. If so, then the inclusion of the mezzanine is "development" since it has altered the external appearance. Even if no exterior changes have been made to accommodate the mezzanine, I believe the fact that it is included/shown within the planning application for what is a development, it becomes part of that development, and so is included in floor area calcs. Is it possible the Council are not allowing the floor space previously provided by the original mezzanine to be considered, as it was not structurally capable of being a "floor". It does look like a storage area, rather than a floor. Are those "joists" capable of performing as a floor for their span, in residential building regs terms? If it could have passed building regs, without additional structural additions, have you proved that to the Council? Too late to get a structural report, if you don't already have one, but a submission by you of the joist size, spacings, span and a link to a reference that says that combination is acceptable should be sufficient. I thought LPA's have moved away from making judgements on floor area increases in favour of volumetric increases. I guess this is out of your hands, but volumetric increase is the actual impact on the surroundings, not floor area. If you are to resubmit an application, I'd steer the conversation towards volume of old v. volume of new in your Design and Access Statement. If you can't get around the floor increase issue, you'll need to re-submit without the 1st floor area being "used". Maybe it could be there, as storage, but without a fixed stair case. Then add it once the build is complete and outbuilding is in use. I suspect that the Council may challenge any exterior detail that was included for the Mezzanine, beyond what was in the original outbuilding.

£9K difference on a 160 sq m home seems more than just u value. Are you comparing like-for-like, apart from u value, or is one a timber/alu-clad and the other a aluminium frame, or something similar? I couldn't imagine there'd be that much difference between Rationel U 1.2 vs Rationel U 0.82

Actually, thinking about it, line weight (thickness) on a vector print to PDF can be set either way, ie a certain thickness at the scale printed, so that it gets thicker as you zoom in, or fixed thickness no matter what zoom percentage you are at, so that wasn't a good indicator I picked. But the fact it does't go blurry, is a strong indicator it's a vector format. An even stronger indicator if it is a curved/circular "line" that doesn't get blurry/stepped. Unless you are familiar with the CAD system the architect is using, I'd leave it to them. They may have a PDF2CAD plugin that allows the PDF to be opened directly and auto-translated in to their system format. Or they may use a 3rd party system to export the PDF into a format that can be Imported in to their CAD system. Once imported to their CAD system, yes they would be able to edit it, although not as easily as if they had the native CAD files from your original architect.

Depends. PDFs can be Vector based, rather than raster. CAD systems can be set up to print to PDF in Vector format. If that's been done then you can convert that into a neutral file format that can be Imported into some CAD systems. "cgm" is a vector plotting format that is good for this type of transfer. To tell if your PDFs are vector based, zoom in and in. Do the lines get thicker and turn fuzzy, or do they stay the same thickness and remain sharp? If the latter, then they are vector based.

I used a pre-insulated twin pipe: Rehau RVT DUO 32 + 32/150 If you need to bring it up vertically through a slab, it needs quite a deep trench due to the minimum bend radii.

I've got an AirFlow unit, and am very happy with it. AirFlow can design your system for you, at least they could in 2016. They have a very competent design office. I'm pretty sure that the system design was free, I can find no record of paying for it, accept they charged me £50 + VAT for iteration number 4. But that was after we'd agreed everything, and they'd issued me 45 page design report etc., so I thought that was quite reasonable. AirFlow then provide a full BoM and a target price, and you take that around to all their distributors to get the best price you can. I found that different distributors get different terms with AirFlow, depending on their sales volumes, and it turned out for me that no one could beat Travis Perkins. My local TP didn't have a clue what I was ordering, but they ordered it and delivered it for substantially less than the target price from AirFlow. AirFlow then provided very good telephone support for my self-install and later for getting the communication running between Loxone and the AirFlow unit.

As per Temp's link, the Martin Goodall planning blog is a great reference, and is probably where I've picked up the allowable break in breech, if for good reason, and not abandonment. In a quick look just now, I can't find the exact blog. As a reference for how an planning inspectorate puts the argument together for an Appeal that has been allowed when the LPA refused a CLEUD due to a break in continuity of Breach: https://planningjungle.com/wp-content/uploads/2196915-Appeal-Decision-Notice.pdf

The deemed consent relates to a continuing breach of planning that has lasted continuously for 4 years (or for 10 years if it is a breach of a planning condition - there are other caveats) I believe the Enforcement Officer has taken the position that once the deck was removed, the breach was no longer on going, so the 4 year clock restarts, and deemed planning no longer applies. I've no idea if case law exists in this particular situation, but for others there is a consensus that a 3 month break in the continuity of the breach does not effect the breach, ie. the breach can stop for 3 months, if there is a genuine reason, such as renovation, and it not effect the deemed consent. If the terrace was unusable for less than 3 months, or for not much more, then I would test the Enforcement Officer's position by applying for a Certificate of Lawful Existing Use and Development (CLEUD) You can check with the LPA how much they charge for a CLEUD application. Retrospective Planning makes a subjective decision on whether a planning application would be granted today for the structure that has been there for some time, but without considering deemed consent. A CLEUD is less subjective, if you can prove a continuous and ongoing breach (in the balance of probability), they have to provide a Certificate that makes it lawful for that breach to continue. You can do the CLEUD yourself, but if it's important to you I'd suggest using a Planning Consultant with relevant experience, to put the CLEUD application together. It is easy to share info with the LPA that they can then use as a reason to not grant the CLEUD, if you don't know all the rules. An application of a CLEUD would stop the current Enforcement action, until the CLEUD was decided.

I'm with Symbio, prices have just gone up to: Elec is 11.725p excl / unit (12.31p incl.) and 19.048p excl / day standing charge (20p incl.) Tarrif - Low Fair and Green Variable SE02 v18 Downside of Symbio - I seem to be unable to stop them over estimating usage and pushing up the DD, to then pay the money back later.

I don't recognise the first picture, but the second is exactly what I expect of a coms cabinet!

To clarify I've used solid core for all structured cabling to patch panels, but have used stranded patch leads for everything, including to PoE devices, contrary to the comment from @Scoobyrex, so was asking the question "why solid core patch leads for PoE devices?"

Agree. It would need to be metered as it goes into each property, otherwise taps would be left running and windows open. For retrofitting tower blocks, when the hydrogen revolution doesn't happen for domestic heating, there is a plausible option of filling the roof space up with ASHPs and running the hot water down to each apartment externally. But that's going off topic...

For new build Terrace houses and Apartments, how about District Heating? Seems to work in Sweden.

That's the boiler industry lobbying the government, which the the Government appear to have ignored for the 2025 Future Homes Standard, where the response to the consultation has said new homes are to be fitted with low carbon heating, not low carbon ready heating.

Oopps, I didn't know this. What's the impact of not doing so? I'm using stranded cable from integral PoE Switch on NVR to patch panel for all cameras and from patch panel to PoE switch for APs. Very glad I used patch panels, much tidier, and easier to reconfigure.

It seems clear there will be no fossil fuel boilers in New Builds from 2025, and the briefing and lobbying is starting for what carrot and/or stick is required to get existing fossil fuel boilers swapped out in the years that follow.

Why don't you ask the Kingspan to provide you a condensation risk analysis of your sole plate detail? Without any external insulation much of the sole plate will be at the outside temperature. If the soleplate is below the dewpoint for the internal house air and that air comes in contact with it there is a risk of condensation. 20°C air with 65% RH has a dewpoint of 13.2°C (https://www.calculator.net/dew-point-calculator.html?airtemperature=20&airtemperatureunit=celsius&humidity=65&dewpoint=&dewpointunit=celsius&x=54&y=16) At anything below around 13.2°C, should air from inside the property contact the soleplate there is a risk of condensation (that doesn't mean a risk of rot). To stop interstitial condensation on the solepate from the internal air, you need a vapour control layer on the inside face of the SIP to block/reduce the amount of moisture that can get to the soleplate. Overlapping and sealing the VCL to the DPC I would think is important, as is general detailing of the VCL. I'm not sure what you could do about surface condensation though on the internal face of the wall at the sole plate. My feeling is that when it is cold outside, I can't see how the inner part of the soleplate could be above 13°C, as it has no insulation. In high moisture rooms, where the RH can easily be 70% - 80%, I would think there is a high risk of condensation for prolonged periods. But whether that is long enough without the ability to dry out, to cause mould growth, I don't know. It would certainly be improved with EWI over the block upstand and sole plate, but whether there is a risk without them you need a CRA. The higher you could take the EWI the better, but this would also need to be checked with the SIP Supplier since with the internal VCL you need anything outside that to be vapour open so that any moisture that does get in to the SIP can get back out. Edited to add: This is not a weakness of SIP, it's an issue of a cold bridge at the soleplate.

The LPA were pretty clear on their direction. This was your chance to have amended your drawings prior to the decision. They don't come back to you with proposals, they just give reasons why what you are asking for does not fit the policies they follow, you have to go back to them with new proposals that find the compromise. The Council's comment, "The Council acted pro-actively through positive engagement with the applicant in an attempt to narrow down the reasons for refusal but fundamental objections could not be overcome" in their reason for refusal now makes sense. I'd resubmit the plans with the existing entrance, and tackle the new position for the entrance later. When you do, address all other issues they have with your proposed entrance, except its position, and work up from there. ie. you don't need planning for the fencing, so don't include it, show a timber 5 bar gate at 6m from the road. Even offer them a reinforced grass driveway. The name of the game is to get the new position agreed in principle, and then you are only arguing over style and scale. It you were to then take them to appeal over whether it was a grass drive way or shingle they're unlikely to proceed as they'd probably loose.