flanagaj

The garage is a flat roof and I want standard cavity walls for the garage as well. Plan was to also to use strip foundations.

"Has your architect dealt with the sloping floor of the garage, to cope with fuel spills, or another method such as a bund (reduced floor level) to meet compliance at the wall party to the residence?" Haha, I doubt that very much!! I wasn't aware that there did need to be a sloping floor away from the house. I was planning on doing the footings myself. It's not rocket science and I have a good laser level and would simplify matters by hiring a pump truck when they are poured. But do i actually need to have a step in them? Can they not be all one level, and it just means that there are more blocks used to come out of the ground for the garage section?

Our proposed dwelling is as below (the steps down will be where the man is). The garage floor level is 400-450mm higher than the floor level in the house and I am trying to understand how to do the required excavation / concrete pour. I was not planning on using beam and block due to the spans. As a result, is it simply the case that the outer wall of the house that adjoins the garage will have to have some sort of tanking to stop damp or should I go beam and block in the garage so that the oversite is below the dpc level of the house?

There is no CIL for single dwellings with Hampshire CC. The VAT point is a good one though and I had not considered that.

I'm getting tired of waiting for the LPA to decide our revised application. Just seems like unnecessary box ticking by the various consultees and I want to get cracking. Given we already have PP for the previous grant (conditions not discharged) I want to know whether I could make a start preparing the site. Eg, put in retaining wall, install STP / drainage field and get utilities/ hard standing in for mobile home. Crawling up the bloody wall waiting. No wonder so few houses get built in the UK

Yes. We gave them notice last October.

Anyone able to shed any light on this. So we met SSEN Wayleave department on site at the end of January to try and agree that they can keep the pole on our land, but we want it moved to the boundary. They were receptive to the idea at the time of the meeting and provided a diagram showing where we wanted the pole. Apart from that we have heard nothing more. We just received a letter from the Wayleave department. I have no idea how to reply to this, as nobody has actually told us whether they are going to move the pole for free of whether it will be at our expense. If I am correct, I don't think there is anything for us to do as we have not heard from their regarding their proposal? "ELECTRICITY ACT 1989: PARAGRAPHS 6 AND 8 OF SCHEDULE 4APPLICATION BY SOUTHERN ELECTRIC POWER DISTRIBUTION PLC (THENETWORK OPERATOR) FOR A NECESSARY WAYLEAVE TO RETAINELECTRIC LINES ON LAND AT THE BUNGALOW, ***** OWNED AND/OR OCCUPIED BY ****** .The Network Operator has made an application for a necessary wayleave to authorise them to keep installed electric line(s) at the above land. Having reviewed the application, we can confirm that it is valid. It has been allocated the above reference number which should be quoted on all future correspondence. We encourage all parties to correspond with us by email -necessarywayleaves@energysecurity.gov.uk.The Network Operator should send you a copy of their application and any accompanying documents to you. If you have not received a copy of the application documentation, please contact them as soon as possible. The application was submitted following receipt of your correspondence of23/10/2024, which was treated as a Notice to Remove (NTR) the line(s).We note your NTR stated: We would like to give formal notice for the electricity pole on our land at **** to be removed. The equipment applied for by the Network Operator is as follows:230v Overhead line with 1 x wooden pole. If any of the above details are incorrect please contact us immediately. The Network Operator has indicated in their application that they are still negotiating with you and have requested that this application be held "in abeyance" pending the outcome of negotiations. We strongly encourage the parties to reach a negotiated DESNZ Ref: 12.04.09.06-5320UYour Ref: HP520368Doc Ref: 1389426 Page 1 of 2 settlement wherever possible, an application will only be held in abeyance if agreed by all parties. In view of the Network Operator's request, we are seeking your thoughts on the status of the negotiations and whether you agree with the abeyance request. Please can we have your response, in writing, no later than 11/04/2025. If we do not hear from you we will assume you agree to the Network Operator's abeyance request. You may wish to seek legal or other professional advice before deciding whether or not to consent to the abeyance request. We are not able to give any advice as to whether you should consent. If you agree to the abeyance request, we will review the position periodically to ensure that negotiations are continuing. If, before that time, you decide negotiations have stopped or stalled you can request that the application be taken out of abeyance at any time. Once an application is out of abeyance we will progress the application, initially seeking views on the most appropriate procedure. For further information, please read our necessary wayleave guidance which sets out details regarding the choice of procedure and abeyance:https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/granting-a-necessary-compulsory-electricity-wayleave-guidance-for-applicants-and-landowner-and-or-occupiersShould you have any queries please contact us at:necessarywayleaves@energysecurity.gov.uk"

How would you go about sanitising it though, before storing rainwater in it?

Moving it was more about having the meter to the side of the driveway as opposed to having a black water meter housing stuck in the sand coloured driveway. Purely aesthetic reasons.

I somehow managed to dig the trench for our water connection in slightly the wrong place and put it bang centre of the new proposed access. As a result I want to move it < 2 metres, but as the trench was inspected and signed off, I didn't really want to incur further costs, when the new connection point makes absolutely no difference as it's a straight lane and they have charged me 2k for a road closure as it is. Should I come clean or just dig a new trench and pretend nothing has changed?

A 1.7 tonne machine is still going to cost ~ 10k

There's an old 1000 gallon septic on site that at some point I need to decommission. It looks like an onion shaped fibreglass tank, but I'll need to get it emptied first to be certain. I've got a huge pile of rubble that I was contemplating using to fill it in and then was going finish the top off with concrete. I suppose that I need to also smash a hole in the bottom to ensure any water ingress drains. Does that work? I am contemplating using the tank for a knock up make shift outdoor toilet and sink. Will save on portaloo hire.

Because I don't want any ambiguity regarding how much of the verge is owned by Hampshire CC. According to the diagram they provided, it looks like it is 2m, but that seems a lot. If I request the condition is removed, Hampshire CC Highways will either agree with our observation and say "Yes, we own all of the land in the splay" or no, the condition cannot be removed as we don't own the land in the required splay.

I thought the drainage field depth was to do with the waste being in the aerobic zone of the soil, hence why they state no more than 900mm deep. I am sure Graf make mention of this depth, but I could be wrong.

So I'm slightly confused on this. I've just read Part H regs and only see reference to a minimum depth "distribution pipes should be laid at a minimum depth of 500mm below the surface", but I've also seen mention of it being a maximum depth of 900mm from other sources, but Part H makes no mention of a maximum depth? The reason I ask is that if we stick with the regs of having the PTP at 7m from the house and site the drainage field where we want it (15m from house), the total run from the first stack at the house is 32m. If I go 1/80 fall for soil pipe to PTP and then 1/200 for PTP to drainage, it basically equates to 304mm. Which might make the soil pipe depth at the house ~500mm.

Exactly. I am going to put a case forward that the condition be removed, especially as the responsibility for keeping the splay in line with the Highway condition lies with Hampshire CC alone.

I did that and according to the shading on the document I posted, it extends 2m back from the road verge. If that is correct (seems a lot), then the visibility splay is within the bounds of the verge owned by Hampshire CC and therefore I don't need to be concerned as any hedging that resides in that space can be asked to be cut back. I have asked the architects to double check my conclusion and if it is correct, ask Highways to remove the condition from the PP.

Yes. Great idea. Hadn't considered that option. Thanks

The told me the scale is 1:1250 but on an A4 printed sheet that scale will be very difficult to get an accurate measurement. I did consider a traffic survey, but unfortunately, there are local residents who drive far too fast down the lane. When I drive down it 20mph is fast enough. So not sure a traffic survey would go in our favour.

I still think it will be tight.

The new entrance is as below. I have just calculated the distance from the road to the splay at the point we cross the neighbours boundary and it's 1.8m. Looking at the image below 1.8m is not possible.

Yes. I think a trip up to the site is required this weekend to mark things out. Although the road is unclassified and theoretically a 60mph road it's a non through lane and they have requested a 43m splay as is required for a 30mph road. Interesting that yours was to the centre of the carriage way and ours was to the road edge?

I don't want the original access. Surely before embarking on a scheme for a client, they should have done the necessary due diligence to ensure access is viable? I did this yesterday and the result is below (glad I paid for the 20 day turnaround and not the express 5 day turnaround. Got the results in an hour and saved > £200). The tricky part is translating the splays across the area in pink to deduce whether the splays sit outside the pink. I suspect they do, given that you have to measure back 2.4m from the edge of the verge for where the splay starts. I can do some basic trig to work out the distance of the splay when we cross to the neighbours boundary.

So I have purchased the report and it does show Hampshire CC do own the section of verge. I sent the plan showing this to the architects to ask them whether the visibility splays do sit within the HCC owned map and none of the splay crosses land owned by the neighbour. A highway consultant (was very helpful) informed me that so long as the visibility splay sits within HCC owned land, then any hedging that sits within that can be ordered to be cut back via a enforcement notice. This then means that we don't have to worry about the condition as it can always be resolved, where as the visibility splay crossing the neighbours land / hedge is outside our control. I am also requesting the architects raise the issue of the visibility splay being requested to the edge of the carriageway, as it is an unclassified road which is only 7ft wide, so definitely single lane. This apparently means the visibility splay is taken to the centre of the carriageway and not the edge. I have told the architects to push to have the condition removed.

Ok, thanks. I need to find the corresponding link for Hampshire Council.