Search results

It is going a little bit off topic, but the point I was initially making was that I think the BCO is using poor judgement to insist on full foundations for a glorified shed, so if he goes over the top for the foundations, he could easily do the same for other elements of the construction.

It works fine here in Staffs. Would you like me to scan you the spec'? This is the spec' verbatim (inside to out) on a gable end less than 600mm from boundary... 100mm x 50mm stud gable. 9mm external ply. 6mm fire barrier i.e. 6mm particle board. Membrane, battens, plastic...

The LA can "go into court" on the "say-so" of a building inspector. They are the experts in building regulations, so who else would (could) make that decision. Their legal team would of course be consulted as part of the process, but it is building control officers who make a professional...

It's not as clear cut as that. Cliched I know, but it really is each case on its merits (or lack of!) The standard enforcement time is 12 months from the date the contravention occurred (not discovered), so this tends to rule out a lot of cases. If caught in time, owners will usually be...

Sound leakage is really difficult to deal with, and you could spend a lot of time and money and not achieve an awful lot. If you do try to sort it out, 3 important things to consider: mass, isolation, sealing measures. Mass - the heavier the material the more it will generally resist...

I would advise getting full construction drawings done and submitting a full plans application. The Building Notice procedure (although legally acceptable) isn't really suited to anything more than small extensions and minor alterations. If you do go with BN, building control may help you...

You could apply for planning permission (part retrospectively) for the extension with the lantern included. Assuming you have already gone through the correct procedure for the 6m extension, it would be difficult for them to turn it down on the basis that it is already part built and can be...

I don't think an indemnity policy would be an option as the local authority is already aware of the development. Not sure on this though.

Not quite. That will help compliance with Part B3 (structural fire protection) but won't meet the requirements of B4 (external fire spread) which limits the amount of combustible material on the surface of a building near a boundary.

Have a read of Section 1 of the Building Act (the primary legislation which enables building regulations to be made). It says that building regulations may be made by the secretary of state for the purposes of: - securing the health, safety, welfare and convenience of people in and around...

No they don't. Care to expand?

Out of interest, have building control mentioned Part B (Fire Safety)? As that's the main reason why the building isn't exempt, and also on current form, it wouldn't surprise me if BCO asked for fire protection to the walls within 1m of the boundary. It won't look quite as nice when it's clad...

:( It's stuff like that that give building control a bad name. Building regulations essentially exist to maintain the health and safety of people in and around buildings. If the summerhouse moved around because of inadequate foundations, it's unlikely to endanger anyone. Part A of the...

Tony Agree that the regs have to be subject to interpretation to an extent, otherwise they would be so long and unwieldy (even more than they actually are :) in order to cover every possible situation. I also agree that the courts are the ultimate decision makers. In one case, my authority...

If you remove a strut (which is necessary to support the purlins) the roof (and therefore the building) will either: 1. not comply with Part A where previously it did, or 2. it would be more unsatisfactory in relation to Part A than it was previously As Part A is a relevant requirement to...

Tony If you apply that definition, then people could easily just say that any room is not "used or intended to be used for dwelling purposes". Opens up a complete can of worms. Which is why most building control bodies (and certainly the ones I have worked for) consider what the space is...

There is no hard and fast limit - it's a question of judgement. The important thing is whether the space is capable of being used as a habitable room. If you did all of that I would say it was habitable. If you didn't line the ceilings it would be hard to call it habitable. Assuming the...

Sorry, but have to disagree on this. Ex-BCO and plenty of experience with dodgy loft conversions! The important point is whether the room is habitable or not. This is not determined by the means of access to it. It is a question of judgement, but if you have boarded floor and ceilings, fully...

Although the room may be 2700mm across, the actual span of the joists may be longer as this depends on the positions of load bearing walls below. If the structural span IS 2700mm, the joists will be fine as they are and won't need doubling up. Any building control officer should recognize...