Hugo Nebula wrote in message . ..
On 3 Jul 2004 03:25:17 -0700, a particular chimpanzee named
(Lobster) randomly hit the keyboard and
produced:

The decisions aren't arbitary, in that the Building Regulations make
it clear whether or not any particular requirement applies to the work
you're carrying out. What is more a matter for interpretation is
whether something meets those requirements. For example, with a
change of use such as yours, the requirements for ventilation apply.
Therefore, you could be required to fit extract fans in all your
bathrooms and kitchens, trickle vents to all your windows, and
ventilation to the soffits of the roof. However, it could be argued
that it isn't reasonable to install trickle vents in windows if they
aren't being replaced for instance.

So things could definitely get worse then! (As another example of her
inconsistency; you mention extractor fans in the kitchen - she's
already told me that in the house where the kitchen remains unaffected
I *don't* need to comply with that. Presumably they regard the MOE
issue as more serious?)

There is a right of appeal to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister,
but it's a bit of a convoluted process (see
http://www.odpm.gov.uk/stellent/grou...024943-06.hcsp)

Thanks, don't think I'll be going there just yet...!

Are you saying I should ask her for a definitive written list of
whatever else needs doing, or just pertaining to the windows? If the
former, would that actually carry any weight if there are any more
changes of mind?!

Well, it would certainly be harder to argue that you need to meet a
particular requirement if she's previously said not in writing. It
will also help to clarify matters.

Yes, I'll give that a whirl I think. My only slight concern is that
if I go all formal and ask for it in writing, she'll then go over the
place with a fine toothcomb to cover her back, and end up throwing the
book at me!

Many thanks for all your advice Hugo

David