Name of File 4069-59-03.pdf cached at 11/12/2017 09:43:23 - with 4 pages. pdfPath: E:\k9.istructe.org\CMS\webtest\files\01\01835ba7-0011-4839-b05a-58d9aa6b283e.pdf. thumbPath: E:\k9.istructe.org\CMS\webtest\files\pdfthumbs\01835ba7-0011-4839-b05a-58d9aa6b283e_1.png. objDoc: 1 - True. objPreview.Log: . strFileName: 01835ba7-0011-4839-b05a-58d9aa6b283e_1.png

Members/subscribers must be logged in to view this article

Verulam

Building Regulations fees When money is involved, argument always ensues, so the question of these fees, of course, produces some argument. A correspondent, who wishes to remain anonymous, suggests an equitable evaluation method: During the past year, since the Government instituted fees for Building Regulations approvals and inspections, the local authorities have necessarily had to set up administrative arrangements for their assessment and collection. The fees are related to the value of those parts of the work subject to the Regulations according to a scale. I uncierstand that considerable unproductive-and frequently abrasive-correspondence and negotiations are devoted to agreeing the value of the work. What a waste of effort! Why cannot the fees be related directly to the floor (and roof) area of the building and be updated yearly, or whenever, in accordance with the retail price index? I suppose they’d argue about the area then, though . . . . Verulam