All Activity

I'm surprised honestly as the games room still looks very separate, you've essentially just taken the door off. Other BC officers might have viewed that differently I think as the escape path is quite long and via another furnished space, potentially tricky when filled with smoke. The plans don't show smoke detectors either but you'll definitely need them

Bit like this

I see, I thought the aluminium was a trim over the glass which was bolted directly to the timber.

I did block n beam with standard concrete block and insulation on top, I looked at all these insulated types and concluded that they had two many faults. harder to construct being a major one, standard block n beam is very fast and easy. cost also, if buying a large quantity of blocks you can get the price right down. the only upside I can see to these insulated systems is the height you gain, if you only need to put a 75mm cap sheet on then you save 75mm in floor build up, but that’s hardly a big issue.

I guess they don't worry about the WC which is good.

The glass sits in a robust aluminium channel, the channel is bolted to the wood. So glass and wood are completely isolated from each other.

Looks great. Is there no concern that conventional timber will move as it dries and transfer stress to the glass panels? O don't suppose that's an issue with Glulams though.

Thanks all my second design has been accepted by BC as all rooms now have direct access to the stairwell

Just got around to ordering the internal balustrade that we need. Sod's Law has dictated that the Fischer screws listed in their certification document (Fisher FPF-WT YZP) are no longer available. Does anyone know what the logical Fischer replacement for these would be?

When the plans are submitted to BC they will do a plan check to let you know if they comply. I think that to comply each room either leads directly to the protected staircase or is on a corridor that is part of a protected escape route.

+1 for talking to prospective installers. I had a very fixed view of our system (I’d been to a self build show so therefore I was an expert!) but that view changed for the better after a couple of discussions with installers. Sometimes I find myself caught up in the enthusiasm of a solution, so much so that I drift away from the actual requirements. I then talk things through with J and that helps me return to what I’m actually trying to do.

So nothing stopping manufacturers (block, insulation etc, etc) generated psi-values being used. Until recently I was Elmhurst accredited so know the process, been through the program, trained in 2D & 3D calcs along with consultancy for insulation manufacturers. If I received a set of psi-values from a self builder and random website I'd be back to using the SAP defaults to protect myself. Manufacturers have normally invested in their technical people to undertake these calculations. Sorry Robin but please check SAP and supporting documents for thermal bridging.

You are very unlikely to get a definitive answer. The fire regs are set out as principles and red flags. That has to be interpreted by someone. Different people on different days will give different answers. We had an issue with two rooms that were considered "inner" rooms - ie no escape window. One was upstairs one downstairs. Our architects had come across the problem before and suggested that they had overcome it before by installing a sprinkler system. I really didn't want to do that, but in the absence of a better idea I commissioned a fire specialist to design a "minimal" compliant system. That was put forward but turned down by Building Control - no other feedback. So I went back to the specialist and got him to do a full blown design - much as you might have in a block of flats. That too was turned down by BC - no other feedback. In a fit of pique I suggested just leaving out the walls so that both rooms were effectively just wider bits of the corridor they were on. That was allowed.... on the basis of access to adjacent room's escape windows. So extrapolating that reasoning, the architect put forward the original design but with doors added to the adjacent rooms. That was passed. Another Building Controller on another day would almost certainly have responded differently as evidenced by the acceptance or not of sprinklers. But while frustrating at the time, I feel lucky to have gotten away with a couple of extra doors and not the huge expense and maintenance of the sprinklers. My advice would be just put forward your the next idea hopefully knocking off at least one stated issue each time. Sounds like you're at least getting some useful feedback on why, so keep that conversation going ...

OK, I can’t help feeling I should know this, but how does a steel strip stop the ventilation behind the cladding act like a chimney during a fire whilst still allowing the chimney effect to dry the cladding under normal conditions?

The intumescent strips seem to be accepted practice. Alternatives are 0.5mm steel / wood of a given thickness (I forget how much). There’s a fair amount of discussion on this on ‘t ‘ub. My BC seemed to be more open-minded - I forget his exact words. We used the steel strip as it was cheaper, but it did take a while to put up.

Maybe. I have two of them and have measured both, each across two diameters, so I think they're pretty much round. NOTE: the invoice lists both as 600mm. For now I am assuming that they are classified as 600mm. Its a bit like when you buy wood - nominal vs actual size 😀

Could they have got a bit oval? I had a problem exactly like that way back.

Checks... Yes I uploaded the documents via the portal. Given HMRC exists to serve* us all, why do they make it so bloody difficult to claim what is legally due with regard to self-build VAT? (On other matters, income tax, IHT, I have always found HMRC staff very helpful.)

If your architect is telling you it now complies, what makes you concerned that it doesn't? Your instructions to the architect should be to produce a compliant design so whether it complies or not shouldn't be a question. I certainly don't know enough to tell you it complies and even those here with more knowledge likely wouldn't want to confirm it now meets regs (none of us know enough about your situation). People will happily highlight flaws if they see them. From my limited knowledge of the regs I don't see anything obvious (but I'm no expert on the regs and last read them well over a year ago). If you have a specific concern maybe highlight it so people can give their thoughts. As far as improvements go, it's very difficult to say without knowing and awful lot more about what you want out the space and the restrictions you are dealing with. It does seem like a compromise design but everything in building is a compromise and maybe that's the best given the constraints you are under.

Won't this cover manufacturers who provide calculations? (assuming they follow the mentioned guidance) If you SAP accessor is willing to accept self signed (from someone with no expertise or insurance) but are not willing to accept the calculations done by manufacturers engineers (with expertise and insurance) then we live in a strange strange world.

That is where you should ask others. I've done a lot of research on heatpumps (both in the past for my current place* and as a prospective self-builder) but have not actually had one installed myself. *Ended up being too complicated (I thought) to do in my flat given the need for freeholder approval and roof access. Something I regret now as I had more money at the time and if I'd pushed through that I could have the ability to cool my flat and would have avoided a huge amount of hassle and cost with gas boilers.

More sleuth work has found two unaccounted invoices (yay for the VAT). Interesting thing is that the chambers are listed as 600mm !!!

My groundworker has suggested reducing the diameter of the two large inspection chambers which will be in our rear garden down to 450 or 300mm. So, I've been looking for a "reducer". The current twinwall chamber pipes that are in the ground measure about 680mm internal and 700mm external. I can't lay my hands on an invoice for said inspection chambers (one that won't be on the VAT reclaim!) The largest reducer I can find online is 600mm (to various smaller sizes). Should I be able to find a 700mm version? Cheers Bamboozled of Botus

We can't tell. What sort of issue concerns you? If, for example, it is damp and rot and insulation then an Architect or Building Surveyor is your best bet IFFFF the Architect is a doing person rather than of the arty persuasion. If walls are cracked and you fear the strength of the building then an Engineer is essential, and you'll end up with one anyway. Absolutely not. They will insist on seeing the building holistically because what you have reported on may be a symptom rather than the fundamental issue. Then you just have to be sure to check the rest of the house out too, if concerned. To me, as an Engineer, if I received that sort of enquiry it would seem exaggeratedly contractual, and I would prefer a simple enquiry in plain English. "I'm concerned about my 1910 house because it has cracks and damp....etc" Or phone. A professional will tell you if it isn't what they do or doesn't suit their business model. I suggest you agree initially to a site visit and preliminary inspection. a few £hundred. Only after that can the scope be discussed properly. But back to the start. Can you tell us any more about your concerns?

Thank Rick, indeed as you say my next step is to approach some installers. Do you have an opinion on Heat Geek for the air to water side?