kandgmitchell

Well there used to be a group called BRAC - the Building Regulations Advisory Committee. They advised the Secretary of State on building regulation matters and were drawn from various sources in the building industry. The last group had a fire officer, a chief BCO, a couple of top bods from the NHBC, a guy from Barretts, a disability consultant, someone from BSI - a total of some 14. Not sure where the original input for the "need" of a new regulation like Part O came from in the first place though. All swept away by the new Building Safety Act. A similar type of group now is set up within the HSE reporting to the Building Safety Regulator. No doubt they are thinking of new bits of paper we shall all need even as I write this..........

The trouble is that houses are not "goods" that are required by the Consumer Act to be "fit for purpose" which is why we've ended up with statutory inspectors, warranties and all the rest of it yet still have houses sold with that level of appalling workmanship.

Sorry, meant the original BS 1329 has been withdrawn you need to use the latest 2020 version. It however is behind a £276 paywall so I can't tell you what has changed. I'm not convinced that manufacturers don't use the same extruding machines for both brown and grey so wall thickness, o/a dia etc are the same but just tint the plastic a different colour.......

Hi, Decided that we are going to use an insulated raft on our project. Our structural engineer is comfortable with the process and has done an initial assessment indicating a 250mm slab with 2 layers of mesh. Whilst he is busy working up the full calculations/drawings I'm out looking for quotes for the insulation/formers. I've approached isoquick - has anyone any experience of other suppliers that they would recommend? Cheers.

Sometimes it's the just don't care attitude that annoys. We had a self employed brickie rebuild a partially collapsed boundary wall. He came well recommended and did a very good job. After he left, we discovered the old butler sink we had had for years full of house leeks and other such plants, had simply been stood in as he worked along the length of the wall. A simple "can we move this mate" would have been nice. Just ignorant I suppose.

That's got to be 2nd hand surely - it looks really rough! "Think the joists are solid"?? Presumably you have some professional drawings of this conversion. If it were me I'd be looking to see what was designed and approved has actually been provided.

Diagram 2 is going to be easier to damp proof. Diagram 1 would be a nightmare. Check with your engineer that the slab is designed to span off the inner leaf of blockwork and get the blockwork strength confirmed. The dpm should be under the slab because as mentioned the clayboard is crushable in case of heave.

Regulation 17 (7) of the Building (Approved Inspectors etc) Regulations 2010 allows the local authority to extend the time limit for the serving of a final certificate. Ask your AI to contact your LA (by email or letter) and request an extension to the 8 week period to complete the garage. This would carry more weight if that garage was not exempt and subject to the regulations. It could be argued that in the meantime you needed to occupy the house for family financial reasons etc. At the end of the day it's no skin off the LA's nose and they are not meant to be unreasonable in refusing an extension although they are not obliged to do so. Give it a go. If your AI is uncertain then direct him to this government circular https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/approved-inspectors-final-certificates-and-regulation-17

Well I've never seen the airtightness boundary specifically marked for bldg regs purposes. It'll be useful on site though!

This does raise the question why? BS EN 1329 has been withdrawn so that's out of date. Why can't you use underground pipe above ground? The pipe itself must be made to the same size as above ground because they have to fit to each other. The underground may not be as UV stable as the above ground but using it inside that'll not be an issue. You would expect underground pipe if anything, to be stronger than above ground as it's normally buried. So that leaves it being the wrong colour. The Building Regulations are quite clear in Regulation 8 that Part H (along with most parts) only relates to reasonable health and safety matters. I can't see having a brown internal svp would have an adverse impact on anyones H&S. Just musing...........

and they should be air tested before finally closing them in...

Speak to the BCO dealing with the job and get a list of what they expect to see for a completion certificate. As mentioned above different BCO's have differing ideas as to "completion". It's going to be easier than second guessing them.

The fire resistance of that panel is determined by the wall it sits in. To determine the fire resistance standard will require knowing the location of that wall. In a dwelling house or a flat? one, two three storeys? On a protected route? Like everything these days, there are no easy answers!

Vaillant have an installation requirement that the unit should be a minimum of 1.0m from openings into the building in case ofthe escape of the gas used in the unit. The installer isn't going to ignore that I'm afraid as it was they who raised it. It's more about their concern that wind passing through the unit reduces it's efficiency that I need. Is it a thing?

Ah, the red dotted line is the external unit, the black boxes are the concrete support pads (the L shaped one contains the pipe duct). This is the proposed position with the correct 1.0m clearance to the side door.

Good point - another arguement to not have it on the front. Here's my suggested revised position. The original (shown within the planning application) was where the down pipe and tap now are, i.e alongside the door. heat pump sketch.pdf

We had a slate hearth in the last house in two pieces, one within the fireplace recess and one across the front of the wall. Ours was 450mm off the wall face. 600mm would look too deep??

From what I can recall of the primary legislation there is not a requirement for BC to inspect, only a requirement for persons carrying out work to give notice at specific stages so that BC can inspect should they wish.

Right from planning stage I had allowed for the ASHP unit to stand against the side of the house near the front corner. Now in the throes of organising the foundation design I see the location of the ASHP base will impinge on the required safety zone around the Vaillant Arotherm due to the position of the side door. I have now slid the location of the base further to the front which means the fan unit will protrude about half it's length past the front wall. This installation is part of the house package and their designers have raised a concern that the unit will be exposed and not function as well as one fully against a wall. Their suggestion is to put it against the front wall. Well they can tell my wife that, I'm certainly not! Vaillant suggest the unit can be remotely sited or placed on a flat roof so I can't see the problem. Is there a problem? If there is I'll come up with a screen for the height of the unit.

We also prosecuted where it was appropriate. Oddly the local paper often got wind of when those cases appeared in the local court. This had the extra value of reminding the local contractors/developers that the rules were there..... Mind you that was in the days when LA offices were properly staffed. My first had five teams of three under a chief officer as well as two dedicated admin, an ex. fire officer to check commercial and access to the Council's own structural engineering team in the architects department. I was one of two trainees on a properly constituted training scheme. The LA area I live in now has two professional staff covering 1700 sq km.

Well when I was in Building Control I inspected every new house on completion and all other statutory stages. Upon the very first visit to the site I had been taught to make it clear to the site manager that BC needed to see every foundation excavation and every drain run. My colleagues and I would help them out by making two or three visits a day during the initial busy groundworks phase but we needed to see it. Inevitably one would find a plot concreted before inspection. Having to excavate down the side of the concrete to expose it usually meant it only happened the once. Once the superstructure was up though I agree it's hard to see behind plasterboard and paint but I made a point of looking in every loft space because it's there you can see the bones of a building. We insisted on every plot having a drain test as well. You can usually get a feel for how well the site is run as it proceeds. A good site manager can be trusted more than a poor one but ultimately it was my name on the file as the officer signing off the plot. I should point out that this was across all the LA's I worked for. The change in style of the 1985 regulations made everyone's life easier, but the fragmentation of BC into private and public systems hasn't helped at all and the overall standard has fallen away over the years. But a sample??? how's that work?

You would have had a design stage SAP calculation done before work started. That assessed the proposed design using the wall, roof, floor constructions, glazing specification along with the heating and ventilation system you intended to install. The as-built SAP basically goes through that again taking into account any changes you made and comes up with the final rating which should be no worse than the original design SAP. Usually it's the same assessor that does both (and it's often cheaper that way - check back to see what the original quote said about this). However, the one you have approached needs: Your confirmation that you have used the same specification for the build as for the design. Builders often substitute materials and even construction methods. If you did change anything then list it for the SAP assessor. The type of ventilation arrangements you have employed. Is it background vents + extracts + opening windows or is it Mechanical Ventilation and Heat Recovery. Tell them which. If it's MVHR then they'll need the details of what you installed. The make and model of the ASHP is going to be easy - your husband will have the installation info and the purchase details. Not sure why they need the commissioning certificate unless it gives specific performance details of that installation. The performance of that heatpump will be entered into the standard computer model which generates the SAP rating. Likewise the hot water cylinder. Again tell them the certificate will be coming but can they just run the model with the technical information. Then hopefully you'll get a final as built SAP. Collect as much certification as you can and hand it to the BCO. They'll tell you what's missing and then concentrate on obtaining that. It cuts the task down to manageable chunks that you can handle.

3 weeks! When trying to sort out our new connection I found AW really helpful. Not sure who you talking to. Might be worth a try speaking to their new connections team "about a new supply" and then spring the query onto them as arguably it is a new supply of sorts..... Glad the FA were helpful.

Well the planners didn't think this one up themselves. There would be some consultation with the local fire authority on that file somewhere. Find that on-line and see what the FA actually said. Then track down the officer who did the consult and have a chat with them. I've found most fire officers helpful. See what alternatives they can suggest. You will need to take note of B5 in the Building Regulations (where 100m is mentioned) and the Approved Document gives the option of "any other water supply that the local fire and rescue service considers appropriate". So early discussions would be useful on both counts.

Well BS 5628 Code of Practice for the Use of Masonry says: 5.5.7.4 Weepholes Weepholes should be formed through the outer leaf immediately above the cavity tray. These may be formed in the vertical cross joints at intervals not greater than 1 m. There should be not less than two weepholes over each opening. Proprietary devices may be installed to form weepholes. They may be designed to drain the cavity but prevent the ingress of wind-driven rain. Weepholes need not be provided if walls have a rendered external surface finish. I think this situation is frustrating for any customer of the construction industry. You have the designer, the constructor and the certifier and it still goes wrong. Part of the problem is every project is a "prototype". Another is the separation of the functions; in contrast for instance, a car company designs, sources and manufactures within it's own direct control. It then gets lots of goes at fine tuning the product to get it right. Construction tends to have different people who often don't talk to each other but nevertheless assume the "other" is looking after the detail. Once the one off build is done it's the customer who is left to find out what mistakes have been made. How you prevent this kind of thing happening? Well the new Building Safety Act is a nod in that direction but I can't see this sort of simple error will ever be eradicated. It's gone on forever - they never did get that roof on Stonehenge despite getting the money up front!