GEO-PAR

I appreciate what you're saying that if they're existing, they don't have to meet current building regs but from speaking to various people, it seems like the fire department must have a strategy for all existing houses. Otherwise you wouldn't get household insurance etc etc. I don't know for definite though, so you may well be right. I've had a good look at regs again and the 90m rule appears to be more of a BS9991 thing (which I understand you can decide to use this or ADB). I'm going to adhere to ADB, which states you have to provide an additional hydrant if your house is over 280m2 AND +100 metres from an existing hydrant. I'm more than 100 metres, but not over 280m2. Thus, in theory I feel I shouldn't be affected. I'm therefore hoping a Cat2 sprinkler will satisfy requirements.

Yeah I've had the same thoughts. There must be a strategy in place for the other houses though (which are much older and wouldn't even have sprinklers). My FE said he's going to phone the fire department to investigate. Scary stuff when you're mid way through a build.

I'm in a similar situation but even worse. I have a 2.3 to 2.4 metre wide track leading to my site. Fire hydrant is about 120-150 metres away from the build (at the end of said track, which I only have access across). Consulted one private fire engineer and he pretty much told me I was screwed. Just consulted another and he said he's seen things like this all the time and we'll be able to work out an engineered strategy with Cat 2 sprinklers. I'm having sleepless nights though as halfway through the build (building regs flagged it earlier this year but I just thought it would be a case of sticking in sprinklers. Things have been manic but just got around to engaging a sprinkler company to design a system and it was flagged I have a much bigger issue with regards to Part B and BS9991). The only thing that's giving me a little hope is that there's already houses a little further down the track so I'm thinking the fire service must have a strat for those houses. Good luck but doesn't sound like the end of the world in your case!

Good news you managed to resolve this! I have heard of this kind of thing before and wonder if a way around it is to simply apply for planning again showing the current state of the site as existing and your proposed design as proposed, with a slight amendment that is enough to be considered a 'material change'. You could then claim that what has been constructed already has been done so without planning and is nothing to do with the original application (which they are attempting to claim the CIL on). It would add 8 weeks to the build but give you another go at filling in the cill forms and in affect, you can claim the original permission was never acted upon. Would be a long shot and might need a little more thought, but would be worth a go rather than spending the ridiculous sums being mentioned.

I spoke to the fire engineer again with a few more ideas (installing a horizontal dry riser type system, installing a big tank etc and his response is that because its outside of the regs, I won't get it approved, and that i started building at my own risk. Getting very nervous now

Sorry for jumping on an old thread but appear to have a very similar issue to what you experience. My build is in the countryside and the closest a fire appliance (truck) can get is 120 metres away (I have a narrow lane of about 2.3 metres leading from the road to the site, which I only have access across as opposed to ownership, and therefore unable to improve/widen access). I contacted a fire engineer asking about sprinklers and received the following response: The only solution I am aware of for these circumstances (subject to the house having no floor greater than 4.5m above ground) is for a sprinkler system to be installed and all points of the inside of the building to be within 90m of where a fire appliance can get to. The distance is reduced if the house has a floor greater than 4.5m above ground, then the acceptable distance is 75m. Wherever the fire appliance gets to, it should also not be further than 20m from the 'main road' junction with your track. My take from this is that because I'm more than 90 metres away, a sprinklered solution won't work? Your comment suggests otherwise though? I'm also in Somerset so keen to hear a little more about your experience!

I've not come across Woodcrete before... I just gave it a google and came up with an ICF type system. Is this what you're referring to? Sounds like a good idea, cheers!

Cheers - Might give it a go with a trowel but have never plastered before so worry I'll make a right old mess of it and will be super uneven for when I put the joists against the wall? I guess I can give this a go first and resort to a brush if all goes tits up

Sorry, another thread about parging (I've been reading through most of them and appreciate there's already a lot). I'm up to first floor level and intend to use posi joists hung off a timber ledger board bolted back to the concrete blockwork. I'm just looking at options for how to achieve airtightness behind the ledger board. Above and below will be wet plaster. The two options I understand I have: + Airtightness paint. Looks like Blowerproof is £50 a tub, and Soudal do a slightly cheaper version at £38 a tub. + Parge Coat. Seems like people have suggested buying a big brush and brushing on a wet mix of sand and cement (anyone know the actual mix?). Appears cheaper than airtight paint but possibility of cracking over time defeating the purpose? I'm trying to get my first floor in before the roof so my brickie can use it as a platform/deck to continue building the inner leaf (trying to minimise time I need scaffolding on site - had a quote an it's not cheap!). The house is only 1.5 storey (rooms in the loft space like a chalet bungalow) so brickie only has a few courses plus the gables to do, which he can do from inside. The issue I have is that after phoning blowerproof, I understand my blockwork has to be dry before painting it on. Anyone know if this the same with applying a parge coat? Cheers!

Had a quote come back on making the lintels into stone veneered pre cast - £6k! 🤦‍♂️ Spoke to my S.E about notching the back of the stone for a steel L Section and he thinks it won't be any different than the original method drawn at the top of this thread. He said if my steel deflects it will crack the stone regardless of whether it's notched in the back or above. He suggested instead sticking with the original plan at the top of this thread, but oversizing the steel catnik CN71A above the stone lintel (so it has like a 300mm bearing instead of 150) and keep about a 10-15mm gap above. I worry it might look a bit shit with my stone jointing being so tight but equally don't want cracked stone lintels with how much they cost! Am I over thinking this?

Cheers for all the feedback guys. I don't know if this makes much difference to your suggestions above but my lintels are going to be chunky beasts (I want the traditional cottage look where you get very deep external reveals). For the doors, they're H210 x D325 and for the windows they're H210 x D230. I'm currently exploring two options: 01: Purchase stone in 50mm thickness to act as a veneer. There will be a joint to the underside but i'll need a drip detail anyway so I'm thinking I can obscure as the drip. We did this on a big commercial project I worked on where most of the facade was stone faced precast but we had traditional hand-set stone for the two entrances. They made timber moulds, placed the stones in the mould, and then pour concrete over the top. Unfortunately I'm too small fry for the company that did it to be interested but I have found a much smaller pre-caster that have said they'll price it up. Not 100 percent sure this is going to be the cheapest option but exploring it at the moment. It feels like the most robust option and will enable me to put lifting eyes in so I can telehandler them into position with less risk of damage to the stone. Option 02: This is based on your suggestion above: Metal angle that is cut into the stone. I'm thinking it might be a good idea to weld some rods to the angle and chem fix them to the stone to prevent any rotation or slipping (or am I over thinking / is this a bit daft?). It feels to me like this could be a much cheaper solution to be fair. Not sure what size angle I'll need for my size of lintels - Will have to ask the S.E I guess Cheers

Not really sure what you mean - Are you able to sketch? Did you just cut the slot about an inch above the bottom of the brick?

Sorry - Didn't see these additional comments until now. I'm attempting to go down the precast route... 50mm stone veneer to the front and underside (using the joint to form a drip detail) pinned into a reinforced concrete lintel. This way the stone will only need to oversail the opening by 50mm and the concrete can oversail by the typical 150mm. Just exploring the option not so not sure how expensive it will be.

Yeah I think I'm going to boost it up to at least 100 if not 150 like you suggest. I found this picture where the bearing looks about 50mm, but it's granite so being a harder stone, I guess this makes it possible

Yeah I appreciate it will make it a whole lot cheaper but it's not a house I'm intending to flip, so want to get it right. But equally think what I've drawn may cause issues. I'm wondering how they managed to achieve this - Super deep reveals with no exposed lintels. My guess is that they cast the stones into some kind of concrete lintel.

Okay cheers

I did wonder this. I've seen it don't before where the edge of stone head aligns with the opening reveal (I.e so no bearing at all). No idea how you'd do this.

Because then you'll see the underside of the steel when you look up below the window

I need to order my stone cills and lintels asap but getting cold feet on how I planned to do it. Interested to know what others think - Whether I'm being a little mad or if it will be okay? My intention was to have a natural limestone lintel self supporting. I only wanted it to bear onto the stone walls either side by 50mm (for visual reasons) but now questioning if that's enough. I'll then stick a Catnik CN71A (or similar) above it with a 10mm gap for deflection (so the steel doesn't crack the stone if it deflects). This steel will have your typical 150 bearing each side. I want to keep this above the limestone lintel so when you look up at the window, you don't see any steelwork.

Reposted here and cannot delete (links don't appear to be working on this post):

Hi All, Reposting this as I originally put it under 'General Construction Issues' and haven't received any comments. I'm just looking for a sanity check on my foundation detail (to hopefully provide some peace of mind before I keep building up). I'm constructing a highly insulated new build (200mm PIR above DPC, full fill XPS below DPC). My foundation detail is based on a Greenbuilding Store case study: https://greenbuildingstore.co.uk/golcar-passivhaus-ground-floor-foundations/ I originally designed it as per below, where the Surecav meets the DPC: Full fill XPS below cavity tray. Then the offcut pieces of the XPS are used above the tray below the first wall tie. Kingspan PIR is then used above the first wall tie up to eaves. The problem occurred when attempting to add the XPS back in above the DPC (to fill what would otherwise be a triangle cut out). The thickness of the DPC caused the XPS to get kicked out compared to the PIR above. This meant that there would have been a step in the SureCav. To get over this, I introduced a second cavity tray that lapped up the face of the bottom board of PIR and effectively did a solid fill cavity below where the stonework just got built up to the back of the XPS. Does anyone foresee any issues? My worry in hindsight (after building up past this to about 4ft, is that the cavity tray I inserted only laps up the face of the insulation. Any water ingress behind the insulation has nowhere to go. Am I over thinking this and it will be fine, or do people think I may have issues in the future?

Hi All, Just looking for a sanity check on my foundation detail. I have a highly insulated build (200mm PIR above DPC, full fill XPS below DPC). Based on a Greenbuilding Store case study: https://greenbuildingstore.co.uk/golcar-passivhaus-ground-floor-foundations/ Cutting the insulation to the falls of the DPC cavity tray was an absolute headache. We ended up setting up a jigg and then using the offcuts to bring XPS up to create a flat ledge below the first wall tie. We then started the PIR above this. When installing the XPS above the cavity tray, it kicked out compared to the PIR above. This meant that there would have been a step in the SureCav. To get over this, I introduced a second cavity tray that lapped up the face of the bottom board of PIR. Will this work? Does anyone foresee any issues? I've already constructed up to about 4ft along one wall so hoping this works but equally stressed about continuing as it will only get more expensive to rectify if there is a problem. Kind Regards, George

I had the same issue recently and was quoted 13.5k to move it. I asked about wayleaves and she said they'd move the pole for nothing but wouldn't allow me to connect into it for the new property. Managed to solve it in the end for much less (just putting in a taller pole which isn't ideal but gets' me out of trouble). I would suggest getting clued up on wayleaves before having NatGrid out.

£18 an opening sounds crazily cheap?! Do you mean per length? When I priced it up in Timloc, it was about £30 ever 2.4 metres. Worked out about 1k for the whole job and I feel I don't have that many openings. That's also not including the cavity closer at the eaves, but I was thinking of just closing that off with cementitious board?

Building Control were happy with this? I thought it had to meet certain fire requirements, which the cavity closers you buy have been tested against?