Jammy5

Hero!

Thanks @ADLlan. Having read the standard am I correct that you were pointing me towards section 5.18 of Approved Doc B and specifically where it states:- "This does not apply where a wall meets the conditions of Diagram 5.3." Diagram 5.3 then states:- "materials used to close the cavities in this arrangement do not need to achieve a specific performance in relation to fire resistance". Having constructed a traditional block that is more than the 75mm stated per leaf, and knowing I used fire rated cavity closers at the top of the wall then I interpret this as fire rated cavity closers aren't required. Can anyone care to point me at anything I've missed, as this seems a nice little win (thanks to @ADLIan)?

It's a three story, traditional block/brick build if that helps any?

Three story building, advised fire rated cavity closers on all openings. Are they really required or will normal insulated cavity closers suffice? If they are, can some one recommend something more cost effective than 150mm TIMLOC FR30 Cavity Closers that about £20-25 per length (windows are 1.8 x just over 1.2m, so can't even get 2 sides from a length). 4 lengths per window x ALOT of windows = Big cost! Many thanks, Jamie

Yeah, and it's why I couldn't understand why the SAP person is stating secure by design in his SAP calc amongst other things that don't impact SAP.

I'm just double checking my drawings and SAP calc prior to ordering my doors/windows. As expected the SAP calc provides information on the U and G values for the windows, doors and patio doors. However it also states the following:- Windows - Part O, M & Q Compliant) & Secure by Design Compliant Solid Doors - (Part Q & Secure by Design Compliant) Fully Glazed Patio Doors (Part Q & Secure by Design Compliant) My supplier has questioned some of the specification, that's only being driven by the SAP Assessor, for example 'Secure by Design'. Does this have any affect on the SAP calculation at all? I assume the Part O, M & Q are to keep me compliant with build regulations but happy to stand corrected. Kind regards, Jamie

I forgot I knew someone at the council. I messaged them and they've confirmed it doesn't apply to our borough. I'll still get something in writing though, thanks all

Thanks Nick. Just checking I wasn't in the wrong

I don't know now I've read another councils CIL as I can't find one for mine talks about relief. I was thinking this was retrospective relief and I could have sworn I'd seen something saying about 20%. I'm likely wrong though as I'm not experience with this. Looking online I don't think my council have a CIL but I will email their planning to confirm.

I know, hence a slight concern as I've already started 🙂 I think it's not capped at 20% if you apply for a exemption late, does anyone know what the value is to pay due to CIL (roughly appreciating it's different everywhere) and if the 20% is correct?

So perhaps an error on my part but upon building the cavity wall and opening for pretty hefty 6m bi fold doors I may have caused an issue. The build details for this opening are completed as per the recognised construction details: https://www.recognisedconstructiondetails.co.uk/library/document/mpf-150-e4-01-window-jamb.pdf I did not put a return on the vertical cavity which I was advised against as "its common practice to return the wall on the external leaf". However for thermal bridging I'm of the belief this is no longer advised with insulation and an insulated cavity closer used (same as the window details). This is where real world meets theoretical though. How does the joiner get the doors secured? they dislike the use of brackets to anchor the door to the inner leaf. I then looked at the recognised construction details and realised the page is titled "windows". Does this mean I could and should have returned the wall. I've added a photo from earlier in the build to explain if I've not been clear. I'm just getting the roof on shortly and about to order windows and doors, just thought I'd ask people's opinions. Many thanks, Jamie

Or is it a case of lay the insulation and let the felt compress it if needed? No air gap needed? This is purely on the gable blockwork and ladders. The rest of the roof would have PIR between trusses and I'll ensure there is an air gap

With the block work being higher than planned, this stops me laying a 100mm rockwool over the blockwork as it would protrude past the top of the truss. If I'm correct, this would then cause an issue where the insulation touches the underside of the breathable felt and removed any air gap?

Unfortunately yes I do

Thank you will ask the question and report back. Building control said something about 9 homes in a development but I suspect he was off piste and misunderstood