GazJS

Thanks for the input, I will contact the designer and advise my concerns and take there advice/move forward from there.

Not necessarily no .... if the rule is only applicable to Checkmate and NHBC etc then fair enough. I am looking to see if there is any such equivalent in the Building Act. I find it strange why 2 companies would enforce and not another. we gave them the planning pack, they produced the drawing which showed a standard build with a suitable foundation. on checking the drawings we realised the floor level had not been fixed by the engineers in which we were given options to resolve. We chose to fill, which I have absolutely no problem with, as we would need to fill the exterior anyway. The only issue I have is NHBC, Checkmate and several google searches all prohibit fill of more than 600mm for a ground bearing slab, and I want to understand why the design standard of our design allows it and if I am going to experience excessive settlement in my floor or we need to change the design to be suspended off the inner block work and be less reliant on the fill. ideally someone with experience can say yes the build act has the same rule, or no it doesn’t and here is why.

They won’t have any problem doing it, but for a cost and no doubt go through the whole process again, I was/am trying to find something that it’s poor practice for example to design it that way in the first place ... it was the setting out engineer mentioned the 600mm, even if it’s not breaking any regulations under the Act, you would surely think best practice would come into it ... the potential for settlement must be considered very high

yeah, no retaining wall so it’s fill both sides in balance - costly costly. It’s sounds extreme in level but the house will site 660mm above the neighbouring road, so it won’t look out of place. we want to use a suspended floor, but the engineers have specified ground bearing and trying to show that it’s not suitable for a re design. SEPA commented and the engineers who designed the house didn’t design to the level. We noticed and pointed it out and the just extended the design to include for more fill. It’s got an SER certificate but I was hoping the 600mm rule had been missed and could get a redesign yeah, the corner of the road will flood 50mm after our study, and they want 660mm above that level that’s the one. I read it but it’s seems basic compared to others

Thanks for the replies ... some background on my question ... We had a design then SEPA set a floor level which required the structure to be elevated (the ground was already lower than the road) initially it was a standard build but the increased levels mean there is up-to 1.7m to finished floor level of which the top 150mm of a ground bearing slab using the 1.7ish of fill to bear its weight. I know NHBC restrict this to 600mm to remove the possibility of settlement on excessive fill which even if compacted properly will settle.

Good Morning, We have a design to the Domestic Build Act, Scotland, and I would appreciate if anyone can relate a guideline found in NHBC to this document also, or advise if it’s only relatable to NHBC ... The said guideline requires any fill below the floor slab of greater than 600mm to dictate that a suspended slab is used instead of ground bearing. I see this rule commonly across the internet, but I need to directly relate it to the build act, Scotland if anyone can help? kind Regards,