bupieker

Hello! I moved into my flat a couple of years ago and started to see some damage around my bathroom window as shown on the pictures. 1. The window cill is getting damage. There is regularly a lot of condensation on the glass and I need to wipe it with a cloth. Water ran a few time on the window cill, it is inevitable. 2. During winter I find the wall very cold and therefore I don't think it dries properly (if at all). You can see that there are some black marks on the wall. I am wondering whether the window cill could be repaired and what would be your recommendations? I have done some DIY in the flat but I am not an expert. On top of fixing the window cill, I'd be keen to fix the condensation issue and the "cold wall". What do you think is the most likely issue? Thanks

Good afternoon all, I have a quick question for you. I aim to make a hole in my bathroom wall to fit an extract fan. The distance from the wall and the window is about 60cm (see attached picture). From the outside it seems that there is a hole already but I think it is either covered by the wall or very close to it so I don't think I can reuse it. I am therefore wondering where the new hole can be drilled considering that there is already a 100mm hole in the external wall. Would you mind to answer the following questions so that I can be sure the builder does not make a mistake: Do we need to keep a minimum distance between the two holes? Do we need to keep a minimum distance between the window and new hole? Do we need to keep minimum distance between wall and new hole? I am unsure how wide the lintel is. Can we drill below it? The plumber will come to do some work in the bathroom and I asked him if he could do it. He told me he could... Are plumbers normally competent to do such things? I'd like to question him before he starts the work but by knowing the answers hence my above questions ... Thank you in advance

Good morning all and thank you for your answers ! I only noticed them now hence my late reply... You are right, it seems that one of the wall was installed before the other one. The building was converted into flats in 1998. The structural engineer produced a report stating that the wall (which looks new) is not load bearing. He also provided a calcs. See attached. I guess this is suficient to proceed with the removal of the wall? On top of that, I also aimed to removed a wall between two bathrooms in order to keep a single bathroom. As mentioned in my previous post, I was surprised to see that it was made of brick. I had a call with the SE who told me that since there is no wall above it and since it is likely running parallel to the joist it is then non load bearing. Last night I therefore wanted to make sure it was running parallel to the joist but could not find joist, only concrete... I have also liften the floor at the bathroom entrance and this seems to be concrete too. This is strange as I can see a joist from the hole made in the corridor... Is it that part of the building is made of concrete and the other of timber? Also, I have noticed that the angle of the ceiling/wall in the bathroom is not at 90 degrees (see slide pack), not sure what this implies... I have prepared a slide pack providing pictures of the building, internal and floor plans... I have passed it on to the SE and I am waiting for his answer but other opinions would be welcome so I can challenge the SE if needed. Thank you in advance! 119B Plough Road - Bathroom areas.pdf

Hello All, I have got Building Control approval to start a project within my flat (located on the first floor of a house with one flat below and above mine). Currently, the flat has a central corridor leading to the two bedrooms. I want to remove this corridor to make a semi open plan kitchen/living room (indeed, one wall is load bearing but made of timber so I'll remove the plasterboard to get the light through). As part of my Building Control application, I had to provide a report from a Structural Engineer (SE). The report indicates that one of the wall is load bearing (intermediate load bearing wall) even though likely made of timber. Ther other wall of the corridor is not load bearing. The SE checked the size of the joist by making an opening on the ceiling and made a calcs saying that one wall is sufficient. The walls were still with platsterboard when he surveyed so he has not seen what's under it. Note that my neighbour on the flat above has the same corridor above mine. The corridors are running perpendicular to the joists. Since I got the green light from building control I have started to remove the plaster board to see the timber studs. The wall supposed to be load bearing is shown below. The wall which is non load bearing is shown below. I was surprised to see that the non-load bearing wall has 4"x2" vertical timber studs of this size (note that I don't have any knowledge ). There is also a top plate measuring 4"x2". Do you think this is normal for a non load bearing wall. How can I be sure it is not load bearing or that I can remove it safely? I also aim to remove a wall between the two bathrooms in order to make a single larger bathroom. Similarly, the Structural Engineer indicated that it is not load bearing. Probably because if joists are running the same way along the flat, then this wall is running in parallel to them. He has not made a hole in the ceiling there. By removing the plasterboard this morning I noticed that this wall is made of bricks which seemed very odd to me as all other walls (apart from the external walls) are made of timber. What do you think? Do you think that this can be removed safely? Note that on currently it seems that there is no wall above or below it. Your views on the the above would be most welcomed. Thanks P.

Thank you Gus! Very valid notes you are mentioning here. I am pretty sure they are not but did not call in the Structural Engineer yet as I wanted to get the proposed layout approved first. I might however follow your advise and get the SE to provide a report to support my claims.

Thank you for your answer. I completely understand that and I don't want to take excessive risk. But standards are established by experts who provide risk assessments forming part of safety cases that allow them to define whether such or such configuration is allowed. My understanding, and I might be wrong (but BC seems to indicate I am not), is that what I am proposing is fine. Of course we can always have more safety, but this is true for everything. What needs to be considered is whether the risk is mitigated to an acceptable level of risk. On another note, I discovered some interesting things this morning. I was aware from the previous owner that the flat downstairs (occupying both ground floor and lower ground floor) had important works carried out about 5 years ago. I managed to find the floor plan on internet; you'll understand that I was suprised seeing this

Thank you for your message Indeed I have proposed something similar. I proposed to add a wall with a fire door and to 'open' the kitchen by adding a glazed half wall opening (similar to a windows) but with fire rated glass. Their Building Surveyor said no. Without explanation. I am speaking to somebody who does not provide constructive comments nor give solutions on how my project will meet their requirements. Indeed, the issue with the first layout was that the bedroom doors lead to the kitchen, I fixed that by proposing something close to your solution but still face a refusal. What's really annoying is that I requested to which standards or documentation they were refering to make their judgement. He could not refer to any. Should they not be able to indicate me the requirements that should be met and show me the valid document(s) where I could find these?

I am the leaseholder

Good afternoon all, This is my first message on this forum, probably because I am a new homeowner. It came with great joy but I am now facing difficulties already with my freeholder. That was quick. Here is the issue. - My Freeholder, Notting Hill Genesis (NHG), is refusing my internal layout. I am intending to do some alteration in the flat to have an open plan kitchen / living room meaning that the corridor separating the current kitchen and living room will be removed (see attached existing floor plan and proposed floor plan). I precise that these walls are not load bearing walls. NHG Building Surveyor indicates to me that this is not acceptable as the bedroom doors lead to the kitchen. This is true that the doors lead to the open plan however, Building Regulations 2010 make it clear that Emergency Escape Windows are a valid means of escape for flats located on ground and first floor and therefore a protected corridor is not absolutely necessary. My understanding is that since I am on the first floor I would comply with regulations. Here is an extract of Building Regs, Clause 3.16: "3.16 All habitable rooms (excluding kitchens) should have either of the following. a. An emergency escape window or external door, as described in paragraph 3.6. b. In multi-storey flats, direct access to a protected internal stairway (minimum REI 30) leading to an exit from the flat." - I have asked the surveyor to indicate to me which NHG document says that having doors to open plan kitchens is not allowed when escape windows are here. He told me he does not have a document but simply said that Building Regulations are a 'minimum standard'. - Even though I believe the proposed layout is valid, I proposed another one where I separate the kitchen from the rest of the living room by erecting a wall with a fire door. Bedroom doors would not lead to an open plan kitchen but simply to the living room. He told me this is not acceptable without giving explanations. Therefore my questions are the following: - Does my proposed open plan kitchen layout comply with Building Regulations 2010? Considering I am on the first floor with exit windows on each room. - I understand Regs are a 'minimum standard'. Obviously I can do more. Indeed, I proposed to add fire doors while none of the doors in the flat are and the main entrance door is not even self closing. My understanding of 'minimum standard' is that what's written does not need to be applied as such (e.g. I can have 2 escape windows per room if I want to) and that I can do more but that nobody can ask me to do more. How should 'minimal standard' be interpreted? - Can they claim this is a 'minimum standard and require me to do more than the standard? Can they force me to go beyond regulations? - A point on my lease contract.... With regards to alteration, my lease says that "Not to make any alteration or addition of a non structural nature to the interior of the Premises without the previous written consent of the Landlord such consent not to be unreasonably withheld". If I comply with regulations in place in England to date, would that be unreasonable to prevent me from doing this work if I comply with Regs? Any comment on the above will be welcomed. Thank you in advance for your help! Pierrick