Gimp

Thanks Mike, funny got that site saved in my bookmarks also, its quite good isn't it. Well, already familiar with the Part K Regs, I also know that there is a British Standard that applied in addition with some extra stuff just for Spirals, not a lot though I think. Importantly though I can find no mention on strength of stairs so I'm guessing your both right and so long as I do a real solid construction, which having four walls on each side of the staircase should aid in then the Building Inspector probably won't bring it up. In any case if an SE is asked to do structural calcs it should be enough to pass anyway. I guess people could be building them all the time to a traditional specification, mine will be a little different but no less solid, possibly more so. Only Info I could find was from Jen-Weld (pdf attached) on stair spec for materials used and the like so will probably go a bit by that also, so should be ok. JELD-WEN_UK_-_BWF_Stair_Design_Guide.pdf

I'm guessing the obvious answer to my question is yes, but do you think there is a likelihood of Building Control will want it checked out by a SE or just put the onus for it being structurally sound down to me as its not the structure per se. The construction for the stairs I am thinking of is quite solid and should be perfectly stable & strong enough, it will be built between walls on all four sides as it will be a square spiral, the treads I am thinking of at this time will be solid down to the previous tread and up to the next one. Is it something they question even unless the stairs look possibly weak on construction?

This Link: https://www.planningportal.co.uk/info/200128/building_control/38/building_regulations/3 tells us that they can be ultimately enforceable but by the Local Authority not by the Building Inspector themselves. The Building Inspector issues a notice of non-complaince which if you can't get the necessary work sorted or another qualified (private) Inspector then its forwarded to the Local Authority for action, informally then legally should they wish to see it that far (no doubt on Building Inspectors take on the situation). So they are legally enforceable, but depending on severity of the infringement I'm guessing in some cases a Building Inspector/LA will prefer to overlook the 'few mil too short here or there' than regs state than waste a lot of time on a lengthy bureaucratic/legal process. Added onto this the completion certificate issue as I brought up above. My guess is they got together with the Building Inspector and because it was a Local Authority Eco initiative the Building Inspector together with the Architect they hired just went for compliance with the main issues and didn't hold it to the letter of all the regs, point by point, so long as no completion certificate was being sought for.

I guess perhaps they will not be able to get certificate of completion, but if they are not looking to sell on or to someone else who is not bothered then that's how they'll do it. Seems strange to have building inspectors quote something does not comply with regs and be unenforceable, would have thought they would have clout somewhere otherwise why bother with the whole process at all, or even have the regs.

Just only had time for a brief view but it doesn't look like its really about building regs in there, i.e assess, fire, insulation, and the rest - more about green building waffle. I personally don't see how this could be built to building regs, thought that at the time of watching. I think they have probably got big leeway from the planners/building control in advance but like Prodave says is done on the basis of a temporary build (though will probably be there quite some time). I think I recall one Grand Designs done years ago where the guy got planning permission in the middle of woodland on the basis that the structure would be demolished at the end of his life, hence temporary structure. Also, noticing from the 'Grand Designs' website itself when you click on the project you find out there is more to it than as shown on TV - they got the windows made up for them (presumably double glazed) they had an Architect (no mention on the program I believe) and some other people also. So its looks like it was a very sanitized view that has been put before us of how it really was. I also would question how livable there dwellings would be in a harsh winter. I think that have probably been given a lot of easy going from the normal regs & planning as they are on this site which has been set aside for 'eco project' I think most of us would struggle if we tried to do the same ourselves. Kind of annoys me how Grand Designs whitewash stuff these days, used to be better the older series I think when you saw more of the struggles & problems with the build. This one I found a bit phoney really, more about putting a idealic picture of eco - how much happier we are living the simple life forward. I mean how can you rely on polystrene even if recycled and still claim to be eco - your relying on a product harmful to the environment just like the rest of us even if it is recycled its still saying we have to use these products as we can't do without - hence the need for its continuous manufacture. I just find some of these Grand Designs gets on my goat.

Good advice Temp, I wondered if this may be the case, I'll make sure I just stick to my own name on all supplier invoices. Thanks also.

Ah, good point, I think I'll do that with suppliers it keeps it simple and flexible plus should help to avoid misunderstanding/argument with the Inland Revenue over if I'm self build or company I would have thought. Many thanks

Just wondering if anyone could help me out on this one, for a trade account at various suppliers is it necessary to give a business name (though you may not actually be running a business) in order to set up the account, so as they see you as in the trade or can you just use your own name by itself? I'm thinking of this in relation to VAT as if you use a business name then they might see you as being in business rather than as a self builder so might encounter difficulty reclaiming VAT of the invoices. Would I be right in thinking this.

I like the look Think I might have seen similar in some hotels I stayed in over in France recently, not sure if I took a pic though but I'm sure I remember thinking at the time how does it deal with the water as it seemed pretty flat. My only thoughts are the tiles are placed at a very slight angle to get rid of the majority of the water, i.e so the water does not end up flowing the other way. Then any slight puddles or droplets left are not worried about but left to the ventilation fan, MHVR or whatever to finish the job over next few hours. The slab tiles in the picture at the sides could be placed at a slight angle so as not to be that obvious but look flat, quite possibly the whole floor area might follow on from these angles also. Just my thoughts, maybe You -tube or googling might also throw up some stuff on it.

Yeah, I wondered the same that as its a basement there wouldn't be much wind loading hence perhaps a basement can quite reasonably go deeper provide the SE does a thicker wall build up for withstanding the soil pressure. Thanks, Sensus, I didn't realise the building regs were colour coded for the actual regulation you need to stick by in green & the rest I guess for how they suggest compliance. This (and the advice above) is all very useful to me, it means that I may have a reasonable chance to make the best of this build as the extra height I think will change the view from seeing the back angle of the buildings below to a nice view over the rooftops, many thanks

Ah, good to know, looks like Building Control are a bit at ease so long as an SE has checked it out. I've dealt with them briefly in the past (extension thing non new build) and guy seemed to have a bit of leeway here or there. So my real fear about them sticking real rigidly to the rules may be unfounded, thew

Sounds a good idea Temp, I'm going to have to go to a structural engineer anyway for the whole design, for the basement garage retaining walls & weight of the whole thing to the load bearing ability of the soil, etc. So might as well get the SE to do the work there as well as since they will be working out the size of the retaining wall to height, etc it shouldn't really be anything much in the way of extra cost for them to work it out for a higher height than usual. Like you say I think if a structural engineer approves it, it will be ok as I'm guessing its a height to wall ratio issue with regard to load bearing, so thinking it through now for a standard wall BC probably go with the 2.7M rather than a issue or differences in height of buildings for aesthetic reasons. Since it is probably only going to be an extra 450mm or so with a SE approved solution it should be fine. I was just afraid they might stick rigidly to it as the only way to comply with regulations in that case since it doesn't state any other option in the regs but like you say they are just one way to comply. I'll put forward the whole design for outline planning permission first with D & A Statement & see how that gets on with my proposed build height, then get a structural engineer onto the job for the FFP so I know exactly what I'm dealing with, with specific sizes of wall & heights, etc. End of the day once the BC drawings are in and they have accepted them then they shouldn't be able to go back on it if its all been accepted I hear so should be ok. Many thanks Temp, you've helped clear my mind on this one

So I'm looking to do a basement car park that has a floor to ceiling height in excess of the 2.7M described in Part A of building regs. At the moment my only thought to possibly get around this is to do a false timber beam ceiling below the actual beam & block ceiling level to bring it to within the 2.7M with a void in between the two ceilings. Most ceiling I know have a small void, particularly timber ones if not only to reduce sound penetration than for services. So was wondering if anyone has any idea if this would be ok with building control or the best way around it. I am looking to have a void of around 450mm or so. Its just really to start the house above it at a more preferable height given the landscape & the surrounding view. I guessing that building control would just generally view the room height & not get too picky about full investigation of heights unless it seemed pretty way out, the plans of course for FFP would have the correct total building height. My only thoughts on this so far is that their must be some leeway along the way as some people do double height ceiling rooms but I can't find much info around on any of it to tell me one way or the other the best way forward on this.

Got 'Housebuilder's Bible' about a year or so ago, but went for the eighth edition as was dirt cheap off Amazon for 1p plus p&p of £2.80 so a bargain. Read up on there that after the ninth edition the quality of the presentation, print, paper quality, etc goes down but the price off the book goes up. That and little changes between editions unless you go years & years back, so a rough idea of prices still similar. Found the book to be down to earth & common sense in evaluating different methods & materials which chimes well with me as I can't stand all the lets throw in all the eco & current trendy stuff regardless of price or practicality approach. Having a voice that is independent of the architecture crazes of daytime TV is good to hear from and you know its from someone who thinks things through from practical experience rather than just recommend the latest fad. That said, some stuff I was already aware off, some was new, and some I was thinking along similar lines to the author. A good read to build up knowledge but once read its really just down to the price comparison tables where the use comes in.

I think Compriband type of tapes are different from what I understand as expanding foam, yes it is foam that expands, but I usually think of the spray version as expanding foam - the yellowish substance that expands in blobs. The door window tape to me doesn't act in the same way, it can be pushed back and does not harden once expanded. I have some old expanding foam sprayed around the property where I live and although it goes lighter and perhaps more brittle when exposed to UV for many, many years, it still holds it place fine and none has ever come out. Looking at its composition though, although for most general applications it seems pretty weather tight I think if it was needing to be weather tight under full on conditions say for sealing an area on a flat roof, somewhere rain might collect, etc then it might allow water to seep though after a time, either at the join or though its structure if it has been cut flush as it appears to be honeycombed. I'm not sure that it always quite fully expands into every crevice but rounds off a little. Just my opinion though from what I have noticed visually off the stuff.

Yeah reckon you're right, by the time all the floor levels etc are in proper the difference will be made up to around the 2.7 mark. I don't think building control will be too fussed as long as its somewhere near the mark. For me I might have to just try a bit of a cheeky one and put in a separate ceiling above the garage (also going to do beam & block) and hope that flies. So long as the overall height is not more than stated on the plans then I reckon I may get away with another 450 mm or so.

Just wondered as I am looking to go quite high on the garage to first floor of my own build I am planning, but looking up the Part A Building regs it looks like they only allow a max permitted 2.7 Meters finished floor to bottom on ceiling height per storey on multi-storey dwellings. This is a pain for me as I would like to go slightly higher to take maximum advantage of the view and siting.

Just out of interest, how tall is the wall going to be per storey?

Guess the vibrator is only so long also

Would be surprised if it would burst out with the walls having a few days to set. I know this is often the pitfall of ICF blocks which is part of what puts me off them, but a can't see why a wall with set joints would act like that.

Ah, I see still surprises me that they would do it like that as it looks like you will end up with massively thick walls and of course the real wide foundations which must be a bit with the concrete. The shovelling in surprises me also, I would have thought it more usual to build to the top first then concrete mixer pour into it all in one continuous form without split. Not that it is likely to be a problem necessarily with a wall that thick and I guess it looks like you have the space there for thick walls but I still wonder if the method is best practice. Would be interesting to see what Pro Dave thinks of this or another engineer perhaps.

How did you come to the decision to use this wall structure, it looks like it will take a lot of room? No Doubt it would do the job but would ProDave's solution not provide just as strong but thinner alternative, perhaps with wall ties added for lateral support.

Is this from a place you have bought recently?

Yeah got the impression a lot of the info is quite generalized, lol I've done a fair bit of research myself for free over the various online site so know what you mean and combined with visit to site and knowledge of how the site sits in its surroundings seems better to me than a bind dredging up of figures and erroneous date which seems to be what a lot of these reports tends to be. Nice to know I'm not the only one that seems to thinks so.

So just wondering peoples thoughts on this the 'Enviro All in One Report' example from the internet here: http://planning.allerdale.gov.uk/portal/servlets/AttachmentShowServlet?ImageName=224308 From Groundsure gives a run down of data in the vicinity of your site, they don't however as noted in this example report (not from my site) visit your site. The report can be gained through the Coal Authority Gov.uk website when ordering a report on coal mining. The Enviro All in One Report cost £215.70 plus VAT whereas just the Coal Mining Report costs £77.00 plus VAT. Now myself if I had to get a Coal Mining Report (in Wales here) I would probably just get the Enviro All in One which includes the Coal Mining Report and have done with it as it would not be a great deal more. The Enviro all in One Report for the most part includes a lot of data that for the most part is rather reeled of it seems and probably unlikely to tell me anything of consequence as I already know the lay of the land quite well by now. My plot is on a hillside which slopes in a way that flooding for the site is highly unlikely, subsidence is also unlikely I think, due to no previous signs/evidence that I can see (base of a garage on site still there & level), a clay/sand soil and a bank while somewhat of a pitch is not real steep, the surrounding houses seem fine also. What I have noticed from the Design & Access statement that was submitted for the previous Outline Planning Permission (about 3 years ago) for my site was that they got a Coal Mining Report done for it which said the site was fine as far as Coal Mining in the area was concerned so I knew when buying the plot I was on firm ground on this one and didn't bother my conveyancer to get one done. However, although it said report was attached in the pdf download of the Design & Access Statement it does not feature at the end of the report or in any other download of pdf's on there. So I'm wondering what do you think my chances are if I email the local planning authority for my plot area and ask if they might be able to email it to me (if they have it on file). I'm not sure whether there is any reason for them not to, if its a perfectly reasonable request or whether it might come under freedom of information. So just wondering if any one else has had this or similar come up, whether its possible to gain any further docs from the planning authority than they might have put up on their website?