Zoot's Extention- progress.

[zoothorn]

The extention progressing, timber frame & dividing floor/ roof/ slates on, block cladding now. Its racing along & looking great.

 

2 hurdles left & your advice would be great. There was & is, a discrepency between what I'd planned & what's been built.. in height. A collar roof was the plan to gain height in upstairs room. But in actuality the collar itself could not be made where the plan had it put. Instead it had to be 350mm lower (apparantly due to structural reasons). But I was not told, so as a consequence from the off (day 1, footings) the build was progressing with 350mm down "added" without my knowing why. This lead to HUGE worry & stress, as from my pov everything was 'too low/ wrong' & I'd no idea why.

 

Only once I'd established (through a mire of confusion & miscommunication in the other thread) that my trusses were as I suspected -not- looking like the plan, their collars lower & -not- going to sit upon both walls with the extra 350mm chunk of ceiling head-height above.. & therefore the very reason for ALL the build having shifted down AT LAST KNOWN.. could I understand how this continual 350mm had come to be. Eureka! I finally know! but not happy & I think pretty awful my builder simply hid this collar difference IMHO. But I have not let it be cause to fall out, I cannot.

 

But its left me with two problems.

 

1) The area below the original wall (old footings 1ft max) the extention attatches to, is now exposed all along of course 350mm more. so a 500mm exposed area (as I'd accounted for a 150mm step down in on the plan)

 

And 2) the 500mm 'trench' around the lower room. My builder is talking of 'well what you need to do is..' suggesting both are my perogative, not his. Of course I disagree.. but he will simply not budge. So what I need to consider is how to solve these problems without upsetting him, who I'm on good terms with/ has built me a fine structure it must be said. Albeit 350mm lower!

 

Thanks, zoot.

Edited November 12, 2019 by zoothorn

[Bitpipe]

19 minutes ago, zoothorn said:

. So what I need to consider is how to solve these problems without upsetting him, who I'm on good terms with/ has built me a fine structure it must be said. Albeit 350mm lower!

Well this is the root of the issue, it may be at fine structure’ but it’s not what you asked for.

 

You’re worried about upsetting him but you’re the one who has the incorrectly built structure and new ground problem to make good the access.

 

Bit like me ordering steak and chips at the restaurant, getting egg and chips and being told that adding steak will be extra.

You have control here - either get him to fix the groundworks at his cost or deduct the cost of making good from his bill and get someone else in to do it when the job is done.

[ToughButterCup]

@zoothorn, please take a bit more care in formulating your questions.

 

For example, 1) above.

You write '.... So a 500 mm exposed area ...' 

A reader could be forgiven for thinking - is that problem or not?  And if it is a problem, then how much of a problem is it?

 

Its a good idea -where possible - to begin the discussion by suggesting answers to your own problem, thus Members can evaluate your answer, or suggest their own answers to the problem.

When people see that you have done a bit of thinking of your own, it oils the wheels a bit. 

 

Reading through some of your other threads, I got the strong impression that some of the confusion could have been avoided entirely if you had provided some carefully composed images. Its as if you rush to the keyboard to contact BH rather than sit, suck your teeth a bit, look at the issue, think and then after a while write your post.

 

Slow down.

[Tennentslager]

Post up some pictures @zoothorn 

lots of pictures please ?

[Jilly]

Sorry to hear you've had such stress, but now all is nearly well underway, am I right in thinking  you want to make the differences look aesthetically pleasing? I would be with you on being happy with egg and chips if I liked that as much a steak, and understand why you don't want to have more confrontation with the builder. 

 

Hang on in there and keep your stress levels as low as possible. It's easier to think.

 

Can you draw it so we can visualise it better, please? Can you do a sketch and then upload a photo of it? and the photo of the bit you are not keen on? I have trouble visualising from the written word, but I can understand drawings better? Can you make a feature of whatever it is? Or just clad the area? 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 12, 2019 by Jilly
spelling

[zoothorn]

@Bitpipe perfectly reasonable reply. It is indeed 'not what I asked for', but let's say the because the plan was done 'that couldn't quite be achieved' IE the collar could not be put where I envisioned it to be according to the Timber Frame Co, plus, the fact that it has been built via a Build Plan (I give the reins to the builder in terms of Regs/ he knows best/ he builds it to BRegs etc).. complicates this.

 

Only the TFrame Co would know (& PeterW seemed spot on too) exactly where the collar actually sat, Id assume via a load-bearing xyz algorithm. Normally this H discrepency wouldn't be such a big deal, but as its a small extention with restricted height I'm inclined to go along with the builder & say/ agree its the only way my two rooms' could be got into the space & retain structural (roof) integrity.

 

Its not easy, not a black/ white thing or I'd not be asking opinions you see. Its a balancing act. He's given me an invoice for works done you see, which tallies with estimate to the £1 (good), which includes TF walls, roof, collars (yes I have some.. its just they're set lower now I understand), & groundworks. Its the groundworks bit which is a tricky one.

[zoothorn]

18 minutes ago, Tennentslager said:

Post up some pictures @zoothorn 

lots of pictures please ?

 

 

Ok.. but progress now raced on from here, slates on/ gutters on, & 1/4 of block cladding done (my lovely old slr can't cope/ battery probs so only the odd pic possible now)

 

 

[zoothorn]

30 minutes ago, AnonymousBosch said:

@zoothorn, please take a bit more care in formulating your questions.

 

For example, 1) above.

You write '.... So a 500 mm exposed area ...' 

A reader could be forgiven for thinking - is that problem or not?  And if it is a problem, then how much of a problem is it?

 

Its a good idea -where possible - to begin the discussion by suggesting answers to your own problem, thus Members can evaluate your answer, or suggest their own answers to the problem.

When people see that you have done a bit of thinking of your own, it oils the wheels a bit. 

 

Reading through some of your other threads, I got the strong impression that some of the confusion could have been avoided entirely if you had provided some carefully composed images. Its as if you rush to the keyboard to contact BH rather than sit, suck your teeth a bit, look at the issue, think and then after a while write your post.

 

Slow down.

 

Understood AB. Thanks for being patient/ comments taken on board. I admit I spiel too much.. no-one's perfect, or can see themselves. But I do try my best to be as clear as possible (yes you'll spit your tea already I know).

 

I will try & keep posts short.. after a full on hammer & tongs OP that is I can't not do that!

[zoothorn]

@Jilly appreciate that/ helpful. Alas my camera is failing so cannot draw sketch/ photo. If you see the 1st photo tho I just put up its all sitting 500mm  into the ground. I anticipated 150mm. So this leaves a big offset from surrounding ground > down to dpc.

 

We discussed 'tidying up around' once build done, a digger skimming off 6" of the ground around to help the difference, which will help a bit. But then on I just cannot push him further: you see he's already having to put in a drain around it says the BCO (covered by hardcore) which I believe he's gonna do for just cost of materials call it £200, plus he's put a window 'blank' lintel in lower room for me to do at a later date, just for lintel cost. So he has done me favours (tho dumped earth in forest saving skip cost mind you).

 

So its possibly a retaining wall situation to satisfy BCO & to keep ground away from the lower part of extention, with a ~path sort of bit around/ the minimum to solve this prob. Could be worse, is the best mindset.

 

As to the other prob: inside the lower room, where it joins on the old wall, you can see the foundations all along.. to a height of 500mm (Id anticipated just 150mm all along in the plan). This must have something done to it, surely the BCO won't just let it be. Nor will I want a room with old exposed foundations visible for 1/4 of room height. I'd think 'covering' this area the lesser of the two probs tho.. I'd hope.

[PeterW]

The internal wall is a simple fix - shuttering at 150mm from the wall with some lengths of rebar hammered in to the existing founds / under slab, and then concrete poured in to make a solid retaining wall. Shuttering gets removed and you’ve got a concrete ledge holding back the old wall. 

 

The remainder I would want the builder to resolve with a French drain or similar set lower as discussed with just a slab edging - quick and cheap. 

[zoothorn]

50 minutes ago, PeterW said:

The internal wall is a simple fix - shuttering at 150mm from the wall with some lengths of rebar hammered in to the existing founds / under slab, and then concrete poured in to make a solid retaining wall. Shuttering gets removed and you’ve got a concrete ledge holding back the old wall.

 

Ok understand that plan Peter: good to know possibly no horrorshow to remedy then: I just called my BCO, coming out tmrw about what my floor surface & insulation can be (I only got 2150mm from slab to rafters you see: In need min thickness as poss). Maybe I ask him on this area too.

 

Btw when an estimate says 'groundwork'.. do I/ does a customer assume the floor ontop of the slab is included?

 

 

[Redoctober]

23 minutes ago, zoothorn said:

Btw when an estimate says 'groundwork'.. do I/ does a customer assume the floor ontop of the slab is included?

 

 

Surely that depends upon what you and your builder have agreed to - the word " assumes" is the one word that shouldn't feature in any self build project as far as I am concerned.

Each person on here will no doubt have a different answer because it depends on what they agreed with their particular builder - me included.

[zoothorn]

1 hour ago, PeterW said:

The remainder I would want the builder to resolve with a French drain or similar set lower as discussed with just a slab edging - quick and cheap. 

 

The slab edging: do you mean vertical slabs in a sort of retaining wall, @ edge of my trench here? (fixed cam for now).

 

Last pic (behind the loose dpm I've propped up) is the 550mm H orig wall area basically just exposed clay/ no stone founds at all. My builder said 'maybe mesh/ render' fleetingly & clearly implying this area to be left to me.

 

Does maybe the BCO have final say on what to do here I wonder..

 

 

 

 

 

 

[zoothorn]

15 minutes ago, Redoctober said:

 

Surely that depends upon what you and your builder have agreed to - the word " assumes" is the one word that shouldn't feature in any self build project as far as I am concerned.

Each person on here will no doubt have a different answer because it depends on what they agreed with their particular builder - me included.

 

Yes, but I ask the Q not from a semi-pro or amateur builder to prospective builder like you/ as 'each person on here' would.. I'm asking from my pov. Which is simply as a client, as per mrs. miggins @ no.73. No prior experience.

 

I had no idea groundwork might not include: a slab (this isn't mentioned on estimate or discussed), or a dpm, some concrete founds, a trench dug etc: but are all these -assumed- in 'groundwork' RO without specific mention of each? yes.

 

So my question is a perfectly reasonable one to ask.

 

 

 

Edited November 12, 2019 by zoothorn

[Gone West]

5 hours ago, zoothorn said:

But its left me with two problems.

 

1) The area below the original wall (old footings 1ft max) the extention attatches to, is now exposed all along of course 350mm more. so a 500mm exposed area (as I'd accounted for a 150mm step down in on the plan)

 

And 2) the 500mm 'trench' around the lower room. My builder is talking of 'well what you need to do is..' suggesting both are my perogative, not his. Of course I disagree.. but he will simply not budge. So what I need to consider is how to solve these problems without upsetting him, who I'm on good terms with/ has built me a fine structure it must be said. Albeit 350mm lower!

For (1) I would have thought the builder could render it when he renders the block skin of the extension.

For (2) the BCO around here allows the 150mm from DPC to finished ground level to be filled with 20mm shingle if necessary. If your BCO allows it then the depth of your 'trench' could be reduced by 150mm and by another 150mm if the builder scrapes off the level of your drive. This would mean a step of only 200mm which could be done with a railway sleeper. It wouldn't be ideal because walking on deep shingle isn't that easy but it would be relatively cheap.

I must say again, you live in a very attractive setting.

[zoothorn]

 

 

@PeterStarck thanks, most take it for granted.. but I often pinch/ remind myself how lucky I am here: its like living on holiday. 90% of the time. I'll certainly put this shingle idea to the BCO tomorrow: wouldn't 150mm of shingle above the dpc though A) be alot of weight pressing on the blockwork & B) allow some moisture directly at block above the dpc, if not alot like soil would?

[Gone West]

2 minutes ago, zoothorn said:

wouldn't 150mm of shingle above the dpc though A) be alot of weight pressing on the blockwork & B) allow some moisture directly at block above the dpc, if not alot like soil would?

Normally there is a requirement that the finished ground level should be 150mm below the DPC. My BCO allows some or all of that height difference to be filled with 20mm shingle in certain circumstances, but the shingle is never above the DPC.

[zoothorn]

1 minute ago, PeterStarck said:

Normally there is a requirement that the finished ground level should be 150mm below the DPC. My BCO allows some or all of that height difference to be filled with 20mm shingle in certain circumstances, but the shingle is never above the DPC.

 

 Ah sorry I misdunderstood then. The idea has been hardcore up to (or as near as poss) the dpc. But its from here up is where I can't understandthe options to be.

 

So I can't quite understand your previous post then as you say " the 150mm from DPC to finished ground level to be filled with 20mm shingle" so from the dpc > up to the ground can be filled with shingle.. is this not correct then? as according to your last post saying it cannot be above the dpc.

 

I think build forums are the most likely place for misunderstanding/ miscommunication of any place, ever. Its like a minefield.

[Gone West]

32 minutes ago, zoothorn said:

 

 Ah sorry I misdunderstood then. The idea has been hardcore up to (or as near as poss) the dpc. But its from here up is where I can't understandthe options to be.

 

So I can't quite understand your previous post then as you say " the 150mm from DPC to finished ground level to be filled with 20mm shingle" so from the dpc > up to the ground can be filled with shingle.. is this not correct then? as according to your last post saying it cannot be above the dpc.

 

I think build forums are the most likely place for misunderstanding/ miscommunication of any place, ever. Its like a minefield.

There shouldn't be hardcore up to the DPC because the finished ground level should be 150mm below the DPC. This is to prevent splashback above the DPC when raining hard. My BCO sometimes allows 20mm shingle to be the finished ground level and be closer to the DPC than 150mm because rain won't settle on it and cause splashback.

[Declan52]

Why not just put a row of dwarf kerbs around the edge to hold the bank back at it's original height then it will be a step down to the lower level. Here you can put a row of 3*2 concrete slabs to form a path round the outside and that's it done and finished and will be easy to keep clean and tidy.

https://www.moore-concrete.com/building/concrete-kerbs/

[zoothorn]

2 hours ago, Declan52 said:

Why not just put a row of dwarf kerbs around the edge to hold the bank back at it's original height then it will be a step down to the lower level. Here you can put a row of 3*2 concrete slabs to form a path round the outside and that's it done and finished and will be easy to keep clean and tidy.

https://www.moore-concrete.com/building/concrete-kerbs/

 

I have quite a big drop though Declan, I think a kerb like those will only get 1/3rd the height I need. The thing is its a cottage & I want a solution which is as cottagey/ less concretey as possible.

 

I wonder whether sleepers might be the answer.. if a retaining wall -is- needed & I can't blend the ground down to wherever its meant to go next to the build. Apparantly there's a drain going around, & hardcore. I assume the hardcore goes ontop, to hide it..

Edited November 12, 2019 by zoothorn

[zoothorn]

Putting the exposed interior bit aside for now (lets say the easier prob), its the outside 'trench': you see I can't visualise/ interpret what will likely happen here.. or need to happen. Do I have options? If I can get a plan together, I can then try to compromise with my builder on it. I will not dump it on him to 'rectify all trench pls or I don't pay up'.. no.. he's done me favours/ doing a great build. All he might agree to in "tidying up" is: put drain in, skim off 100mm of ground, fix mesh & plaster the inside (me paying for drain + 'mesh'.. if this the easiest fix to this prob). If there's a small part of the barrier needed, like laying a base (?) maybe I can push him to do. If I push further: he explodes/ we fall out/ no, its too far.

 

At the moment trench is dug this deep, so I understand, for the brickies to work from. And I'm told a drain will go in around from far side, to near side > join the outflow pipe (already put in) > out to my hedge/ ditch. How I'm not exactly sure.

 

So I have a 600mm flat/ trench, to the upright ground of 500mm H. If 100mm skimmed off ground, 400mm H. If the 'floor' is filled up a bit say 1/2 a block (so 75mm short of the dpc), 325mm of H. So not a huge ammount: but can the edge of the ground be pushed in twds the build side to narrow the wretched trench as far as possible? (which eats into my very small front area). Obviously if so it needs a 350mm H barrier to rest against.

[Gone West]

16 minutes ago, zoothorn said:

So I have a 600mm flat/ trench, to the upright ground of 500mm H. If 100mm skimmed off ground, 400mm H. If the 'floor' is filled up a bit say 1/2 a block (so 75mm short of the dpc), 325mm of H. So not a huge ammount: but can the edge of the ground be pushed in twds the build side to narrow the wretched trench as far as possible? (which eats into my very small front area). Obviously if so it needs a 350mm H barrier to rest against.

If the height difference is around 350mm you would need at least two steps down so a 600mm wide 'trench' is probably about right. There are a lot of companies selling recycled railway sleepers which would give a rustic look.

https://www.uksleepers.co.uk/product/Reclaimed_Oak_Sleeper

[Declan52]

14 hours ago, zoothorn said:

 

I have quite a big drop though Declan, I think a kerb like those will only get 1/3rd the height I need. The thing is its a cottage & I want a solution which is as cottagey/ less concretey as possible.

 

I wonder whether sleepers might be the answer.. if a retaining wall -is- needed & I can't blend the ground down to wherever its meant to go next to the build. Apparantly there's a drain going around, & hardcore. I assume the hardcore goes ontop, to hide it..

These type of kerbs can stand 500mm high. 

[Jilly]

How about: To approach the discussion with the builder, armed with a note pad and a pot of hippy tea,  ask ' what are my options for the trench?' ' Can you draw it so I understand how it will work and what the pros and cons are?'