Grand Designs last night

[valmet10]

any one watch grand designs last night , how did they get that past building regs /planning .or didn't it need them

 

[PeterW]

I thought the same..!

 

Looked at the planning portal too and I can't see where any detailed plans were submitted for Lammas - makes you wonder if the council wanted them to fail.... This is on the Lammas pages about planning http://lammas.org.uk/planning/

 

 

[ProDave]

I just watched it this evening (never watch commercial tv live) and I wondered about planning.

 

For a project like this, it's possible to make a home that is exempt from building regulations by making it conform the the portable building rules and it is then treated in planning law as a "caravan" (it does not need to e on wheels even). You would think they would know about this and build accordingly.  This thing built into the hillside with bags rammed full of earth does not meet the description of being "portable" in any way, and I can't see how it meets building regulations.
 

[DavidFrancis]

It was apparently subject to building regs.  See paras 3.91-3.94 of

http://lammas.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/one-planet-development-guidance.pdf

 

(Tried to cut-and-paste, but things went awry.)

[ProDave]

There is a lot of good information in that document. But read on to paragraphs 3.95 to 3.99, and there is a lot of encouragement for the buildings to be removable at end of life, and a lot of hints about making then conform with the legal definition of a "caravan" which would exempt them from building regulations and permit all sorts of unusual construction methods.
 

[Gimp]

13 hours ago, DavidFrancis said:

It was apparently subject to building regs.  See paras 3.91-3.94 of

http://lammas.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/one-planet-development-guidance.pdf

 

(Tried to cut-and-paste, but things went awry.)

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.  

[Crofter]

Haven't had a chance to watch yet, but I have a feeling that I read somewhere that building regs themselves are not legally enforceable, they are merely an exemplar. The actual legal requirement for different aspects of a building will derive directly from legislation and be pretty vague. So it's possible that the build in question was able to satisfy a broader/higher definition but Iwould  imagine it would require a lot of string pulling and friends in high places.

[TheMitchells]

I certainly was wondering if I tried to make something similar, if I'd be able to get away without the planning and building Regs.  Luckily I am too old and tired to even consider it! 

I loved the idea of it all and the house was going to be gorgeous when finished.  I loved the windows and the sewerage system - can we try that one too without running into lots of problems with the Water companies.  I doubt it.  But good on them for having a go, even if they did compromise some of their principles with the polystyrene. 

[ProDave]

Re the sewage system.  As Crofter will tell you, even if you build a "portable" house that is exempt from building regulations, you will still need building regs to install a treatment plant.  So how a solid separator and composting system built inside the greenhouse attached to the front of your house meets building regs is a mystery to me.

 

Personally if I had been building that, I would have made his plastic bag retaining wall to create a flat area, set some padstones on the ground, and built the entire house as a single storey portable building just sitting on the pads (but not touching the retaining wall) and thus exempt from building control. and to avoid building control for the treatment plant, buy a packaged composting toilet system.

 

 

[Gimp]

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.

[Gimp]

5 hours ago, Crofter said:

Haven't had a chance to watch yet, but I have a feeling that I read somewhere that building regs themselves are not legally enforceable, they are merely an exemplar. The actual legal requirement for different aspects of a building will derive directly from legislation and be pretty vague. So it's possible that the build in question was able to satisfy a broader/higher definition but Iwould  imagine it would require a lot of string pulling and friends in high places.

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. 

[valmet10]

think i'll build some and I bet planning are on me within a month , they should be made to build to building reg ,as its not fair on other that have to,

[DavidFrancis]

I wonder if there's some confusion here between the regs themselves and the guidance on the regs as provided in the approved documents.  This is from the approved documents:

"Approved Documents are intended to provide guidance for some of the more common  building situations. However, there may well be alternative ways of achieving compliance with the requirements.  Thus there is no obligation to adopt any particular solution contained in an Approved Document if you prefer to meet the relevant requirement in some other way."

 

[ProDave]

That could be the case. Definitely my build method, wood fibre cladding on  timber frame and render applied to that is not to be found in any "approved document". But here in Scotland you must submit full plans (no building notice option) and building control approved my design as detailed on the drawings so as long as it's built to the drawings (which it is) should not refuse to pass it.

 

I guess these guys could have submitted their full plans including their retaining wall, foundations, wall make up, insulation etc. But I would have expected it to need supporting with calculations, and how does a structural engineer assess the strength of a yet to be selected round tree branch that will just have the bark stripped off then used?

 

[valmet10]

so in that case he would have had to show calculations to shoe that the tree branches where strong enough to use .same with the plastic bag wall