Aargh! Building Control idiocy

[Ian Bond]

Aggravating isn't it?

The implication is that if it isn't listed, the law compels you to ruin it, using incompatible materials and methods.

 

[NT]

Can anyone be a knight in shining armour?
A client of mine is getting hell from building control. I was trying to be sneaky, doing the work on her place as 'repairs and reinstatement' rather than conversion or renovation, so that building control wouldn't need to know what was going on. Included in the programme is a limecrete floor and three-coat lime render with roughcast on the outside, and three-coat haired lime plaster on the inside, with clay board ceilings and thermofleece insulation.

Unfortunately the client has engaged some local builders to put an extension on the side of her place, and they've called in building control to OK the footings (as per normal), and the wretched pedantic muppet from the council has now started demanding a say over the internal work and the rendering (which, technically, he has a right to do, as I was being a little sneaky).

The upshot is that he's demanding that the rubble stone walls - a metre thick- be dry-lined and celotexed rather than lime-plastered, and is also threatening to demand that the render be replaced with cement if we can't prove it's waterproof! Aaargh! And, in passing, he wants to know the U value of a metre thick rubble-stone wall, and of the limecrete.

What give this person the right to a say in any of the work bar the floor?


NT

 

[Gervase]

What give this person the right to a say in any of the work bar the floor?
NT

It's a grey area - technically I'm led to understand that the only area he's currently supposed to have a say on is the floor, but the new Part L regs can be applied to the whole building if more than a certain percentage of the wall is being changed or an extension being built.

However, it looks as though the new regs allow one to determine heat loss on a 'whole house' basis, so the theory is that extra ceiling insulation and smaller 'period' windows will offset the lack of polystyrene on the walls to the point where the local authority will OK the plans.

It would seem that he's being a tad over-zealous in his application of the regs, and as soon as my client comes back from a week off contemplating a nervous breakdown I hope to have the matter resolved.

And once it is, I'm hoping a precedent will have been set for similar projects.

 

[Gervase]

So, we now have an answer. I'd like to say 'We won - Na na na-na na!' but...
First, I should thank all those who have taken the trouble to reply with advice, offers of help and expressions of support – it has been a very refreshing insight into the fundamental decency and concern shown by so many involved in the restoration and conservation of old buildings.

The issue has now been resolved. In case you think that means that a binding precedent has been set, be still your beating hearts.
I’m afraid the resolution is a classic piece of fudging – but a relief nonetheless – insofaras my client was able to convince the BCO that work on the project was started before the April deadline for the implementation of the new Part L guidelines.

As such he has sanctioned the limecrete floor, the three-coat lime plaster on the walls and the render and roughcast on the exterior. His view, however, was that if my client could not have shown that work commenced before the deadline, he would not have sanctioned the lime works.

Thus the battle still has to be fought at some stage. While awaiting the BCO’s decision we did consult a barrister who was of the opinion that it would be a suitable matter to take to legal review if the BCO remained obdurate, as Part L was merely a guideline and has no binding legal force; and as such the local authority has an obligation to be reasonable and to apply common sense in its interpretation.

So, should anyone else face a similar problem, please don’t hesitate to get in touch and I will willingly share what evidence and experience we have managed to garner.

And, once again, many thanks to all those who have rallied round.

 

[Nemesis]

Well, I'm obviously pleased for you, but as you say - it isn't really a resolution is it?

Maybe you could write this up for the SPAB magazine Cornerstone...

 

[Penners]

The issue has now been resolved. In case you think that means that a binding precedent has been set, be still your beating hearts. I’m afraid the resolution is a classic piece of fudging – but a relief nonetheless

Gervase, I admire your wish to try and establish some firm precedents for the future, for the sake of everyone with an interest in period property. But at least you've got a resolution here without getting your tailfeathers burned.

I'm afraid that trying to get BCOs all to interpret the regs in the same predictable way is like trying to push water uphill. And I have to say that it's not really their fault. It's an inherent risk in any situation that allows subjectivity.

So I hope you don't feel any sense of failure. I don't think there can or will ever be one universal success in this field - only an endless series of mini-compromises.

 

[Nemesis]

I think Gervase would possibly have liked to take this further ... it's not of course his building and so I think not his test case in reality. I do know how much effort he has put into this however, and that effort may be of use to others in a similar situation.

It may be that a test case could set a precedent. Unfortunately, there's always a risk that the judgment may not go the way we would wish.

 

[biffvernon]

I've visited two people in Wales (dunno if it's the same BCO Gervase) who have built new extensions. In one they had to do a lot of very hard work to excavate the solid rock in order to make a trench to fill with concrete. The other, a traditional stone cottage with no significant foundations, the extension was a light weight timber frame but still needed groundworks and concrete sufficient to support a modest multistorey carpark. I do think the difference between the 'Requirements' and 'Guidance' passes many people's notice.

 

[Nemesis]

The difficulty is that 'guidance' is very strong. Possibly we wish to have our cake and consume it also - when it suits, PPG15 is quoted (by we conservationists) as the 'bible'... it's all balancing one policy against another.

As far as local authorities are concerned, one size fits all is easier as that way any leeway given to one person/building cannot then be upcast at an appeal citing it as precedent. While I appreciate that each case should be taken on its merits and no precedents set, it does weaken the case of a local authority.

What loses out of course are the buildings. Listed buildings are possibly protected (although not totally) but other traditional buildings... well, they have no protection at all from being spoiled by unsuitable and insensitive treatment or even demolition.

 

[Penners]

a traditional stone cottage with no significant foundations, the extension was a light weight timber frame but still needed groundworks and concrete sufficient to support a modest multistorey carpark.

The first period property that I worked on was about 33 years ago. It was a tiny Essex timber-frame cottage, C15th, whose foundations were little more than two courses of bricks below ground level.

When I built a small single-storey, timber-frame, lean-to extension on the back, I had to dig foundations one metre deep. I pointed out to the BCO that, in the event of any soil movement, this would mean that the house and the extension would respond in totally different ways. His response was, "the regulations were written for everyone's benefit". :roll: