building control inspectors sometimes dont think....

[glayzell]

Here is one for you, i am going to complie a list of stories from builders about tales of interactions with building control.

I have put an extension onto the side and back of my grade 2 listed house, when i dug the footings i had to go down over 2m due to a eucalyptus tree 15m away. pain in the backside, but i did it. Had i known i would have cut the thing down as it was in the garden of the house i am renting, but hey ho...

My neighbour is building a single storey 'lean to' type extension in the house between my house and the one i am renting, so is in the garden next door to the eucalyptus tree, and probably only 5m away from the tree. They were told yesterday that they have to go down 2.1 metres. for a single storey lean to which is probably only 3.5m x 1.5m.

This will also surely undermine the foudations of the existing house and the houses either side, whose foundations are less than 1m.

anyone else think this is lunacy?

 

[shelli]

. Had i known i would have cut the thing down as it was in the garden of the house i am renting, but hey ho...

I dont think you would have got away with that under the terms of your Tenancy Agreement !!!

and yes it sounds like Loony Lunacy of the looniest order - visions of houses either side of the leanto extension pushing inwards and collapsing it in on itself - perhaps best construct leant o extension from flexible material - perhaps Rubber!! :wink:

 

[shelli]

. Had i known i would have cut the thing down as it was in the garden of the house i am renting, but hey ho...

I dont think you would have got away with that under the terms of your Tenancy Agreement !!!

and yes it sounds like Loony Lunacy of the looniest order - visions of houses either side of the leanto extension pushing inwards and collapsing it in on itself - perhaps best construct lean to extension from flexible material - like Rubber!! :wink:

 

[shelli]

sorry meant to edit - ended up repeating self !! Doh!

It is Friday

 

[Penners]

There are many factors that affect the Building Control Officer's decision about the depth of foundations. Not least is the fact that they must be dug below the level of any previously disturbed soil. So if, during the digging process, disturbed soil is found deeper than previously expected, the BCO will require more digging.

The depth of foundations for a modern structure can sometimes seem ridiculous by comparison with those of an older one - particularly when the former is a simple extension to the latter. But remember that the BCO is bound by the building regulations, and these are broadly written for modern structures. It's unthinkable that different regulations could exist for every conceivable variation in property type, age, structure and so on.

This can be frustrating, but in the end it normally leads to a stable structure - and that's what's needed.

 

[DaveBrigg]

Our rear extension has no foundations at all, as I discovered to my dismay while attempting to dig a french drain. It has managed not to fall down for a couple of hundred years at least. The older front of the house must have been built by a more conscientious workman, who laid a course of stone blocks for the bricks to sit on. We don't have a Eucalyptus tree though.

My parents' neighbours did have a Eucalyptus, a splendid specimen which towered above the roof of their house, until there was a strong wind last year - then it towered through the roof of their house.

 

[Me!]

There are many factors that affect the Building Control Officer's decision about the depth of foundations. Not least is the fact that they must be dug below the level of any previously disturbed soil. So if, during the digging process, disturbed soil is found deeper than previously expected, the BCO will require more digging.

Very true, but it can also work the other way around. When I built an extension on a Victorian house that had foundations about one foot deep, I had to specify foundations about 2 metres deep to get approval for the plans. But, I dug a trench about 3 feet deep and got to perfect undisturbed soil, called the BCO out for an inspection, and he said yes that was fine and I didn't have to go any deeper. I have generally found that Building Control Officers are extremely reasonable, pragmatic, engineering types, who will make sensible decisions based upon the facts. It is always worth discussing things with them.

 

[skier-hughes]

No red tape in Noah's day.



And God said:
Once again, the earth has become wicked and over-populated, and I see the end of all flesh before me. Build another Ark and save two of every
living thing along with a few good humans.' He gave Noah the CAD drawings, saying: 'You have 6 months to build the Ark before I will start the unending rain for 40 days and 40 nights.'
Six months later, the Lord looked down and saw Noah weeping in his yard,
but no Ark. 'Noah!' He roared, 'I'm about to start the rain! Where is the Ark ?'
'Forgive me, Lord,' begged Noah, 'but things have changed. I needed Building Regulations Approval and I've been arguing with the Fire Brigade about the need for a sprinkler system. My neighbours claim that I should have obtained planning permission
for building the Ark in my garden because it is development of the site,even though in my view it is a temporary structure. We had to then go to appeal to the Secretary of State for a decision. Then the Department of Transport demanded a bond be posted for the future costs of moving power lines and other overhead obstructions to clear the passage for the Ark 's move to the sea. I told them that the sea would be coming to us, but they would hear nothing of it. Getting the wood was another problem. All the decent trees have Tree Preservation Orders on them and we live in a Site of Special Scientific Interest set up in order to protect the spotted owl. I tried to convince the environmentalists that I needed the wood to save the owls - but no go! When I started gathering the animals, the RSPCA sued me. They insisted that I was confining wild animals against their will. They argued the accommodation was too restrictive, and it was cruel and inhumane to put so many animals in a confined space. Then the County Council, the Environment Agency and the Rivers Authority ruled that I couldn't build the Ark until they'd conducted an environmental impact study on your proposed flood. I'm still trying to resolve a complaint with the Equal Opportunities Commission on how many disabled carpenters I'm supposed to hire for my building team. The trades unions say I can't use my sons. They insist I have to hire only accredited workers with Ark-building experience. To make matters worse, Customs and Excise seized all my assets, claiming I'm trying to leave the country illegally with endangered species. So, forgive me, Lord, but it would take at least 10 years for me to finish this Ark. '
Suddenly the skies cleared, the sun began to shine, and a rainbow stretched across the sky.
Noah looked up in wonder and asked, 'You mean you're not going to
destroy the world?'

'No,' said the Lord. 'The British government beat me to it.'

 

[shelli]

 

[glayzell]

That is most amusing.

I take on board the points about having to deal with fact and building structures to last etc, but 2.1m is a bit silly. the wall it is supporting is only 2.4m!

 

[Penners]

But think of the benefits. If you wear out the building above ground, all you'll have to do is turn it upside down and you'll have a brand new one.

 

[FamilyWiggs]

the wall it is supporting is only 2.4m!

Only 2.4m? I hope you're not planning on living there too long - with global warming and rising seas, you'll be lucky to see out 2050 with a wall that low... unless of course you convert it into a marina!

 

[inwood]

A quote from The Housebuilders Bible - "In fact, the load imposed by a typical house (which maybe weighs around 100 tonnes in total) really isn't that great - it's similar (on a weight per area basis) to that imposed on the ground by your feet when you stand up"

That kind of thing does lead people to question the need for such deep foundations. However this comment is followed in the next paragraph by "The building Research Establishment.....investigated the phenomenon of ground movement in the early Nineties and found a site which regularly heaved up and down by 50mm over the course of a year, not to mention a 60mm sideways movement as well."

So I guess if it's a new build, built with cement where the structure is unable to flex with the heave then deep foundations are a sound investment. An old house built with lime will undoubtedly be able to move more (to a degree) than a rigid structure so is less liable to structural failure.

 

[Flyfisher]

Also, if the ground itself is subject to such movement, might it not be actually better not to have deep foundations and to allow the ground to move about underneath the building? i.e. foundations need to be massive enough to prevent ground movement or they might as well be very shallow - especially if the building itself is 'self-supporting' as in a timber-frame, for example.

 

[glayzell]

i was talking to the builder yesterday and the extension he is building there is timber framed!

 

[Penners]

Timberframe is certainly the type of structure that is most able to cope with ground movement. It moves and flexes, but just goes on standing there.

 

[Flyfisher]

Amazing how the windows have remained level despite all the other movement . . . . . :wink:

 

[shelli]

Blimey our builder thought OUR walls were p*ssed!!
:shock:

 

[Penners]

p*ssed!!

Here in Suffolk we say "thass on the huh". Or in Norfolk, "thass slantendicular."

So much more refined, don't you think?

 

[Feltwell]

Here in Suffolk we say "thass on the huh".

You've answered a question for me there. I asked an old Suffolk boy once how you spell "On the huh" and got a look back as if I was the most stupid man on earth.

"You don't spell it. You say it !"