Building Control

[Socksitis]

Hello,
I am new to the forum, but have been looking in for some considerable time. We are very fortunate to have been left the task of sorting out a very old property that has been in the family for 100 years this year - no one has done anything in that time! It is a very steep learning curve. Grade II listed in a National Park. We have permission to overhaul the roof and that is being undertaken as we speak. My question is Building Control, as this is a roof overhaul - slates off, roofing felt on and new timbers where needed - alongside and minimal of course. Building control have been contacted and have been on site. They have asked who has checked the structure is it structurally sound.

Is it always necessary to have every building assessed by a structural engineer? Does the architect need to complete drawings for a new roof and calculate the timbers etc - architect is involved, but we are on an overhaul, not rebuild. What should I have done?

 

[88v8]

Hello and welcome.

Assessed? No. And unless it's checked by someone versed in old buildings, their advice is likely to be less than useful.

There are doubtless many perfectly reasonable people in Building Control, but if it were left to some of their crackpots, every period house would have its original roof thrown in the skip and replaced by steel beams.

Other than the repairs, is there some apparent problem with the roof that has prompted this query on their part - ?
Were there any broken beams? Riddled with worm? Rotted? Joints pulled out? Radical deflection? Walls spreading? Supporting elements missing? Gables collapsing? Lintels failing?

Are you able to pick up these potential problems in other areas adjacent to where timbers are being replaced, or are there for instance access difficulties or sealed voids to which there is no access?

You say the house has been in the family 100 years - how old is it?

If you wish, you can upload pics via Photobucket of other sharing sites - copy and past the img code.

Ivor

 

[Flyfisher]

Welcome to the forum and what sounds like a lovely project (at least I hope you feel that way!).

Firstly, you say you have permission. Can we assume that is listed building consent involving a conservation officer or is it plain old 'planning permission'. I ask, because I'm wondering if the conservation officer has visited the building and had a look at the roof. If the CO has inspected the roof and has not raised any structural concerns then that would be a good sign that there are no fundamental issues.

Also, if we consider that the roof (and house of course) has been standing for at least the past 100 years then that would also suggest there is no fundamental structural issue as far as the design is concerned (even though it may or may not meet modern building regulations), in which case Ivor's list of questions above are the things to look out for and should be reasonably easy for a layman to spot, even if they are unsure of what to do about them.

I'm not surprised that BC have asked about who has checked the structure and also wouldn't be surprised if they ask for a structural report - because that's the sort of thing they do. But I don't think it's really necessary for a house that has passed the test of time and just needs a bit of TLC - though the amount of TLC is where the judgement comes in of course! You say there is an architect 'involved' - are they specialists in listed buildings and have you asked their advice?

I have gone through a very similar sounding process with our G2* house. The pantile roof was in poor condition, with slipped tiles that had allowed water ingress for may years leading to some damage to the roof timbers, though not as bad as it might have been had the attics not been so breezy because of all the gaps! A few timbers required repair or replacement and a couple of main joints had rotted and failed and required stabilising with some steel straps. Once these relatively minor repairs were done, a new breathable membrane was fitted, the roof was re-battened and re-tiled with the original tiles plus around 20% of matching reclaimed tiles to replace the original broken ones.

All of this work was done under the guidance of our conservation officer (and much of it by myself) but with no building control involvement and no structural analysis (apart from the surveyor's report when we bought the property). We've had many discussions here over the years about conservation officers and it seems that they can vary a lot across the country. Ours has been exemplary in being readily accessible, willing to visit whenever necessary and a source of expert and experienced advice. Given that, I would always recommend working closely with the CO as your main point of contact and advice - even if building control is involved because the CO should be able to 'help' them understand the differences between old and new properties and where modern regulations are not necessarily appropriate. In short, when it comes to a listed building the CO is the real authority.

Good luck with the project - some photos would be appreciated

 

[MatthewC]

We have permission to overhaul the roof and that is being undertaken as we speak. My question is Building Control...

Do you have permission from Building Control as well as LBC? These two things are very different, and six years ago I made the mistake of assuming that the different departments at the same council speak to each other! The BCO was very understanding when he saw the roof when checking on a later task.

this is a roof overhaul - slates off, roofing felt on and new timbers where needed - alongside and minimal of course.

Roofing felt? Or a modern membrane? It was the fitment of a membrane that required me to get BC involved (as well as the fact that we had all the slates off).

NB Any work done on a like for like basis does not require LBC - although they don't seem to like it when you display this knowledge!

Matthew

 

[Socksitis]

Hi,
yes LBC and PP for the roof. The CO is the same as the Planning Officer as he is the LB man.
We have put in old style roofing felt - bats. Insulation is also bat friendly.
The house is old - origins may be before 1740, there is evidence on paper (deeds 1799) , but the house was radically overhauled about 100 years ago - roof raised, new timbers, concrete floors over the flagstone, Victorian skirting and panel.
We have no concerns over structure - timbers, at least 95% are sound, need an additional A frame and some collars added, phew!

Architect knows his stuff, roofer knows his stuff. Just wonder where BC are coming from? But from what you have said I do not think I have too much to worry about. Thank you

 

[MikeG]

Like others, I am curious as to why Building Control is involved at all. Simple repairs don't usually involve Controllable elements. Who got BC involved, and why?

 

[a twig]

Like others, I am curious as to why Building Control is involved at all. Simple repairs don't usually involve Controllable elements. Who got BC involved, and why?

Repairing or replacing over 25% of a roof is notifiable...

https://www.planningportal.co.uk/info/200130/common_projects/47/roof/3

Hence why I re-did our roof in 4 sections of 24% and one section of 4%

 

[a twig]

In response to the OP's original question, you shouldn't necessarily need a structural engineer's report though, unless BC can point to particular areas which are giving them cause for concern and therefore merit it.

When a friend had their roof re-done on a mid Victorian cottage, BC were quite happy to accept the judgement of the local roofing company as to the soundness of the roof timbers and what needed replacing/supporting. The fact that the building was still standing and had no obvious symptoms of structural problems was good enough for them. This was in Somerset though, your mileage may vary.

 

[MikeG]

Like others, I am curious as to why Building Control is involved at all. Simple repairs don't usually involve Controllable elements. Who got BC involved, and why?

Repairing or replacing over 25% of a roof is notifiable...

https://www.planningportal.co.uk/info/200130/common_projects/47/roof/3

Hence why I re-did our roof in 4 sections of 24% and one section of 4%

Thanks. I think that every roof I have been involved in repairing or re-roofing was part of a bigger scheme which was already controllable, so I wasn't aware of this stipulation.

 

[Flyfisher]

Repairing or replacing over 25% of a roof is notifiable...

Interesting. I wonder how 'replacing' is interpreted. If a roof needs to be temporarily stripped of all its tiles in order to gain access to repair a few bits and pieces and the original tiles are replaced is that really a 'replacement' in this context? On the other hand, if a new membrane is fitted during such works (where none existed before) would that constitute a 'replacement' roof?

 

[a twig]

Repairing or replacing over 25% of a roof is notifiable...

Interesting. I wonder how 'replacing' is interpreted. If a roof needs to be temporarily stripped of all its tiles in order to gain access to repair a few bits and pieces and the original tiles are replaced is that really a 'replacement' in this context? On the other hand, if a new membrane is fitted during such works (where none existed before) would that constitute a 'replacement' roof?

I think BC deliberately keep it broad, mainly so they can jump in and make everyone insulate their roofs to death.

No, stripping for access wouldn't count as replacement, but it probably would count as repairing... A few spot repairs would be unlikely to require the removal of all the tiles. If all the tiles are coming off you'd have to work hard to convince BC that you only actually repaired a tiny section.

A new membrane would definitely count as repairs to more than 25% of the roof, you are making a repair to the entire roof area by putting the new membrane in.

 

[Flyfisher]

I think BC deliberately keep it broad, mainly so they can jump in and make everyone insulate their roofs to death.

Probably Is this also the same principle I've read about regarding any work to 25% of walls being notifiable, with implications regarding upgrading the entire room to modern insulation standards?

Thing is, I can understand the principle could be reasonably applied to new(ish) houses, but for period properties it's going to be frequently, if not always, inappropriate if the structure and character of the property is to be protected - which is the whole point of listing isn't it? We didn't have any BC involvement when repairing/altering our roof and adding a membrane, or when we stripped the cement render off the entire front facade and replaced it with lime render, though we did have (separate) LBC for both works and the topic of BC was never mentioned. I suppose it's one of those anomalies that falls out of well-meaning legislation and my understanding is that COs are the final arbiters.

However, in these days of ever-increasing energy-consciousness, legislation and costs, I can imagine listed buildings coming under more and more pressure to be 'improved'. It's all quite a challenge.

So much for an Englishman's home is his castle, to do with whatever he pleases!

 

[skier-hughes]

I suppose it's one of those anomalies that falls out of well-meaning legislation and my understanding is that COs are the final arbiters.

However, in these days of ever-increasing energy-consciousness, legislation and costs, I can imagine listed buildings coming under more and more pressure to be 'improved'. It's all quite a challenge.

So much for an Englishman's home is his castle, to do with whatever he pleases!

Whereas our 500 year old unlisted house has BC as final say, the CO wanted single glazed replacement windows, BC wouldn't hear of it, telling us John Prescott had said all windows must be double glazed, so our windows had to be double gazed. The End.

 

[Flyfisher]

I guess if the house is unlisted then there is no CO as such, at least not one with any power, and therefore no protection against modern regulations.

 

[paulc]

The regulations appear to have some wriggle room when it comes to upgrading insulation of a wall or roof. Quoting from a document from Kingspan: http://www.kingspaninsulation.co.uk/Knowledge-Base/ADL1B-2013-1st-Issue-Apr-14.aspx *

If achievement of the target U–value set out in Table 2 is not technically or functionally feasible or would
not achieve a simple payback of 15 years or less, the element should be upgraded to the best
standard that is technically and functionally feasible and which can be achieved within a simple
payback of no greater than 15 years.

I'm in the middle of replacing the ceiling on a flat roof extension - It should be a notifiable works and insulated to meet current requirements, but.... The additional costs involved in notifying BC and redesigning the roof to allow for the extra insulation takes the costs way above budget (and beyond a 15yr payback). Sealing the gaping holes, plugging the draughts, and adding a modest layer of insulation is the best I can achieve.

*) The rules in Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland vary quite a bit, so the above may not apply outside England.

 

[Flyfisher]

When calculating the payback period of such projects, what figures are used for future energy costs? They seem to generally be increasing faster than overall inflation and I wonder if there is an 'industry standard' for energy cost inflation? And also if there are different figures for different forms of energy?

For example, we became far more energy 'efficient' in cost terms simply by paying for mains gas to be installed and replacing the inefficient old Rayburn oil guzzler with a modern gas boiler . . . although we probably didn't become more energy efficient in terms of actual energy consumption because we can now afford more heating for the same money. In other words, the main benefit was for our own comfort rather than the environment.

 

[paulc]

It would appear that one uses a simplistic approach on calculating any payback period based on current energy prices and disregard any inflation.

 

[88v8]

But if one takes into account lost investment income on the capital - currently c6% less dividend tax if any - the payback period on most energy-saving schemes becomes never. Never.
Not so say that one shouldn't save energy where one reasonably can with minimal outlay. Or if one wishes to reduce one's footprint regardless of cost.
But no point kidding oneself by disregarding lost investment income. I wonder what the payback time is on a wooly.

Interesting and very honest observation from PP: when ABS was first available, research amongst drivers produced the response that with better brakes they would drive faster.

Ivor

 

[malcolm]

For me payback time was based on the assumption that I would throw insulated plasterboard at the walls with a waterproof barrier on the mould. Rather than 30 years payback time is around 500 years for the kitchen, but that does include fixing the walls as well as a more appropriate insulation system. I suspect my use of material and resources to insulate will outweigh any environmental benefit.

Often it would be far more environmentally friendly to donate money to help insulate other people's houses rather than being forced to do inappropriate work on an old building.

 

[skier-hughes]

I guess if the house is unlisted then there is no CO as such, at least not one with any power, and therefore no protection against modern regulations.

True, he tried to fight BC but ultimately came back with a prove other things you will do will mitigate the single glazing, so will you have thick curtains for example. I wrote a two page letter detailing our growing of timber to replace out heating timber, thick curtains, and loads of other stuff, to have a letter back from BC saying, you must install double glazing