Sound Regulations

sydthebeat

Ive recently come accross a good one....

Part E 'sound' deals with two factors when determining compliance with sound building regulations (specifically party walls)

One is for determing compliance on a new build

Another is for determing compliance on an existing.

In the case in point, the construction was observed and certified in compliance with diagram 5... everything was perfect... thus compliance with 'new' build aspect fine...

however a situation arose and an external company was called in to assess it from the 'existing' build point of view and guess what... it falled... the 52 dB level wasnt met.

so we have a case where a cert of compliance says it complies with Part E, which it did, but we also have another cert that states it doesnt comply....
:D:rolleyes:

any thoughts???

pseudo-tech

sydthebeat wrote: »

any thoughts???

Yes the Building regulations are an Ass. You would have to wonder what plonker(s) prepared them.

What about part B where the window opening in a bedroom needs to be between 800-1100 high (even in a ground floor bedroom). I needed to apply for an exemption from the regulation from a Building Control Officer, to install a window with an opening section 600mm above finished floor level. I did ask him would the lower opening section not provide a safer means of escape from the ground floor bedroom. He agreed but said it would be none-complainant!

Where are we going?????????

sydthebeat

pseudo-tech wrote: »

Yes the Building regulations are an Ass. You would have to wonder what plonker(s) prepared them.

What about part B where the window opening in a bedroom needs to be between 800-1100 high (even in a ground floor bedroom). I needed to apply for an exemption from the regulation from a Building Control Officer, to install a window with an opening section 600mm above finished floor level. I did ask him would the lower opening section not provide a safer means of escape from the ground floor bedroom. He agreed but said it would be none-complainant!

Where are we going?????????

without wanting to take this off topic.... PT...

but they changed those regs....

You can now have the cill of the opening section of a ground floor window as low as you want once the external distance between the cill and path level is less than 1400mm.

Paragraph 2.4 of TGD K to read:
Guarding should be provided for any window, the sill of which
is more than 1400 mm above external ground level and is less
than 800 mm in height above internal floor level. Where a window
is capable of being opened, special care must be taken to ensure
that the guarding must remain in place and effective at all times (see
Diagram 6).

pseudo-tech

sydthebeat wrote: »

without wanting to take this off topic.... PT...

but they changed those regs....

You can now have the cill of the opening section of a ground floor window as low as you want once the external distance between the cill and path level is less than 1400mm.

Paragraph 2.4 of TGD K to read:
Guarding should be provided for any window, the sill of which
is more than 1400 mm above external ground level and is less
than 800 mm in height above internal floor level. Where a window
is capable of being opened, special care must be taken to ensure
that the guarding must remain in place and effective at all times (see
Diagram 6).

Thanks syd. I will stand corrected. However, I did have to apply for an exemption at the time. It raises another issue though. While my office endeavors to keep up to date with building regulation changes, there are some that slips under the radar if you are not specifically looking for it. Why can't the DOE change the regulations regularly (like every two-years), where you can purchase an up-to-date set of regulations. Silly really!

Jimbo

I can't see how the developer could be at fault if the exact details were adhered to.

The fault lies with the building regs.

Out of interest, what type of party wall construction is it, Syd?

sydthebeat

jimbo78 wrote: »

I can't see how the developer could be at fault if the exact details were adhered to.

The fault lies with the building regs.

Out of interest, what type of party wall construction is it, Syd?

215 solid dense concrete block
plastered both sides
gyproc blue soundbloc boards (fully plastered, NOT daubed)
skim finish

pseudo-tech

sydthebeat wrote: »

215 solid dense concrete block
plastered both sides
gyproc blue soundbloc boards (fully plastered, NOT daubed)
skim finish

Is there any possibility of contraction to the structure supporting the wall? Any evidence of gaps with ceiling and adjacent wall junctions? If not, I don't know. If you follow the recomended standard and don't achieve the desired results, who is at fault? The client will want the standards met, and the contractor could be subjected to remedial works. Another example of poor regulation in Ireland

Talwin

sydthebeat wrote: »

without wanting to take this off topic.... PT...

but they changed those regs....

You can now have the cill of the opening section of a ground floor window as low as you want once the external distance between the cill and path level is less than 1400mm.

Paragraph 2.4 of TGD K to read:
Guarding should be provided for any window, the sill of which
is more than 1400 mm above external ground level and is less
than 800 mm in height above internal floor level. Where a window
is capable of being opened, special care must be taken to ensure
that the guarding must remain in place and effective at all times (see
Diagram 6).

Dont mean to start an argument but this references Park K while in Part B it has to be between 800mm and 1100mm. Not the first time different things in building regs contradict each other.

pseudo-tech

Talwin wrote: »

Dont mean to start an argument but this references Park K while in Part B it has to be between 800mm and 1100mm. Not the first time different things in building regs contradict each other.

My point exactly Talwin. You try to comply with one regulation and find that you are breaching another. No middle ground.

What about part C where you have to have 150mm difference between the internal finished floor level and the external ground level. You then introduce part M where you need level access. Joined up thinking by the DOE would help.

If you ring the DOE now and look for clarification, they will direct you to the Building Control Officer in the Local Authority for their opinion on the matter. Again, you will get different opinions. Banana Republic!!

Slig

It is abit odd alright, A stairs designed to TGD K "stairways and ramps" may not comply with the building regs as Part M also has to be consulted.

If I'm taking you up right Syd, you are saying that the approved construction method in the building regs does not comply with the building regs. I think it is impossible to certify a building as fully compliant, how can you know that a wall has exactly the calculated u-value, the front door ramp is no more than 12 degrees, that the wall/ceiling will provide the exact fire rating.

We can assume that it is/will but in reality the only way of knowing is by testing(destructive in most cases) every single element. A substantial cert of compliance is really the only "honest" way of certifying anything.

PS, Muffler if your reading this, Like the new Avatar;)

Talwin

pseudo-tech wrote: »

My point exactly Talwin. You try to comply with one regulation and find that you are breaching another. No middle ground.

What about part C where you have to have 150mm difference between the internal finished floor level and the external ground level. You then introduce part M where you need level access. Joined up thinking by the DOE would help.

If you ring the DOE now and look for clarification, they will direct you to the Building Control Officer in the Local Authority for their opinion on the matter. Again, you will get different opinions. Banana Republic!!

Sorry for straying of topic

I know from the boss who worked in England and builder friends there that you have to send it to there building control who will check your drawing for building reg compliance and even recommend upgrades in certain areas

sydthebeat

Talwin wrote: »

Dont mean to start an argument but this references Park K while in Part B it has to be between 800mm and 1100mm. Not the first time different things in building regs contradict each other.

I have had clarification from the department that Part K is appplicable for ground floor habitable room windows.

pseudo-tech

sydthebeat wrote: »

I have had clarification from the department that Part K is appplicable for ground floor habitable room windows.

To ensure that you don't fall out the ground floor window!!!

sydthebeat

pseudo-tech wrote: »

To ensure that you don't fall out the ground floor window!!!

we have debated this issue already here

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055328449&highlight=guarding

any views on the sound aspect of the regs??

sinnerboy

How frustrating for you Syd . But i would look at it another way

Are the testers helpful in any way - have they found concealed weak points ?
I worked on a project for a broadcaster where acoustics and sound were fundamental . And the testers did more than test + cert . They located weak spot and offered practical remedies

There is always the possibility that the testers are just plain wrong - you may challenge them ?

sydthebeat

sinnerboy wrote: »

How frustrating for you Syd . But i would look at it another way

Are the testers helpful in any way - have they found concealed weak points ?
I would on a project for a broadcaster where acoustics and sound were fundamental . And the testers did more than test + cert . They located weak spot and offered practical remedies

There is always the possibility that the testers are just plain wrong - you may challenge them ?

Its a *cough*egle issue that is going to *cough*ourt... its a sticky one.

Im not too worried, the build complied with the regs.. its the result that didnt.....

The testers are working for the dark side....