Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
construction drawings €'s
-
05-08-2009 12:39pm#1
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
yes planning approved, no mention that windows on boundry face need to be ommitted.OP - did you get permission for this ? With windows on a boundary wall?
ONQ -
thanks for the feed back.
as mentioned the attic space was never to be habitable, i just wanted to try maximise the space as much as possible. at a council pre planning meeting i asked if i could raise the height of the ridge and they said no as it had to be the same height as the existing houses.
even though our floor level has to be 150 above MH cover on site, which means even at 7900mm i will be above the ridge height of the existing house as there f. floor level is shown 200mm lower than ours will end up.
Could the m.h. cover be lowered with consultation with the council, which means i could dig down to gain the height i need???
I have since spoke to the council and the guy who i had the meeting with originally, was shocked when i said that the attic will no be habitable, he then said that for the sake of 200 - 300mm, no one would be out with a measuring tape :eek: &
.
that really annoyed me cause he could have just advised to put it on the plans that were submitted, and conditioned if not allowed.
The only comment on the planning grant relating to the attic was "any attic floorspace that does not compley to current regs in relation to habitable standards shall not be used for human habitation".
i have a meeting with the architect who will be signing off the build, this week, so i am sure he will tell me everything anyways.
is there any way that i can raise the ridge height so that i can comply to fire regs? with out a new application?
thanks for all feed back and any other advice that can be given.0 -
-
-
+1 for askingDifferent planning authorities have different views on these matters (jesus I just love the puns
) so yes do talk to them and be guided by their advise.
I'd probably refer to the habitable attic condition attached and say that you are making the attics intended storage use more practical0 -
-
Advertisement
-
yes planning approved, no mention that windows on boundry face need to be ommitted.
Planning law doesn't supersede the law of the land, so you may find your neighbour waiting with a solicitor's letter when you put in the window, unless you've agreed it with him beforehand.
You appear to have gone to great lengths to light it and vent it, and at considerable extra cost.as mentioned the attic space was never to be habitable, i just wanted to try maximise the space as much as possible. at a council pre planning meeting i asked if i could raise the height of the ridge and they said no as it had to be the same height as the existing houses.
Its strains my ability to suspend disbelief that you'd do all this to make your storage boxes more comfortable.
Doubt it - public need versus private good - significant cost if you have to relay the drain - falls to this area must be to stated minima - increased risk of local flooding - implications, implications.<snip>
Could the m.h. cover be lowered with consultation with the council, which means i could dig down to gain the height i need???
I don't understand this sentence - he was shocked or you were shocked?I have since spoke to the council and the guy who i had the meeting with originally, was shocked when i said that the attic will no be habitable, he then said that for the sake of 200 - 300mm, no one would be out with a measuring tape :eek: &.
As for his comment - incorrect.
I was involved with a house recently where planning permission was obtained by A.N. Other and I took it to site.
Luckily I did a due diligence on the design and found that as the ground floor area was over 45 sq.m. it needed the larger WC size [you have this in already].
I redesigned the layout and on the very day I delivered the drawings to site, that afternoon the Council called around to advise the builder the original plans showed a toilet that didn't comply with the building regulations.
Now apply that experience to your attic accommodation and don't take bald assurances from public servants for granted.
The planner might not call out, but the building control office might just do so.
They have you - period.that really annoyed me cause he could have just advised to put it on the plans that were submitted, and conditioned if not allowed.
The only comment on the planning grant relating to the attic was "any attic floorspace that does not compley to current regs in relation to habitable standards shall not be used for human habitation".
Its not up to them to do the job of the applicant in terms of compliance with the building regulations.
Its the applicant's job or his architect's job - to prove the case.
I'm surprised you were surprised, since this is basic stuff for an architect, even one with only limited experience of a wide range of buildings.
Many architects cut their teeth on houses and house extensions.
It doesn't say much that this is only being made clear to you on this forum.
Do you mean "signing off on the tender drawings"?i have a meeting with the architect who will be signing off the build, this week, so i am sure he will tell me everything anyways.
Presume nothing, and ask the relevant questions.
Installing a TARDIS might help, or paying a very clever architect to show you how it could be done.is there any way that i can raise the ridge height so that i can comply to fire regs? with out a new application?
But it would involve compromise on a lot of levels and any result may be unacceptable to a fickle market.
I note you are still trying to "magic in" head height in a sub-standard attic conversion for a non-habitable space.
That sound you just heard was my disbelief suspenders snapping!thanks for all feed back and any other advice that can be given.
You're very welcome, rodred, but you need to get a better handle on what you're about to attempt.
You appear to be going to site very poorly prepared for the level of involvement you may be undertaking, and with serious misunderstandings about building regulations compliance.
Another poster has wisely pointed you in the direction of Part L compliance, and for a small dwelling this can define the very form of the structure and all the details.
Have you a full set of details showing compliance?
Have you had a BER assessor look at the building and suggest ways the thermal performance could be improved?
Where for example, are you siting the heat exchange hardware and how are you routing the ducting to ensure FR30 is maintained for all the floors.
If you persist in "humanising" the attic have you properly fire-proofed the stairs escape and provided attic windows to allow for alternative escape in accordance with Part B.
Do your 1st floor windows comply?
How are you insulating the attic space while preventing the build up of interstitial moisture?
These are just some of the questions that need to be addressed.
Measure twice and cut once.
Ensure your architect has addressed all the building regulation requirements.
Finally allow me to point you towards the Health and Safety regulations and your duties as the Client under that legislation.
The advice above is neither exhaustive not definitive - take professional advice from a competent, qualified person.
HTH
ONQ.0 -
onq,
thanks for the comments, as mentioned the attic was only to maximise space. i am looking for advice as this is what the thread is about, i am not saying im up on the reg's etc. i am just looking to try and understand and learn about what i am about to do, im sure anyone can relate to that 'wanting to understand what and why about my build' Before i meet the architect that will sign off the build and ensure it is to reg's. i am a layman in terms of regs etc but when you have never looked at them before, it is easy to misunderstand some of them. all other aspect of the house are to regs as far as i am awear.
as mentioned, i was not going to listen to the planner that advised that 200-300mm would not be seen, that would be stupid.
i am only looking for any info that might help me out or advise on the situation that i have. thanks
muffler / mellor -
just to let you know, spoke to someone in the council, they said the build must be done in its entirity as per 1st condition on the grant. must be done within 5years.
i may have to omit them for now, and add them at a later date. or else submit a new application within the 5 years omitting them.
cheers for the feed back
think i would be lost without this forum. 0 -
onq,
thanks for the comments, as mentioned the attic was only to maximise space. i am looking for advice as this is what the thread is about, i am not saying im up on the reg's etc. i am just looking to try and understand and learn about what i am about to do, im sure anyone can relate to that 'wanting to understand what and why about my build' Before i meet the architect that will sign off the build and ensure it is to reg's. i am a layman in terms of regs etc but when you have never looked at them before, it is easy to misunderstand some of them. all other aspect of the house are to regs as far as i am awear.
The point I was trying to make rodred [apparently unsuccessfully] is that if you have an architect on board, he is the one who should be advising you on these matters, not this forum. He is duty-bound to ensure that the work complies with the building regulations, as is your builder. There is no point keeping a dog and barking yourself
And my point here was that what the planner said may not be the same as what the building control officer might say.as mentioned, i was not going to listen to the planner that advised that 200-300mm would not be seen, that would be stupid.
i am only looking for any info that might help me out or advise on the situation that i have. thanks
The intended implication was that you or your architect might talk to the building control officer to better assess the proposed development in terms of the regulations.
That's not exactly the position.muffler / mellor -
just to let you know, spoke to someone in the council, they said the build must be done in its entirity as per 1st condition on the grant. must be done within 5years.
i may have to omit them for now, and add them at a later date. or else submit a new application within the 5 years omitting them.
A Condition One wording - from memory - usually runs something like this; -
"The development shall be carried out in its entirety in accordance with the plans and specifications lodged in support of this application [add reference to this being amended or superseded as required if Additional Information was submitted] except for changes that may be required by the conditions noted hereunder."
So the first Condition sets only the basic terms of referece to the submitted plans and specifications and can be modified by the other conditions.
The fact that they have specifically conditioned the attic space suggests you need to take advice as to how you proceed in relation to compliance with the building regulations.
The other advice given in this forum which appeared to suggest you can do what you like within the building envelope is not entirely correct.- In planning terms you must stay within the terms of your permission
- The Building Control Act and Regulations as amended is a separate body of legislation and requires that you must build in accordance with the building regulations.
Finally in terms of the completion date, if you are substantially complete within the five years, you can usually seek an extension to the original permission time for completion.
I think its time you had a long talk with your architect to resolve any outstanding issues before you go anywhere near the site.
FWIW
ONQ.0 -
-
ONQ, of course he needs to talk to his architect and be guided by him. After all thats what he is paying for. But I should point out that anyone and everyone is entitled to post in this forum and get advice/help. Our charter more than covers this area and Id prefer if you would offer constructive dialogue instead of some of the negativity posted. Im unsure as to your reasons for referencing certain matters when in fact they are not relevant to this thread.
Unlike some in my profession, I hold to the line that if you put yourself out there as an architect, that is the standard a Court of Law will hold you to.
So when I say architect, I am including competent, qualified building professionals who are acting as architects.
This includes, for the comments posted here, Archtectural Technicians of long standing and wide experience, but not senior draughstpersons who can draw a line but may be unable to understand its significance in terms of the building regulations or planning law.
Re my comments above, the content of the OP's replies and his responses to specific queries suggested to me - for reasons of non-compliance already stated - that the OP had not yet consulted with an architect in any depth or taken his advice on technical issues.
I warned the OP of the pifalls of not doing so - which is what any competent building professional should do in such cases.
I was underlining the fact the OP should take competent advice.
In that sense there was no negativity posted.
I offered contructive criticism.
Building can be a very serious business if things are not foreseen and they go wrong and should be treated as such.
If it looks like someone is going off half-cocked, we owe it to them to call them on it, not look the other way.
If you have a specific problem with something I've written I would be happy to discuss it.
ONQ.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
No6 wrote:I agree with Mellor, consult with your area planner, they may well accecpt revised drawings with a letter saying why you are omitting the dormers and replacing them with velux. I just agreed a simlilar thing with a planning officer here in mayo yesterday.
0 -
Advertisement