Alternative to wall vents?

joebre

Finishing off snag list with my builder. Some rooms have no wall vents. They were obvoiusly plastered over or never installed.
Three bedrooms on first floor have Velux windows.
Builder is trying to say that Velux window "on the latch" is enough to comply with the requirement.
In other rooms, he wants to provide trickle vents in the window frame.
I am told that this is OK if the size of the holes equate to 6,500mm2. What do you think?

Smcgie

How many vent in the overall house? & what is the size of the house.

Not every room has to have a vent. If you have construction drawing the vents should be labelled on there.

joebre

Bought finished house off builder.
4 beds, all en suite.
Three on first floor have no wall vent. These 3 rooms have Velux windows. One of the bedrooms has a vent on outside wall but none on the inside.
Kitchen is OK.
Three other rooms, plus utility without a vent.
All bathrooms were meant to have mechanical ventilation but there is none. Need to get both sorted.

gman2k

joebre wrote: »

Finishing off snag list with my builder. Some rooms have no wall vents. They were obvoiusly plastered over or never installed.
Three bedrooms on first floor have Velux windows.
Builder is trying to say that Velux window "on the latch" is enough to comply with the requirement.
In other rooms, he wants to provide trickle vents in the window frame.
I am told that this is OK if the size of the holes equate to 6,500mm2. What do you think?

Are there vents on the outside walls - where you think that they may have been plastered over internally?

It's quite common with houses these days to have trickle vents on windows for ventilation.
However, I would have a major problem with the Velux vent, as it's not adjustable like wall vents and standard window trickle vents - i.e. it's either closed or fully open.
also when the Velux is 'on the latch' (vent open) the Velux is not fully secured or locked, so could theoretically be a security issue, or can be opened with a very strong gust of wind.
Trickle vents in window frames are independent of the opening of the sash.
It's up to the builder to prove to you that the velux will give you the 6500mm2 per room (equates roughly to 100mm dia circular opening)
There are other requirements for ventilation in rooms apart from the background ventilation.

Habitable rooms: Background vent of 6500mm2 & rapid ventilation of min 5% of floor area.
Kitchen & Utility (>6.5m2) - Which also has openable window/door: Background vent of 6500mm2 & rapid ventilation of min 5% of floor area & mech extract of 60l per second or 30l per second if in cooker hood which may be turned on or off or Passive stack ventilation.
Kitchen & Utility (<6.5m2) which does not have an openable window/door : Passive Stack Ventilation or mech extract of 60l per second or 30l per second if in cooker hood which may be turned on or off and have 15min over run and 10mm gap under the door.
Bathroom : rapid ventilation of min 5% of floor area & mech extract of 15l per second or Passive stack ventilation.
Rooms containing typical open fire - Total background ventilation of 20000mm2 of which 6500mm2 is permanent ventilation.

joebre

In a number of rooms, there are vents on the outside wall and none inside.
I saw one of the other house being built and they marked an X on the plaster slab to remind them to cut an opening for the vent.
There are no trickle vents on the windows. I have windows in the bedrooms where I also have the Velux windows. I would have no problem with trickle vents being installed as a retro-fit, provided they can get the required 6,500mm2.
I agree with you on the Velux as I saw a neighours holiday home Velux open during a storm. I had to contact somebody to get them to close the Velux.

sydthebeat

joebre wrote: »

In a number of rooms, there are vents on the outside wall and none inside.
I saw one of the other house being built and they marked an X on the plaster slab to remind them to cut an opening for the vent.
There are no trickle vents on the windows. I have windows in the bedrooms where I also have the Velux windows. I would have no problem with trickle vents being installed as a retro-fit, provided they can get the required 6,500mm2.
I agree with you on the Velux as I saw a neighours holiday home Velux open during a storm. I had to contact somebody to get them to close the Velux.

you cannot purchase a dwelling that does not comply with building regulations, your solicitor should not allow you anyway. Does the dwelling have a certificate of compliance with planning permission and building regs??

gman2k has posted what the regs are.... a velux window DOES NOT constitute adequate permanent ventilation!!!

muffler

sydthebeat wrote: »

you cannot purchase a dwelling that does not comply with building regulations, your solicitor should not allow you anyway. Does the dwelling have a certificate of compliance with planning permission and building regs??

gman2k has posted what the regs are.... a velux window DOES NOT constitute adequate permanent ventilation!!!

+1.

joebre

I have bought the house and am living in it. I am trying to deal with outstanding snags and builder is dragging his heels.
My solicitor was given a Certs of Substantial Compliance with Planning and with Building Regulations.
I spoke to the Building Control Officer today and he seems to accept the Velux as a solution in the rooms that they are in.
My own feeling is that they are not compliant. How can it be shown that they have 6,500mm of ventilation.
I have a separate issue with the lack of means of escape from one of the bedrooms on account of the Velux being too high and the clear opening is not big enough.

muffler

Put it in writing to your local BC officer and see what his reply is.

mickdw

joebre wrote: »

I have a separate issue with the lack of means of escape from one of the bedrooms on account of the Velux being too high and the clear opening is not big enough.

This is a serious issue. How was cert issued for this?

gizmo555

mickdw wrote: »

This is a serious issue. How was cert issued for this?

As expressed here far better than I can, the Technical Guidance Documents are just that guidance.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=62612467&postcount=10

The assumption is that a house built in conformance to the TGDs is ipso facto in compliance with the building regulations, but strict adherence to the TGDs is not necessarily the only way to comply with the regs.

muffler

gizmo555 wrote: »

As expressed here far better than I can, the Technical Guidance Documents are just that guidance.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=62612467&postcount=10

The assumption is that a house built in conformance to the TGDs is ipso facto in compliance with the building regulations, but strict adherence to the TGDs is not necessarily the only way to comply with the regs.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=62612467&postcount=10

Please be advised that the quoted posts are one person's opinion only so dont accept them as being a true and accurate description of the relevant part of the building regs.

joebre

Thanks for replies.

The Architect retained by the builder issued an architect's opinion in certs of substantial compliance with planning and building regs.
This is fine, I believe, until it is challenged by someone who believes it to be wrong.
I am not happy with my solicitor either who did not seem to carry out a proper planning search.
I am trying to gather as much information as possible before raising the matters, maybe through another solicitor.

Poor Uncle Tom

It sounds like some very serious issues indeed. You mention a neighbour, are there other houses like this?
If so, are they all finished similarly?
Have they all been certified?
Is it the same Architect/AT/Engineer certifying each house?
Were all the houses snagged?
Were these points picked up on?

If, as I suspect, the answers to the above questions are damning, you might be best advised to employ (together with your neighbours) an independant Architect/AT/Engineer to carry out a comprehensive report on the compliance or other of your houses with Planning Permission and Building Regulations. This will need to be issued to the Building Contractor, Property Developer, Solicitors involved, Certifying Architect/AT/Engineer and the Building Control Officer.

joebre

There are a 10 houses with 3 not yet sold.
I know that I have problems with no wall vents in 8 rooms.
I have 3 en-suites, WC & utility. All are meant to have mechanical extraction.
None have.
I posted earlier about a lack of a suitable means of escape from a bedroom.
I contacted the certifying Architect in a number of e-mails.
He replied that he stood over what he had certified.
This Architect is certifying all the houses for the builder.
There are other issues regrading the conversion of a garage/store at the time of building and that fact that the converted area exceeded 40m2.
I have only recently become aware that this conversion is not in compliance with the planning as it was done by the builder before I bought the house
I do not know how other people are getting on with their snag lists.
I am in the house for 2 years and it is twelve months since the builder did anything for me on my list.
The lack of a suitable means of escape was brought to his attention as soon as I moved in.

Poor Uncle Tom

joebre, you stsrted this thread to find out if there is any alternative to wall vents.....
It looks like wall vents are the least of your problems.

joebre wrote: »

There are a 10 houses with 3 not yet sold.
I know that I have problems with no wall vents in 8 rooms.
I have 3 en-suites, WC & utility. All are meant to have mechanical extraction.
None have.

These are issues of non compliance with the Building Regulations and the Building Control Officer should be addressing these issues with the Property Developer/Building Owners.

joebre wrote: »

I posted earlier about a lack of a suitable means of escape from a bedroom.

This is also a problem which needs sorting with the Building Control Officer. If all 10 houses are the same this may be a design fault. With 7 of the 10 houses sold/being lived in, it might be an idea to get together with others and make a communal complaint.

joebre wrote: »

I contacted the certifying Architect in a number of e-mails. He replied that he stood over what he had certified.
This Architect is certifying all the houses for the builder.
There are other issues regrading the conversion of a garage/store at the time of building and that fact that the converted area exceeded 40m2.
I have only recently become aware that this conversion is not in compliance with the planning as it was done by the builder before I bought the house

Now this, I believe is an issue for Enforcement. This should be very easy to varify by comparing the as built house with a copy of the plans from the planning file.

joebre wrote: »

I do not know how other people are getting on with their snag lists.
I am in the house for 2 years and it is twelve months since the builder did anything for me on my list.

I can't understand how you are living in the house with 2 years and the snag list is not yet completed. Or how your solicitor allowed a close of sale without the snag being completed, or some caviot attached. (Don't elabourate on this as we can't discuss legal issues here, but it does make a tasty area for debate)

joebre wrote: »

The lack of a suitable means of escape was brought to his attention as soon as I moved in.

I'm amazed that this whole issue has not got national attention at this stage. If most or all the houses are in this state there are serious questions for all the professions involved.

joebre

Bumping my old post as the issue regarding vents has not yet been resolved.
The builder has submitted a retention application 3 weeks ago for retention of ground floor different to that permitted and conversion of attic in some houses.
I spoke to the BCO as I am preparing to make my submission. He again said that the Velux on the latch complied with the pasive ventilation requirement.
As suggetsed above, I should get him to confirm that in writing. However there amy not be time and as I will be making other observations, I may as well make some comments on the vents as well.
Suggestions, please, as to why Velux windows, on the latch, do not comply with the requirements of Part F?

mickdw

If it was mine, I wouldnt be concerning myself too much with the lack of vents in room with velux. These could be fitted to a stud wall no doubt & run to a vent slate or some such arrangement. They are not a big deal.
I would be seriously worried about the fire escape being too high & also the planning issues for converted garage.
Also the mechanical vents need to be done.

It seems the builder is sorting the planning issue.
Is it possible to fit the velux lower in the roof? or is there something in the way?
Tbh, these issues are small apart from the fire escape. So put al the pressure on builder & his architect. If enough sh1t comes down on the architect, he will bully his builder friend into fixing these issues as the last thing the architect will want is his insurers getting involved. There is not huge money involved in any of the problems for a builder to sort.

paddy147

My new windows have small vents in them.

As posted by others,not every room has to have a vent.

joebre

As a result of me keeping pressure on the Council, the builder has submitted an application for retention about three weeks ago.
I know that the biggest problem is the lack of a suitable means of escape. The Velux is almost 2 metres off the floor. The house is storey and a half and if the Velux is lowered , it will be partly in wall and partly in roof. I saw a suitable model by Velux at the Energy show this week.
I asked the BCO to call to me recently. He gave the builder a letter in 2008 to state that the platform, as seen in a smilariar house that the builder was selling, complied with the requirements of 1.5.6 of Part B, subject the the Velux being changed to top-hung.
He has told me twice that the platform was "a solution but not the solution" He said he hoped that he had clarified himself sufficiently in his letter to the builder. Neither of us had a copy at the time. However, I do not believe that he has clarified it properly and the builder is submitting the BCO latter as part of the retention application. His letter should have said "subject to the approval of the house owner"

The builder has made no attempt to speak to me or to do any remedial works. The 5 week deadline is approaching and I will have to make a submission to the planners.

muffler

paddy147 wrote: »

As posted by others,not every room has to have a vent.

You're a bit wide of the mark Paddy with that comment.

paddy147

muffler wrote: »

You're a bit wide of the mark Paddy with that comment.

Well how wide am I then.

Poor Uncle Tom

Paddy147, page 4 and page 5, specifically 1.1.3 on page 5.
http://www.environ.ie/en/Publications/DevelopmentandHousing/BuildingStandards/FileDownLoad,1647,en.pdf

gman2k

joebre wrote: »

I know that the biggest problem is the lack of a suitable means of escape. The Velux is almost 2 metres off the floor. The house is storey and a half and if the Velux is lowered , it will be partly in wall and partly in roof. I saw a suitable model by Velux at the Energy show this week.
I asked the BCO to call to me recently. He gave the builder a letter in 2008 to state that the platform, as seen in a smilariar house that the builder was selling, complied with the requirements of 1.5.6 of Part B, subject the the Velux being changed to top-hung.

Top hung Velux can be used as a means of escape from an upper floor bedroom, meets all three below;
The openable section the minimum size for an escape window, (so a person can exit safely through same)
& the cill height above floor level is correct
& distance from eaves to cill of velux is correct also.

I don't have the exact dims needed for the three items above - will need to consult with TGDs!

muffler

paddy147 wrote: »

Well how wide am I then.

< > That much

Poor Uncle Tom covered it nicely

atech

joebre wrote: »

As a result of me keeping pressure on the Council, the builder has submitted an application for retention about three weeks ago.
I know that the biggest problem is the lack of a suitable means of escape. The Velux is almost 2 metres off the floor. The house is storey and a half and if the Velux is lowered , it will be partly in wall and partly in roof. I saw a suitable model by Velux at the Energy show this week.
I asked the BCO to call to me recently. He gave the builder a letter in 2008 to state that the platform, as seen in a smilariar house that the builder was selling, complied with the requirements of 1.5.6 of Part B, subject the the Velux being changed to top-hung.
He has told me twice that the platform was "a solution but not the solution" He said he hoped that he had clarified himself sufficiently in his letter to the builder. Neither of us had a copy at the time. However, I do not believe that he has clarified it properly and the builder is submitting the BCO latter as part of the retention application. His letter should have said "subject to the approval of the house owner"

The builder has made no attempt to speak to me or to do any remedial works. The 5 week deadline is approaching and I will have to make a submission to the planners.

Just spotted this thread and was wondering what the eventual outcome was on these issues, any chance of an update Joebre?

edanto

I noticed it too - initially came in to read about the air vent requirements - but wow this discussion sure had a lot more in it!

joebre

Hi,

The saga continues.
The builder made his retention application. It consisted of the retention of 3 attics and 7 lower ground floors in an estate of 3 storey houses. A neighbour and I made submissions to the Planning Dept, mostly outlining the breaches of buuilding regulations. The planners requested further info about how the developer proposed to show compliance with Part B.
FI was submitted that did not really address the problem.
In his report, the planner stated that building regulations were a matter for another department.
They put in a condition that the windows in the attics of the 3 attics being retained should be replaced immediately. They did not inpose a similiar condition on the other houses where the basemnent was being retained. Both house types were almost identical and it was amazing that they did not impose the same condition on both house types.
We did not appeal as we thought that the Council would take quicker action rather than waiting for the Bord to decide on the appeal.
In January of this year, the Council recommended serving legal proceedings on the developer when he had made no submission to provide replacenmment windows that provided a suitable means of escape.
The file is still with the Council soliicitor.

In June of this year, I requested a meeting with the Building Control Officer and the Chief Fire Oficer.
The CFO spoke to me like I was a piece of dirt on his shoe.
He stated that he did not consider the velux windows to be a fire safety risk. The bottom opening of the velux windows were 2.0m off the ground, were centre pivoted and were smaller than the 0.33m2 required.
He stated that he had more important things to be doing with his time. He advised that I should remedy the matters myself and seek compensation from the builder if I liked.
I was astounded at his attitude as I regarded him as the preson who would decide if there was a breach of the regulations and that he would take action under the building control act.
I would appreciate advice on what to do next

edanto

I'm not expert enough to know how important the Fire Escape issue. But presuming it is very important and you want to force the council or builder into action, then you only have one route.

Talk to your neighbours about going public.

If they are happy to, then start calling local councillors and try to get support from one or two of them. Have a meeting, agree a press release, and a spokesman and then start calling local journalists. Focus on the fire escape, don't bother mentioning the other issues for now, just keep hammering on about the fire escape.

No way this should be going on this long.

gman2k

joebre wrote: »

Hi,

The saga continues.
The CFO spoke to me like I was a piece of dirt on his shoe.
He stated that he did not consider the velux windows to be a fire safety risk. The bottom opening of the velux windows were 2.0m off the ground, were centre pivoted and were smaller than the 0.33m2 required.
He stated that he had more important things to be doing with his time. He advised that I should remedy the matters myself and seek compensation from the builder if I liked.
I was astounded at his attitude as I regarded him as the preson who would decide if there was a breach of the regulations and that he would take action under the building control act.
I would appreciate advice on what to do next

I would write back to the CFO and confirm the contents of your conversation with him in a factual and impartial manner - I.E. his opinion re certain Veluxs meeting regulations. I would CC the letter to the County manager and to the Department of the Environment relevant section. I would ask the CFO to clarify in writing his opinion of compliance. - Keep gathering information and register and record all correspondence.

BryanF

joebre wrote: »

Hi,

In June of this year, I requested a meeting with the Building Control Officer and the Chief Fire Oficer.
The CFO spoke to me like I was a piece of dirt on his shoe.
He stated that he did not consider the velux windows to be a fire safety risk. The bottom opening of the velux windows were 2.0m off the ground, were centre pivoted and were smaller than the 0.33m2 required.
He stated that he had more important things to be doing with his time. He advised that I should remedy the matters myself and seek compensation from the builder if I liked.
I was astounded at his attitude as I regarded him as the preson who would decide if there was a breach of the regulations and that he would take action under the building control act.
I would appreciate advice on what to do next

+1 with gman2k
those of us that deal with LA's regularly can't rock the boat, but I have known of archs and clients to take minutes of meetings and send them to the persons involved and their superiors, even to the point of requesting new/ different officers to deal with a specific case..
the balls in your court: legal, press, political or picket:)

just to go to the beginning, ( i may have missed this in my reading) did you have a surveyor/architect/ engineer do a survey before you signed for the house?

Do-more

In fairness to the OP I personally don't think it would be a wise decision to go to the press with this.

Even if these faults are corrected the perception created in the public's mind will be that these houses are badly built.

It's hard enough to sell a house these days without putting up extra hurdles for yourself and even long into the future anyone looking to buy in the estate may find the story on a google search.

You could find many of your neighbours who are not so safety conscious will be out for your life!

Frustrating as it may be I'd say keep it within official channels and if at all possible whip the CFO's ass.

edanto

Very good points- I didn't think of that when suggesting the press.

Slig

Unfortunately its an issue that will probably come up more and more as celtic tiger houses are re-sold. The building boom was so severe that this thing happened so so much.
For example:
I remember handing a builder a snag list of fairly minor items and him telling the potential purchaser to f### off that he could easily get another buyer that wasnt as picky.
We had a house purchaser hassling the our office to give the building a cert of completion for a house that wasnt even finished to second fixed electrics just so she could buy it quicker.
worst of all was telling a vendor that they had to spend over 10K on remedial works to their house before it complied with the regs it should have before they bought it.

IMO there are too many vested interrests between builders, solicitors and architects on housing estates and when they all work together on a project its very difficult for the architect to remain objective and neutral when issuing a cert. There is also far too many of the positions such as fire officer (especially), planner and directors of services that are politically appointments. Building control is non-existant and has been for as long as I can remember, I only had a visit from a building control officer once in 10 years of working as an arch tech and he honestly didnt know the regs himself at all. Enforcement only really concern themselves with cases that have been well advertised and as you can see there is no communication or collaborating between the different departments in the LA.

I have to say, though, that I'm disgusted to hear about the fire officers responce and his attitude. Of all the regs the fire regs are the ones that should be enforced to the letter as peoples lives depend on them.

If I were in your situation I would seriously consider hiring an independant architect/arch tech/engineer to go through your house and identify as many of these issues as possible and present a report to your builder. I know its a costly option but if, as I suspect, they are going to drag their heels or only do half the jobs required then it would present a good foundation for any legal action that may ensue.

civdef

On the Part B side of things.
Depending on the height of the building and the internal layout, there might not actually be a requirement for escape windows.
1.5.2, 1.5.3 and 1.5.4 are the relevant parts of TGD-B.

It's a common misconception that every room has to have an escape window. Might be prudent (though there are a lot of things that you can do which provide a higher level of safety), but if it's not in the regs it can't be enforced.

I'm not getting into the business of the CFO's interpersonal skills or lack thereof, just the technical details.

This is obviously not based on any knowledge of the dwelling in question, qualified advice from a person familiar with the project should be obtained at all times etc etc.

sydthebeat

civdef wrote: »

..... there might not actually be a requirement for escape windows..........
It's a common misconception that every room has to have an escape window. Might be prudent (though there are a lot of things that you can do which provide a higher level of safety), but if it's not in the regs it can't be enforced.
.

civdef, the very first post states

Three bedrooms on first floor have Velux windows.

he then goes on to state

The Velux is almost 2 metres off the floor.

no matter how you interpret the regs.. first floor bedrooms MUST have windows which conform with the requirements as alternative escape opening.

It is crystal clear when TGD B states

As a general provision, in addition to the specific
situations referred to above, all bedrooms in
dwelling houses, other than bedrooms with doors
that give direct access to the outside at ground level,
should comply with the provisions outlined in
Paragraph 1.5.6.

civdef

Fair cop sydthebeat, I'll blame a rushed reading of the thread and apparently deficient knowledge of TGD-B on domestic houses.