Should log cabins be legal to live in??

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

whats the craic with building regs and the age of a house? like if there was a derelict cottage for sale, (say built before any regulations came in) roof and windows still intact (or not, would it make a difference?) what standards would it need to meet to be 'legal' to live in?

If the house was derelict for a while (don't know the time without looking it up but a guess it's 5 years) then you need planning permission to turn it back to a habitat property.
Option A - It has a roof
If it has a roof and windows and isn't in that bad a condition then it's probably habitable. You'll need planning permission for any derelict property and you'll probably need to upgrade the septic tank to new regulation or get an engineers report to prove it's in good working order. You'll need to get an electrical connection reestablished. If you don't go changing that much with the cottage it's fairly straight forward.
Option B - No roof
This is uninhabitable currently. You'll need planning permission to make it habitable as per option A but as it's a cottage in the countryside and it's not a habitable house you may need to prove housing need in the local area. As it needs a new roof the building regulations kick in particularly part L which is the new insulation regulations as you'll most likely go over the 20% of the external fabric with the roof. This means you'll have to upgrade everything. The planning will probably hit you for a new septic tank to meet current regulations too which could be expensive rather than keeping the existing. With no roof you're probably looking at moving some internal walls which may have collapsed. These need to be to current regulations including structure, fire, noise, etc.

Option C - Protected Structure
A lot more complicated. Depends on if the condition, what level of protected status, etc.

kceire wrote: »

Construction timber, like floor joists, roof rafters and vertical timber frame houses are CE marked, comply with IS440 which makes them acceptable in the construction industry.

Log cabins cannot achieve this standard.

So if I had 600mm of CE marked construction timber complying with IS440 as a wall I would be ok for parts A,B,C,D,E & L?? I could bolt up 12 2*9's to give me the 600mm to be compliant with u-values. Or am I missing something...like would the bolts have to be tested at NASA.

Sorry, I thought 600mm would comply 'coz it has a u-value of less than .21. somebody on this thread said that was the minimum u-value required according to building reg.s.

But then somebody else posted that .21 was non compliant and maybe you'd be looking at more like .15 and 800mm.
I wonder if you devised a system such as maybe 1/2" of treated compliant construction timber cladding on the outside ,12" of compliant construction timber ('coz logs are non compliant) and like 10" of compliant insulation on the inside, with a 1/2" compliant construction timber cladding inside .. like you know make a wall out of several compliant elements sort of thing.
Would that satisfy parts A,B,C,D,E and ...er L?
Like if every element is fire compliant , then every element should probably have a fire compliance value, same with insulative value. So if you worked out a sum of compliance values to equal or exceed other compliant building systems you'd be compliant?
All that said though I'd really like the look of log house or a cob house.
Maybe I should just go live in Finland or Cornwall.

tea and coffee wrote: »

Those cabins that some sheds manufacturers - steel or wood or "home office" type ones (but actually are 1 or 2 bedrooms) of about 20 sq m... are they legal?
And yes I have read through the thread and find that much has been snipped, so I'm finding it difficult to see the definition of a long cabin... is the answer what I have described Above? If so, How are they allowed sell them as "2 bed chalet " or 10 x 6 m 2 bed room house or "2 bed residential house"
If they don't comply with building regs how can they sell them?!
As for planning, I guess that is the purchasers issue.

Yera ,you can sell a dustbin and call it a house. Just don't mention that it is compliant with habitational planning reg.s🙂 Almost everything is legal -shed/office/manden etc. But only compliant erections are legal to live in. I.e. a dwelling . Planning and building regulations compliant.

As for log cabins/houses, according to the experts on this thread, they can NEVER be compliant until such time as a log cabin/house building system has been tested (I think by a lab somewhere in Austria was it) and approved.
So whomever wants to go about it can jolly well trot on with it. They will be a trailblazer of some repute.
It's the same auld story from the same auld shysters. Planning of any sort in this country is a one size fits all f**k up. Is it really any surprise?

sydthebeat wrote: »

???

It was YOU who claimed that 600mm would comply because that gave a u value of 0.21.

But you were told twice after that, that that u value would not comply because that's a backstop value, not a minimum goal to reach.




Its VERY VERY simple to understand. I seriously cannot understand why people have such difficulty grasping this.

If you want to live in a log cabin, you need to prove that the cabin complies with all building regulations. In order to do this you need to get many aspects of the build tested and certified by relevant certification bodies. This generally could be NSAI but there are alternatives too.

Once you have all those aspects tested and certified that they are suitable for use... Then brilliant!! You can move in your log home.

The problem is, and the log cabin Manufacturers know this damn well... Is that this testing is rigorous and expensive.

THEY will not go to this expense as providers, probably as they know their systems wont comply.... So why should ye as individual end users go to that expense?? You are absolutely NOT going to get a cheaper home by going down that route.

I've bought an axe and I've booked my tickets to Finland. Log habitual structures here we come!
Twas always my backstop position.