Barn conversion - how deep should the footings be..... - UPDATE

Hi all
Just a quick update for anyone interested.
Structural engineer been round this morning and checked the footings. Although they are not very deep, they are sitting on clay and he is happy with them. Unfortunately, the planners may have a different idea - so over to them.
Will keep you posted - and thanks for the help so far....
Regards, Si
http://www.thehawthornes.org
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
In an earlier contribution to this discussion,

The planners won't give a damn - they're only interested in the appearance.
However, you *will* need to satisfy the Building Inspectors on all structural issues - including foundations.
[Sorry if this sounds nit-picking, but you will need to get involved both with planners and BCOs on this project - and it's important to understand the role of each of these].
--
Cheers,
Set Square
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

It doesn't sound nit-picking at all... my structural engineer is looking after both for me - so fingers crossed. he did say that no new build would ever get away with it - but as it is a barn - and there are so few in the area, they may not be so strict - but who knows! S.
http://www.thehawthornes.org
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
well good luck to you, we have a barn that at present is on the entrance to the village but it its current state it will have less then 2 yrs left, unless it is knocked down or converted. But at present the "planners" are saying that converting the barn for residential would: a) create too much traffic, although converting it to business would not (Which is what they said they woudl allow) b) detract from the appearance of the village, well apart from one or tow houses most are f***ing awful. Who knows what they are going on about, but its all in the hands of a planning expert now so fingers crossed....

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 17:36:31 +0000, Simon Hawthorne

For both the planners and the BCOs the issue, for different reasons is going to be what you want to use it for.
With BCOs, the issues are mainly about stability, safety and energy aspects of the structure, especially if third parties are involved. However things that are done and decided are based on fairly clearly laid down principles. It's worth looking at the Approved Documents to have an appreciation (they are on jag+=2 's web site). However, these are good practice and advice and are not the *only* way of meeting the legislative requirements. A lot then depends on the BCO and engineer relationship and what can be negotiated.
The planners work on a totally different set of principles and there can be arbitrary decisions. Generally the officers recommend to the councilors so you want them on your side as well.
.andy
To email, substitute .nospam with .gl
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
In an earlier contribution to this discussion,

I guess a lot will depend on how much extra loading you are putting on the structure. The existing foundations (if any!) appear to have stood the test of time as far as the existing structure is concerned - and may continue to be ok as long as the loading doesn't change too much.
--
Cheers,
Set Square
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Simon Hawthorne wrote:

Yes, new build HAS to be done to standards, but a revamp (remember NOT to take down ALL walls, or its a new build) can get away with original stuff.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I thought all the walls were being taken down and each stone numbered?
:-)
Darren
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
dmc wrote:

On about one topic in 100 IMM actually has somethiung relevant and useful to say, but in every case someone else does as well, so the safest way to regard IMM is an amusing troll, who is to be completely disregrarded in matters DIY.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

You are barking mad.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

During last summers extra-ordinary dry/hot spell, weren't there considerable numbers of properties showing movement even with deep footings based on clay substrate ?
Local BCO have gone to the other extreme here, requiring nothing less than 1200mm no matter what substrate, and heard of quite a few extensions requiring 2100/2400mm footings next to pre-existing footings of about 225mm
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 16:55:37 +0000, a particular chimpanzee named
and produced:

Nothing to do with the planners. Building Control will (or should) only require you to make sure that the structure is no worse after the conversion than it was before (i.e. if you increase the loading or undermine the foundations).
--
Hugo Nebula
"The fact that no-one on the internet wants a piece of this
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.