Extension questions.

[Tim Hardisty]

Hi All - not posted for a while as I've been enjoying the fruits of many years of DIY, and having a break from it. But it's time for more building work :-)

We're looking at a small single-storey rear extension to the sitting room. Width will be around 12 feet to match the width of the existing room.

One wall ofthe extension will be, in effect, a continuation of the main outside brick/cinder-block cavity wall of this 1930's house, and in removing the current rear wall to provide access to the new extension, I know we'll need to retain around 600mm or so of the wall to support the rear corner of the house and the RSJ.

The second wall, ideally, wants to be flush with the existing inside wall. The inside wall is single block and non-load bearing (in as much as it has supporting role for the roof).

Drawing time:

currently

__outside wall_______________________________

------------------..-----------------------. | || | | || | | inside wall outside wall

wanted | | | | __outside wall___| | ___| |

------------------.| |----.| || | | || | | inside wall outside wall

if you get my drift!

Question is whether I can do this (in principle) or whether I will have to have a 600m or so stub where the inner wall meets the outside wall, as well? i.e.

not wanted | | | | __outside wall___| ____ ___| |

------------------. ---| |----.| || | | || | | inside wall outside wall

Obviously we'll need expert advice before starting such a project (plus permissions etc) but if anyone knows whether what I want is OK, in principle, or definitely NOT OK, I'd appreciate knowing.

Also, about 8 feet from the outside wall is a garden retaining wall, about 4 feet high - the house is built on ground with a slope so the rear garden is about 4 feet higher than the patio ground level at the back of the house.

How close to this wall can we build the rear wall of the extension? Could the rear wall of the extension replace and become this retaining wall (what about damp)?

Thanks! Tim Hardisty. Please remove HAT before replying by email.

[Phil L]

Your sketches are just a series of dots, lines and squiggles and I can't make head nor tail of them. Draw a skecth in MS paint or you chosen graphics programme, save it, then upload it/them to tinypic* and post the link here.

• No registration needed

Your retaining wall will probably need to be moved back - the extension can't be used as a retaining wall.

The corner of the house will need supporting on brick pillars and steel girders, the last one of these I did, the pillars were 600mm wide and 400mm deep....depending on where your interior wall is and what's on the other side of it, you may be able to put it in there so that your living room doesn't have a pier on each side of it

[Owain]

Anything is possible, if you throw enough money at a problem.

It will be easier and cheaper to have the unwanted stub, however it might not need to be 600mm; you could run the steel horizontally right up to the wall, and have it supported by a vertical steel going down to (through) the floor. Plasterboard this in and you could posisble get down to a 100mm stub. However you can probably use the "east-west" outside wall to support the RSJ if you accept some construction work knocking through and reinstating in the adjoining room.

Re the external, you probably will not jet any definate answer until trial pits, and possibly boreholes, have been dug and examined by the Struct Eng.

Damp should not be an issue in a properly designed building. Houses in the Netherlands aren't damp.

Owain

[Tim Hardisty]

OK - disturbing adjacent room probably not a big deal, so that's a strong possibility, thanks. I was concerned that the internal north-south wall would not be stable unless it had the stub. I can see how a vertical steel would help, but would it be stable if we take the RSJ into the adjacent room?

I should have said - I am assuming the retaining wall is rebuilt on proper foundation. So, my question is really whether it is OK to have the garden leaning against the sitting room wall, up to not-far-off window cill height.

Indeed.

Tim Hardisty. Please remove HAT before replying by email.

[Owain]

Should be, it's still going to be tied into the external wall, albeit except possibly where the RSJ pierces it.

This may be a wrong assumption :-)

Current foundation requirements for a dwelling may not be the same as previous requirements for holding up a bit of garden. Depends also on what the garden is made of.

Hmmmm. I think I'd rather have a gap between the wall and the garden, with a drain at the bottom, but it's certainly possible to tank the outside wall - in effect the room becomes a semi-basement at that part.

Or dig away some garden.

Owain

[Tim Hardisty]

Having re-read what I wrote, I *meant* to say we *will* be rebuilding the wall, as it is 60 years old and will definitely be no good as part of the house :-)

Chalk ... and mud ;-)

Not sure I like the idea of a tanked outside wall - it's bound to be a weak point at some time in the future.

Being a cheapskate, I was trying to avoid the cost of dumping soil :-)

On balance, we will create and leave a gap, methinks.

Many thanks, Owain. Tim Hardisty. Please remove HAT before replying by email.

[manatbandq]

The OP has gone to the trouble to make sure it looks OK in a fixed width font, so use a different method to read it. Looks fine in Google.

MBQ

[Phil L]

But the OP didn't post via google, and I don't read via google. And it probably took him longer to make it look right (although it doesn't) than it would to do a quick sketch.

[manatbandq]

That's irrelevant?

Also irrelevant, I was merely pointing out that it's your newsreader that is preventing you seeing the desired "picture". Try using a fixed width font.

MBQ

[EricP]

Not if people can't see it because it's gibberish.

Again not irrelevant at all. The OP wants help. Why should we change our readers around to accomodate. Seems a simple enough concept.

[sm_jamieson]

When usenet was invented everyone had fixed fonts. Anyone who moans about google should also moan about propotional fonts, and go back to basics. Ascii art is acceptable on usenet I would have thought ;-) Simon.

[Tim Hardisty]

Actually, took me about 3 mins. I'm not a fan of paint or any other simple graphics package, although I can do an AutoCAD drawing in less time than it took me to do the ASCII art :)

Having been posting on usenet - on or off - for quite a few years, I still use ascii art this allows anyone to see it, albeit they need to understand non-proportional fonts ;)

If it doesn't look right, then my apologies: I'll try harder next time. Tim Hardisty. Please remove HAT before replying by email.

[Tim Hardisty]

And I didn't specify "use non-proportional font", which I should have done of course.

Tim Hardisty. Please remove HAT before replying by email.

[Phil L]

The thing is, why do it at all? - it's like trying to explain spreadsheets by using media player.

this was all perfectly well and acceptable when there was no alternative, nowadays you can embellish your sketches with colours, shadows and even draw small trees should the fancy take you :-p

I can't understand why usenet folk in particular go to extraordinary lengths to make life hard. Tinypic doesn't require registration, setting up or installation of anything, you simply go there, upload a picture and post the link.

[Owain]

Mmmm, slippy....

It doesn't need to be a very big gap, maybe 1' at the bottom with a french drain, and raked back slightly.

Owain

[Owain]

Yebbut I and probably a lot of other people download usenet for offline reading. I don't want to have to go back online again to get a picture.

Owain

[Roger Mills]

You could use that same argument to say that you shouldn't have *any* clickable links in usenet messages - which would preclude useful URLs - or linking to a photo of (say) a problematic bit of plumbing. I certainly wouldn't want to go that far - but I do agree that ASCII art is ok in cases where it can adequately illustrate a point.