building control and DIY ??

I am finding with my BCO, if it can be certified as OK (such as by tile manufacturers etc), he will accept it otherwise not. He has not said "NO" to anything, but I get the hint from his tone, such as when I suggested dual layer of roof underlay to allow lower pitch. Of course a manufacturer will not guarantee something like this since they cannot test it, so I'm stuck ! How can I get him to accept DIY solutions without official tests etc ? I need to have a cowl terminal through my roof. OK, 4" pipe, weathering slate (expensive, price of lead etc), cowl terminal, overall cost over 50 quid. Why not drill a hole in the tile, glue in a cowl terminal (suitable flexible glue to allow for expansion etc), and jobs a good'un. How could I persuade the BCO to accept this or other DIY solutions ? I cannot just do it afterwards, as the kitchen must have extract to gain approval.

Simon.

Reply to
sm_jamieson
Loading thread data ...

one way is to find a manufacturers website that gives a particular solution and then to copy it. For example:

formatting link
helped me when I had a grumpy BCO unhappy at my propsoed solution. Once he saw a solution with nice standard diagrams he was happy.

Robert

Reply to
RobertL

From a BCO's perspective, they're used to seeing professional building practice and (hopefully) high standards of workmanship.

Departure from common building practices could be a) an unusual problem to be overcome, b) using a new technique, c) achieving higher performance - or d) getting cheap or e) cluelessness.

Yours may well be "a person using a perfectly sound, but novel approach" - however the BCO probably has to spend his/her time all too often discouraging "d" and "e".

The answer is try not to look like a "d" or an "e".

Skimping on the cost of a lead slate does sound like "d".

Reply to
RubberBiker

Is saving =A350 now, and costing you hundreds when it fails in 20 yrs worth it?

NT

Reply to
NT

But when its several of them, the cost adds up.

The problem with "cheap" is its overloaded meanings.

How does "efficient use of funds" sound to you ?

Cluelessness can be disproved by having a valid engineering argument.

That is the spirit of DIY ;-)

Simon.

Reply to
Simon

I'm not sure that I'd want to drill a 4" hole in a roof tile. Even if it didn't crack at the time, there's got to be a good chance that it would do so subsequently - resulting in water leaks which could be expensive to repair, quite apart from the consequential damage.

Far safer to use a tried and tested method - even if it does *seem* a bit more expensive.

Reply to
Roger Mills

Then follow the details on the drawings that you have presumably had passed by the BCO. BTW, there are very good reasons why low pitches are not allowed with most roofing tiles or slates.

You really do not have a clue do you [1] (sorry for that), but these procedures are in place to stop 'bodged' and dangerous work and any half-way decent BCO will give you very good reasons for straying away from good building practices and onto the DiY bodger route - listen to him and learn.

As for the costs - you really should have ensured that you had sufficient funds to complete the works to the agreed plans and specifications (plus at least 10% for contingencies) before you even cut the first lump of earth for the foundations.

Have you had a look for alternatives to lead slates? These have a neoprene or aluminium aprons that are just as effective as lead and far cheaper - pop down to your local builders merchants (such as Jewsons) or the local roofing supplies merchants and you will fine exactly what you want and not an ounce of lead in it. Or you could even try googling for the thing.

If the BCO has any sense, he will politely tell you to f**k off with any DiY solutions (such as yours) to most problems and to conform with normal building practice.

[1] Plenty of enthusiasm though - but not a clue.

Falco

Reply to
Falco

bollocks [2] (sorry for that), I know a fair bit about the regs having been working up to my building work for a long time. A BCO friend said talking to me was like talking to a colleague.

Thats just it, a lot of BCOs do not use sound engineering knowledge, just rules of thumb and old wives tales - and only accept things "in the tables" or on pretty diagrams.

I've got plenty of funds but no wish to waste money, and if you had a clue about project management you would know that a little off a lot of items adds up to thousands.

Of course I have. I'm well aware of that. Not sure how well aluminium dresses into profiled tiles though, and doing this well is the key to waterproof work.

Oh right, unless a qualified engineer can sign you off on it. The BCO was most skeptical about my roof design as it was not in the tables. The engineer checked it and signed it off with no changes.

And if the BCO swears at people who are trying to have a sensible conversation he is one of the crap ones mentioned earlier.

[2] I feel better now.

Cheers (tongue slightly in cheek) Simon.

Reply to
Simon

It certainly would weaken the tile, though you could glue ribs under to strengthen. Of course an advantage of the lead slate is that you can almost fit / replace one without removing tiles.

Thats usually the case, but if nobody innovated, where would we be ?

I've found an extractor outlet with lead slate on by Manrose, which is neater than a lead/rubber slate plus a cowl on top. I may end up using that.

Cheers, Simon.

Reply to
Simon

Depending on the pitch of the roof there are vent tiles for all types of tiles including natual slate and man made slates. failing that you can put a 100mm or 4" PVC pipe through the roof with a lead soil pipe or lead slate collar plus a PVC skirt and stick a mushroom hood on top.

Reply to
Kipper at sea

it sounds to me as if the OP is doing the works on a "Building Notice" rather than a Building Application . In that case there is no prior BCO approval for the works; he just sends in the notice 48 hours before starting.

Robert

Reply to
RobertL

On Wed, 8 Jul 2009 05:57:07 -0700 (PDT), a certain chimpanzee, sm_jamieson randomly hit a keyboard and produced:

Any material you use must be fit for its purpose. Having it tested and/or accredited shows that it will do the job it's meant to. If it's not, then it's up to you to demonstrate that it will do so. "Job's a good 'un" isn't UKAS accredited.

Your DIY solutions are those he's probably seen on dozens of other jobs and seen fail. Drilling a hole in a tile and gluing a cowl terminal in sounds like an utter bodge. Sensible, well-reasoned alternative solutions are bread & butter to a BCO; ill-thought out bodges are the furry bits of cheese at the back of the fridge.

Reply to
Hugo Nebula

Quite true. I had t to do some calculations to prove my insulation was OK, then he was quite happy. But gluing in a cowl could be quite acceptable with suitable glues and reinforcement of the tile, and appropriate testing to prove the solution - tiles are not that strong anyway. I get the picture though - everyone thinks its stupid ;-) Simon.

Reply to
Simon

It is full plans (done by me), the plans said use vent tiles when in fact they are not specified for below 20 degree pitch by the manufacturers and I had not realised at the time. The plans were passed. I have seen several roof near me using these tiles at lower pitches - I guess builder just get away with it. I changed the spec since I can quite believe wind blown rain could penetrate the vents at below minimum pitch, but I probably would have got away with it. I would have expected the building control to reject the plans due to the vent tiles but they did not. If I was a BCO with what I know now, I would reject them.

Which raises an interesting question. If plans are passed with things breaking the regs clearly drawn, then you do the work to the plans and then (another) BCO says, hold one thats not allowed, what happens ? Could I have used the under-spec vent tiles because the plans were passed ?

Simon.

Reply to
Simon

On Thu, 9 Jul 2009 15:01:08 -0700 (PDT), a certain chimpanzee, Simon randomly hit a keyboard and produced:

A notice (Section 36) to remove the non-compliant work can't be served on something that is shown on an approved plan (unless it was a condition of the approval). Don't tell anyone, but the same applies if you're working to a plan that wasn't rejected within the maximum period for checking (five weeks rising to two months with agreement).

Most authorities aren't going to issue a Section 36 notice for a low-pitch vent tile on its own; there would have to be other more serious things wrong with the work to get to that stage. The worst that would happen is that they wouldn't issue a completion certificate.

To be honest, I wouldn't have picked up that the minimum pitch for the vent tile was higher than the roof tiles. Even if your BCO had, unless you've said in your spec, "vent tiles to be XXX by YYY Ltd, laid to a minimum pitch of NN°", it's the kind of thing that would be left to be sorted out on site, otherwise every extension would have an amendment letter with 50 points on it.

As I've said to trainees, you start off learning what to ask for, then you learn what NOT to ask for.

Reply to
Hugo Nebula

On 10 July, 17:36, Hugo Nebula wrote:

So is the onus on the builder to build to regs, and the plans and BCO discussions and checks just means to assist and ensure this ? You say the vent tile issue for example would be sorted out on site, but it would only be noticed once the roof was on and the tiles all done, assuming standard inspection stages. If you have fully clipped down tiles, it might not be easy to remove the vent tiles and replace with a weathering slate at this point. So in practice, I would image most non-safety related isues not caught at plan time would remain as built. The explains why I've seen so many vent tiles on roof clearly below minimum pitch. As a matter of fact I did state the make of tiles and roof pitch on the original plans. Take my roof tiles. I've no doubt a double layer of underlay and the regents at 11.5 degrees instead of 12.5 in a sheltered spot would have been fine, and if I just did it, and the BCO said pitch looks a bit low and I said I've double layered the felt I might have got away with it. But my lack of experience with building control meant that when I realised the pitch was below 12.5 degrees, I sent him an email and he ignored my double underlay suggestion (no reasoning at all) and told me to use forticrete centurion (OK down to 10.0 on very simple mono roof), and it will cost me an extra 300 quid for probably no extra benefit in my particular case. And if I only used vent tiles for vertical extractor outlets with a condensation trap at the bottom, this would catch and drain any rain water that did find its way in. I wonder if the BCO would accept that specific situation, which is clearly acceptable in my mind. I could ask him that specific question to find out ;-) I get the impression he would say OK if the tile manufacturers will guarantee that situation as OK, which clearly they will not. This "use the manufacturers recommendations" is a bit of a cop-out if you ask me, since a composite solution will not be within their remit and they will never agree to it in writing. I realise its all a bit of give or take at the end of the day, but its a bit of a game like all things. Finally, since its my house, of course I would not compromise on any safety issues.

Cheers, Simon.

Reply to
Simon

HomeOwnersHub website 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.