Quick question - internal wall removal and building regs

I can see that removing a non-loadbearing wall internally shouldn't involve building regs.
However:
<https://www.planningportal.co.uk/info/200130/common_projects/33/ internal_walls/2>
"If you wish to build a new internal wall, remove an internal wall, or form an opening in an internal wall, building regulations will normally apply."
I am struggling (as usual) to find the bit about non-load bearing walls.
Just looking through a form filled in by the vendor about knocking out the wall between kitchen and dining room not requiring building regs because it is an internal wall.
Mr. Picky says this should say "Internal non-load bearing" assuming that this is what the regulations allow.
Cheers
Dave R
--
AMD FX-6300 in GA-990X-Gaming SLI-CF running Windows 7 Pro x64

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 17 May 2018 14:46:14 +0000, David wrote:

All building work is subject to Building Regulations. However, most of it is not notifiable, but, if questioned, you need to show that you did adhere to the latest Regs. Removing a non load bearing wall is something that is not notifiable, and pretty easy to comply with - "yes, it was just a 2x2 framework with plasterboard on it".
Adding a new wall is more detailed, insulation for sound and heat, electrics on the wall have to meet Part P of the Regs requirements etc.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 17/05/2018 17:03, Alan wrote:

There are a few points that probably need keeping in mind. Sometimes walls are there for a reason - say providing adequate isolation between a toilet and a place of food prep, or protecting an escape route from smoke and fire ingress.
So it goes deeper, than simply if its load bearing.
Secondly its a popular misconception that a stud wall can't be load bearing. Stud walls can and sometimes *are* load bearing. You need to establish that by means other than looking at what its made out of.

and don't forget fire protection.

Which may or may not be notifiable depending on what work is required, and where the wall is. Adding a socket to an exiting circuit on a new wall may well be non notifiable, unless the wall is in a location that makes it notifiable like a room with a bath or shower.
--
Cheers,

John.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 17 May 2018 17:57:08 +0100, John Rumm wrote:

And this is what many people forget - even though it is non-notifiable, it must still comply with Part P (domestic anyway). But, no-one ever checks, so people can , mostly, do what they want.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 17/05/2018 18:19, Alan wrote:

Actually Part B is very important. That inoccuous internal wall may be providing triangulation to stiffen the outer load bearing walls.
It also affects Part E, because its presence may stop the wall it is butted up against from transmitting excess sound into a cavity wall and hence to your neighbours.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 17 May 2018 11:03:21 -0500, Alan wrote:

Slightly more complicated bit is where (especially in 1930s properties) all the internal walls are masonry.
In that case I assume that you need to check that there isn't another wall directly above.
I think in this case the building surveyor was lazy by saying "BR consents MAY have been needed."
I would expect a surveyor to see the wall had been modified and then look at the structure above to see if it was likely that the original wall was load bearing.
Then again, perhaps if the thing is up and looks fairly solid there is little if any risk.
Given that it appears that a compensating beam has been installed and not all the wall has been removed I would guess it was slightly more than just a wooden stud wall. In which case there is a possibility that consent should have been sought.
Hard to see if the work is up to standard once the whole thing has been covered over.If a beam was put in and it was metal then I assume that double plaster board would be required for fire safety.
So, I think, if a stud wall is just completely removed or partially with an arch, for example, then this doesn't look to be an issue.
If a brick/block wall has been partially removed and the gap bridged by a beam then it looks as though some additional structural support has been included. In which case I would have assumed that consent was required.
Cheers
Dave R
--
AMD FX-6300 in GA-990X-Gaming SLI-CF running Windows 7 Pro x64

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

Walls don't only provide vertical support, but also lateral support. This can be more true of internal walls than external walls, as the internal walls have fewer openings for doors and windows, which seriously weaken any lateral support provided.
There is the famous case of a terrace of houses. One by one, they removed an internal supporting wall and supported the structure above with an RSJ or similar. It wasn't until the last house removed this wall that all the lateral support had gone, and they collapsed sideways.
--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 18 May 2018 09:41:50 +0000, Andrew Gabriel wrote:

Yes. Was interested to note that the engineering calculations for our beam across the back ground floor relied on the rear wall of the other semi for some support.
We hadn't noticed, but our neighbour at the time who was a surveyor pointed this out but was happy with it.
The wall in question here runs front to back so hopefully should have no impact on next door.
This may be why they considered that it wasn't notifiable for BR consent.
However I do note John's comment about fire proofing which apply to any metal supporting beams.
Cheers
Dave R
--
AMD FX-6300 in GA-990X-Gaming SLI-CF running Windows 7 Pro x64

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 18/05/2018 10:41, Andrew Gabriel wrote:

I think it was Bristol and it was row of terraced houses on a significant slope. Each house removed massive internal chimneys but when the end house did the same, problems occurred.
Also somewhere in Croydon something similar occurred but that may have been subsidence where an entire terrace built on a slope, gradually slipped down the hill.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 17/05/2018 17:03, Alan wrote:

There are a few points that probably need keeping in mind. Sometimes walls are there for a reason - say providing adequate isolation between a toilet and a place of food prep, or protecting an escape route from smoke and fire ingress.
So it goes deeper, than simply if its load bearing.
Secondly its a popular misconception that a stud wall can't be load bearing. Stud walls can and sometimes *are* load bearing. You need to establish that by means other than looking at what its made out of.

and don't forget fire protection.

Which may or may not be notifiable depending on what work is required, and where the wall is. Adding a socket to an exiting circuit on a new wall may well be non notifiable, unless the wall is in a location that makes it notifiable like a room with a bath or shower.
--
Cheers,

John.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Can you be absolutely sure its not load bearing though. You only get one chance the one just before the room above ends up downstairs!
Brian
--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Brian Gaff wrote:

Taking a floorboard or two from upstairs should tell you enough, or even drill some holes and use an endoscope ...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 17 May 2018 14:46:14 +0000, David wrote:

Slightly off on a tangent, but the Planning Portal seems to say that enforcement action cannot be taken after 12 months or more.
Makes the whole BR thing seem pretty pointless.
Unless, of course, that only applies to instances where BR consent has been applied for and the inspector has not spotted anything wrong.
I had previously gained the impression that 6 or 7 years had to elapse. Or is that just for planning?
Cheers
Dave R
--
AMD FX-6300 in GA-990X-Gaming SLI-CF running Windows 7 Pro x64

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

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.