Reach of current building regulations

[Roger]

It used to be the case that you could do just about any replacement or repair without involving building regulations but these days there are far more hurdles to jump through if you want to do diy legitimately. Recent legislation on wiring, central heating and windows being examples of the nanny state interfering in places where said interference is likely to be counter productive.

My hovel has a slight damp floor problem which I think can be traced back to whichever of my predecessors replaced the stone flag floor with a layer of concrete laid on the bare clay with just the flimsiest of polythene sheets to provide damp protection. A test hole suggests that in places the DPM does not even provide complete cover.

The best solution would be to excavate to sufficient depth and put in an insulated slab on a compacted sub base but I could probably get away with replacing like with like or even digging out and patching the areas that are showing damp at the moment.

So where does Building Control want to get involved?

With like for like replacement floor, with the new improved floor or is it still the case that as long as the end result is not worse than the starting conditions I don't need to involve them at all?

I am retired and live on a small pension so while I have plenty of time to do the work finances are tight and the cost of Building Regs permission is likely to be of the same order of magnitude as the cost of the materials. And I am not getting any younger so this is one job I want to get out of the way while I still have the energy to break up some 40 square yards of concrete and dig out a further 6 or 8 inches of solid stone infested clay.

On a related point is 4" of compacted sub base really necessary given solid subsoil?

[The Natural Philosopher]

The short answer is that since its a material alteration or could be construed as such, then building control ought to be involved.

However if its a straight repair they are not in the frame..this being the legal position.

The practical position is do it anyway, take a few photos of what you have done just in case they get to know about it, and my advice is do it by the book. I.e. dig it all out,lay a concrete/hardcore slab*, put insulation and DPM over that and screed the lot.

By having adequate evidence of competence you should avoid having to lift a section to show the BCO whats underneath, should he cut the strop.

• and put back most of the concrete lumps you have dug out

[EricP]

When you volunteer yourself by foolishly informing them.

[Hugo Nebula]

On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 10:56:45 +0100, a particular chimpanzee, Roger randomly hit the keyboard and produced:

Up until April 2006, such work was not classed as 'building work' (as it was not an alteration that would affect structure, fire safety or access for disabled people), and did not require a Building Regulations application. Since that date, however, the definition of building work now includes 'replacing a thermal element', and therefore an application is required.

[Owain]

Roger omitted to say that he started the work in March last year :-)

Owain

[Roger]

The message from Hugo Nebula contains these words:

Thanks.

Looks like I might be turning the calendar back again then or just not bothering with the 'thermal element'.

Might put the kibosh on any plans to add insulation to my solid walls as well.

On a pedantic note surely adding something new cannot be a replacement.

[Roger]

The message from The Natural Philosopher contains these words:

Thanks. I was intending to put the DPM and insulation under the concrete as I thought that was the traditional way of doing it. Anyone any views on the drawbacks/advantages of either method? As I see it having the concrete on top provides a damping element to temperature changes. I appreciate that with underfloor heating the insulation has to go immediately below the screed otherwise it would take much longer to heat up but is it a better choice regardless? I don't think my budget is likely to stretch to underfloor heating particularly as I would have to provide another zone as the kitchen is on a lower level and has a floor I don't want to disturb. (Hmm on second thoughts how much height would I have to add if I just stick it on top of the existing kitchen slab?)*

[Hugo Nebula]

On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 08:10:00 +0100, a particular chimpanzee, Roger randomly hit the keyboard and produced:

In which case it's "renovation" - ' "renovation" in relation to a thermal element means the provision of a new layer in the thermal element or the replacement of an existing layer, but excludes decorative finishes, and "renovate" shall be construed accordingly' [Regulation 2 (1)]. Which imposes the same requirements.

[Roger]

The message from Hugo Nebula contains these words:

So that is insulated floor, insulated wall* and underfloor heating all within its compass. Can I take it that an uninsulated slab would still be outside the regulations even if it was later covered by underfloor heating that was.

*Where does that leave cavity wall insulation. I haven't seen any indication that that requires BR approval.

[Hugo Nebula]

On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 09:22:41 +0100, a particular chimpanzee, Roger randomly hit the keyboard and produced:

No, that would be replacing an existing layer or adding a new layer.

It always has (to at least 1985 anyway). Regulation 3 (1): 'In these Regulations "building work" means... (e) the insertion of insulating material into the cavity wall of a building'. It also now counts as a new layer in a thermal element.

[Roger]

The message from Hugo Nebula contains these words:

Sorry I must have misunderstood you the first time around if you can't even replace like with like anymore.

My Brother-in-law had it done recently so I suppose the contractor must have done the application as he didn't mention anything about building regs. I wasn't involved as there was no scope for diy. :-)

[Roger]

The message from Owain contains these words:

Oh is it one of those I've started so I can finish jobs? In which case I didn't start last year I took the first tentative steps way back in the penultimate decade of the last millennium (and have been living with a hole in the floor ever since).

[Owain]

I think way back in the last millennium might be pushing it a bit...

Owain

[Roger]

The message from Owain contains these words:

I have a vague memory of a Planning Permission case (also back in the last millennium) in which it was held that something as insubstantial as taking the hedge out to give access was the start of the building process and it mattered not that the work did not then progress any further for many years. They might have closed that loophole by now and Building Regs is a different animal anyway.

[Matt]

So lets get this right. Solid floor with damp problem and loosing lots of heat can be bodged with polyfilla, odd bits of concrete, plastic stuck down with silicone etc until the cows come home.

Dig out the whole floor, fit a proper DPC, insulate to modern standards and maybe add underfloor heating now involves a Building Regs application?

[Owain]

Yup. Although this does sound like somewhere the cows would come home to :-)

Of course.

And if you think Building Regs are bad just wait until the HSE get DIY included under HASAWA.

Owain

[jim]

draw the curtains: work quietly: get the job done: don't breathe a word about it for 12 months and bank the dough you've saved by not paying someone to second guess you.

//snip

//snip

Depends. How sound is the current floor slab in terms of mechanical strength? Is it stable? Are cracks showing? Concrete turning to dust? at least 3in (75mm) thick? Does the slab move when loaded? Ok to have a PVC tile floor covering?

If you're happy to keep it as it is and it is sound, then consider using one of the Ardex screeding methods. It will save you a mountain of work.

Ardex home page is

's comprehensive 40+ page guide at procedure:

1. Level the existing floor with Arditex self levelling latex solution: [possibly other self-levelling compounds might work, but you'd be on your own]. wait 24 hours
2. 'paint' the levelled screed with Ardex DPM. wait 24 hours
3. Lay a suitable floor covering eg PVC tiles. This is permanent, of course, and cannot be removed without damaging the DPM

My kitchen was done this way by a flooring contractor 3 years ago. There has been no sign whatsoever of any problems such as lifting tiles.

Unfortunately, I had to get a contractor to do the job as I was occupied elsewhere, but there's nothing in the job a reasonably able DIYer can't do.

IMHO if the underlying slab is sound this will last you 'for ever'. Ardex is a relatively expensive conmpared to other thin screed systems, but the products and methods do appear to be backed up by sound technical assessments of the manufacturer.

Main snag appears to me to be that you're doing nothing to reduce heat losses through the floor which a modern solid floor might do, but does that matter to you?

HTH

[Roger]

The message from jim contains these words:

snip

Insulation is a consideration but I can't afford any increase in floor height in the main part of the house. There is (mostly) only 6 feet under the main beams as it is and the (currently unused) outside door is only 70 inches.

I would ideally like to reduce the floor height but that would require more manual work and a new staircase which would have to be in a different place as no BCO would stand for the current 68 inch vertical clearance (10 inches short of what is required) as it passes under one of the main beams.

The kitchen is a different matter with a more modern slab. Most of that has 7 feet to the beams above it and could take a further 4 inches without compromising the 78 inch door opening. That slab is OK and lacks only insulation.

[jim]

If you use the basic Ardex method then you will raise the height of the floor by only a few mm - up to 3mm for the self-levelling compound (but more likely only 1 or 2mm) + 1mm for the DPM screed + 2 to 4mm for the PVC tiles.

Our kitchen ceiling is low too (7ft) and the Ardex method worked for us.

Forgot to mention that you need to check absence of ground water pressure under your existing slab, as that would be pretty certain to cause Ardex to fail. Though, unless you are finding free water being forced up onto your current floor, then I'd say that it is unlikely you have that condition.

There's quite a few different Ardex products & it could be one or more of the others might suit your floor better should you have non- standard conditios - check the Ardex guide.

It sounds like you live in a 'character residence'. Personally that's an aspect I'd preserve. I'd ignore the heat loss aspect & simply weigh up benefit of the convenience of a higher ceiling versus manual effort needed when the Ardex method effort is neglible by comparison & maybe preserves 'character'.

but that would require

that assumes (a) you have a BCO involved & (b) you haven't found a work-around to avaoid the problem. Could you leave the stairs as they are and add an approach platform?

Good luck

HTH

[Roger]

The message from jim contains these words:

I am warming to the idea of underfloor heating and thus going the whole hog but that will require a very careful counting of the shekels

Kitchen ceiling is 88 inches. The 7 feet is clearance under the main beams. The ceiling used to be lower but I raised the ceiling when I reworked the floor above most of the floor is 4" lower than it was as well.

There is a spring under the kitchen floor and the water table at that point is close (there used to be an inside well) but the floor in the main part of the house is currently 16 inches higher.

I will bear that in mind.

I am not sure how old the house is other than it is named on the first (1841) OS map of the area. The construction is quite crude which could indicate greater age but more likely a cheapskate construction built on to the end of an existing barn to save the expense of one wall. It has been knocked about a great deal by previous owners and there are not really many features worth preserving. The stone mullions in the windows and stone flags on the floor have long since gone as has 2 thirds of the original staircase, the original chimney breasts and all the original doors. Only one upstairs room has original flooring and even the lath and plaster ceilings downstairs were added at some considerable time after the house was built (decoration on the underside of replacement t & g floorboards.

There is certainly no character in the concrete floor in the main part of the house which probably doesn't date back much past 1960.

Only by reducing the floor height by the height of one riser. I have got used to ducking my head when I come down the stairs but it is a bit of a pain even to me. It is possible that the original was steeper. The remaining third (the staircase splits at the half landing) is steeper but that goes through a door sized hole (with door) which also has restricted headroom so maybe not.

Thanks.