[andrew]

So what happens about building regs for electrics, flues, structure,
windows , footings etc on a house such as this?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/b...ts/8487326.stm

AJH

[Tim Watts]

andrew
wibbled on Saturday 13 February 2010 08:03

So what happens about building regs for electrics, flues, structure,
windows , footings etc on a house such as this?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/b...ts/8487326.stm

AJH

I presume they've used some expired time period to lapse the ability of the
planners to do anything (same approach that Fidler's Castle used) - in which
case, failure-to-notify-building-regs was passed long ago...

AFAIK only if the building presented a danger then can the LABC intervene.
If the owner was clever enough to pull this stunt off, they would have made
sure the main regs were met (eg foundations, fire related things, ...)

Wonder how Fidler is doing - last I read, it was going up to the Lords (or
is that the Supreme Court)...

--
Tim Watts

Managers, politicians and environmentalists: Nature's carbon buffer.

[Tim Lamb[_2_]]

In message , andrew
writes
So what happens about building regs for electrics, flues, structure,
windows , footings etc on a house such as this?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/b...ts/8487326.stm

I expect they followed the regs. Footings will be 900mm cube under each
upright. Light might be an issue but who knows how many windows are on
the other side.

The barn looks like a standard BS 5502 agricultural building but with
insulated composite walls and roof. I have just fitted some of those
roof lights and found they had to insert an additional internal membrane
to meet he regs. Cuts down the light transmitted rather a lot.

I really must stop calling the present barn re-build the *bungalow*.

In defence of the 4 year rule.... I suppose, if nobody found a reason to
object to the actual use, then it meets the criteria for a greenbelt
development. Chap in Wales, who built a *castle* behind some straw
bales, is being made to demolish!

regards



--
Tim Lamb

[TheOldFellow]

On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 08:03:41 +0000
andrew wrote:

So what happens about building regs for electrics, flues, structure,
windows , footings etc on a house such as this?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/b...ts/8487326.stm

AJH

If I lived in Hertfordshire, I wouldn't want windows either.
R.

[tim....]

"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...
andrew
wibbled on Saturday 13 February 2010 08:03

So what happens about building regs for electrics, flues, structure,
windows , footings etc on a house such as this?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/b...ts/8487326.stm

AJH

I presume they've used some expired time period to lapse the ability of
the
planners to do anything (same approach that Fidler's Castle used) - in
which
case, failure-to-notify-building-regs was passed long ago...

AFAIK only if the building presented a danger then can the LABC intervene.
If the owner was clever enough to pull this stunt off, they would have
made
sure the main regs were met (eg foundations, fire related things, ...)

Wonder how Fidler is doing - last I read, it was going up to the Lords (or
is that the Supreme Court)...

he lost

tim

[The Natural Philosopher[_2_]]

Tim Lamb wrote:
In message , andrew
writes
So what happens about building regs for electrics, flues, structure,
windows , footings etc on a house such as this?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/b...ts/8487326.stm

I expect they followed the regs. Footings will be 900mm cube under each
upright. Light might be an issue but who knows how many windows are on
the other side.

The barn looks like a standard BS 5502 agricultural building but with
insulated composite walls and roof. I have just fitted some of those
roof lights and found they had to insert an additional internal membrane
to meet he regs. Cuts down the light transmitted rather a lot.

I really must stop calling the present barn re-build the *bungalow*.

In defence of the 4 year rule.... I suppose, if nobody found a reason to
object to the actual use, then it meets the criteria for a greenbelt
development. Chap in Wales, who built a *castle* behind some straw
bales, is being made to demolish!

regards



yes, there are two completely separate issues. One is planning, and the
other is building regulations. To be in defiance of planning, can
involve complete removal of the structure. To be in defiance of building
regs, merely requires that it be made to conform.

[JimK[_2_]]

On Feb 13, 11:25 am, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
Tim Lamb wrote:
In message , andrew
writes
So what happens about building regs for electrics, flues, structure,
windows , footings etc on a house such as this?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/b...ts/8487326.stm

I expect they followed the regs. Footings will be 900mm cube under each
upright. Light might be an issue but who knows how many windows are on
the other side.

The barn looks like a standard BS 5502 agricultural building but with
insulated composite walls and roof. I have just fitted some of those
roof lights and found they had to insert an additional internal membrane
to meet he regs. Cuts down the light transmitted rather a lot.

I really must stop calling the present barn re-build the *bungalow*.

In defence of the 4 year rule.... I suppose, if nobody found a reason to
object to the actual use, then it meets the criteria for a greenbelt
development. Chap in Wales, who built a *castle* behind some straw
bales, is being made to demolish!

regards

yes, there are two completely separate issues. One is planning, and the
other is building regulations. To be in defiance of planning, can
involve complete removal of the structure. To be in defiance of building
regs, merely requires that it be made to conform.



socan he put windows etc in it now and *convert* it into a £1.5million
house? or knock it down and build a better one? if so genius!
(NB BBC article: can a windowless house be worth 500,000 to anybody
else? or is the plot now worth that alone?)

Cheers
JimK

[Tim Watts]

tim....
wibbled on Saturday 13 February 2010 09:56


"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...
andrew
wibbled on Saturday 13 February 2010 08:03

So what happens about building regs for electrics, flues, structure,
windows , footings etc on a house such as this?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/b...ts/8487326.stm

AJH

I presume they've used some expired time period to lapse the ability of
the
planners to do anything (same approach that Fidler's Castle used) - in
which
case, failure-to-notify-building-regs was passed long ago...

AFAIK only if the building presented a danger then can the LABC
intervene. If the owner was clever enough to pull this stunt off, they
would have made
sure the main regs were met (eg foundations, fire related things, ...)

Wonder how Fidler is doing - last I read, it was going up to the Lords
(or is that the Supreme Court)...

he lost

tim

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...idler-cowshed-
mock-castle

Hasn't given up though - European Court next...

It is ironic - if it had remained, the same bloody council in 200 years
would be forcing listed status on it.

I admire him - not so much for trying to be sneaky but for building
something that looks externally rather better than most of the crap that
goes up in Reigate & Banstead...

Interesting angle by this judge:

"...but a judge ruled this week that the building hadn't really been
completed until the bales were removed..."

Sets an interesting precedent, unless it gets overturned...
--
Tim Watts

Managers, politicians and environmentalists: Nature's carbon buffer.

[tim....]

"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...
tim....
wibbled on Saturday 13 February 2010 09:56


"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...
andrew
wibbled on Saturday 13 February 2010 08:03

So what happens about building regs for electrics, flues, structure,
windows , footings etc on a house such as this?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/b...ts/8487326.stm

AJH

I presume they've used some expired time period to lapse the ability of
the
planners to do anything (same approach that Fidler's Castle used) - in
which
case, failure-to-notify-building-regs was passed long ago...

AFAIK only if the building presented a danger then can the LABC
intervene. If the owner was clever enough to pull this stunt off, they
would have made
sure the main regs were met (eg foundations, fire related things, ...)

Wonder how Fidler is doing - last I read, it was going up to the Lords
(or is that the Supreme Court)...

he lost

tim

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...idler-cowshed-
mock-castle

Hasn't given up though - European Court next...

On what grounds one wonders. The result is based upon a ruling that "the
building work isn't complete until the surrounding cover is removed".

The EU court isn't going to waste its time hearing arguements about that.

tim

[andrew]

Tim Lamb wrote:

In message , andrew
writes
So what happens about building regs for electrics, flues, structure,
windows , footings etc on a house such as this?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/b...ts/8487326.stm

I expect they followed the regs. Footings will be 900mm cube under each
upright. Light might be an issue but who knows how many windows are on
the other side.

But how does one prove footings are to the current requirement? In this case
he could used a structural engineer or surveyor to provide evidence of the
construction but this would implicate them as no submission has been made
to building control for a material change.

In defence of the 4 year rule.... I suppose, if nobody found a reason to
object to the actual use, then it meets the criteria for a greenbelt
development. Chap in Wales, who built a *castle* behind some straw
bales, is being made to demolish!

Is this different from the chap in Reigate that made two silos into towers
for his castle?

AJH

[Tim Watts]

tim....
wibbled on Saturday 13 February 2010 16:01


On what grounds one wonders. The result is based upon a ruling that "the
building work isn't complete until the surrounding cover is removed".

Dunno - maybe he's going to try a completely different tack to try to render
the technicalities of the last argument null and void?

The EU court isn't going to waste its time hearing arguements about that.

No, but I'm sure between a couple of baristers that this could spin out for
another few years whilst he enjoys his "castle". You can do this stuff if
you're rich...

Might have been cheaper though to move to a decent country and find a plot
of land where he could have done this legally...

--
Tim Watts

Managers, politicians and environmentalists: Nature's carbon buffer.

[Tim Lamb[_2_]]

In message , andrew
writes
Tim Lamb wrote:

In message , andrew
writes
So what happens about building regs for electrics, flues, structure,
windows , footings etc on a house such as this?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/b...ts/8487326.stm

I expect they followed the regs. Footings will be 900mm cube under each
upright. Light might be an issue but who knows how many windows are on
the other side.

But how does one prove footings are to the current requirement? In this case
he could used a structural engineer or surveyor to provide evidence of the
construction but this would implicate them as no submission has been made
to building control for a material change.

Photos are good. All the steel frame buildings I have erected, over 30
years, called for the same foundation pads.

In defence of the 4 year rule.... I suppose, if nobody found a reason to
object to the actual use, then it meets the criteria for a greenbelt
development. Chap in Wales, who built a *castle* behind some straw
bales, is being made to demolish!

Is this different from the chap in Reigate that made two silos into towers
for his castle?

I may have erred:-) I thought I saw the report in FWi but a quick search
has failed to find the article.

We are having supper with a planning consultant. I will ask.

regards

--
Tim Lamb

[andrew]

Tim Lamb wrote:

All the steel frame buildings I have erected, over 30
years, called for the same foundation pads.

Fine I have done the same for steel portal buildings but is this good enough
for a dwelling? Here on the weals the BCO seems to require 2m deep strip
footings.

Do footings have to extend below basements? Once you dig this deep you may
as well have a low headroom basement.

On a separate matter I may need a link to the structural engineer who
specifies internal support for decayed buildings, the boss wants to
rebuild a barn that started life as a 1860 brick built mansion till it was
gutted by fire in 1945. Existing use is as a mushroom growing building and
he wants to convert it to rentable workshop space. We've done a single
storey without problems but this one is 2 storey in height, though the
floor/ceiling is long gone.

BTW it's interesting that you see the advantage of 4 year historic use being
sensible for pp but object to 20 year public use to establish a footpath.

I too can agree on the continued need for laws of prescription, after all pp
is often just an excuse to tax development, otoh 4 years does seem a bit
short a period.

AJH

[geraldthehamster[_2_]]

On 13 Feb, 08:03, andrew wrote:
So what happens about building regs for electrics, flues, structure,
windows , footings etc on a house such as this?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/b...ts/8487326.stm

AJH

It's been completed for over a year, so unless it's actually
dangerous, there's nothing BC can do about it.

Cheers
Richard

[Tim Lamb[_2_]]

In message , andrew
writes
Tim Lamb wrote:

All the steel frame buildings I have erected, over 30
years, called for the same foundation pads.

Fine I have done the same for steel portal buildings but is this good enough
for a dwelling? Here on the weals the BCO seems to require 2m deep strip
footings.

Yes if it is only supporting the roof.

Do footings have to extend below basements? Once you dig this deep you may
as well have a low headroom basement.

I would think so. BRs discourage digging a trench deeper than a 45deg.
intercept from existing foundations.

On a separate matter I may need a link to the structural engineer who
specifies internal support for decayed buildings, the boss wants to
rebuild a barn that started life as a 1860 brick built mansion till it was
gutted by fire in 1945. Existing use is as a mushroom growing building and
he wants to convert it to rentable workshop space. We've done a single
storey without problems but this one is 2 storey in height, though the
floor/ceiling is long gone.

OK but my particular one needed a full digital survey of the building. I
was quoted 390ukp for floor layout plus heights, external elevations
150ukp, long and cross section showing timber details 300ukp.

The structural eng. fee was 1000ukp and included calcs. and sketch
drawings of the proposed frame.

BTW it's interesting that you see the advantage of 4 year historic use being
sensible for pp but object to 20 year public use to establish a footpath.

It only takes one objector to tip off the planning dept.

No landowner of sound mind is likely to permit such use to be
established without some documented agreement with highways. If he
intended such use he would be daft not to use it to improve his property
by arranging a trade off. It only requires 6 liars to claim they have
used a route unopposed with no test for those who have been turned back
to come forward.

I too can agree on the continued need for laws of prescription, after all pp
is often just an excuse to tax development, otoh 4 years does seem a bit
short a period.

AJH

regards



--
Tim Lamb

[Hugo Nebula]

[Default] On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 08:03:41 +0000, a certain chimpanzee,
andrew , randomly hit the keyboard and
wrote:

So what happens about building regs for electrics, flues, structure,
windows , footings etc on a house such as this?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/b...ts/8487326.stm

As others have pointed out, if it's been longer than two years* since
an offence under the Building Regulations (failure to notify of a
commencement, failure to notify of covering of any material laid over
site, drains, etc., failure to notify within five days of completion
of the work**, failure to notify of a change of use***, failure to
comply with any of the technical requirements of the regulations),
then action for a fine in the magistrate's court cannot be commenced,
and the issue of a 'section 36' (Building Act) notice cannot be taken
more than 12 months after the completion of the work in question.
However, the local authority could apply to the High Court for an
injunction to remove the work.

One imagines that they can never sell this building as a dwelling. One
presumes it doesn't have its own independant metered water or
electric supply (they wouldn't have wanted to take the risk that the
water or electric utilities would bubble them to the local authority),
the Council ain't going to collect their bins separately from the main
house if charging for waste ever happens. It looks like a barn with no
windows. It's unmortgageable.

* Changed a few years ago from the original six months. A case still
has to be brought within six months of discovery of the contravention.

** When did they 'complete' the work? One presumes they've never
notified Council Tax that it's a dwelling. If the Council/Councillors
wanted to take it further, they could be arguing that, if the owners
never told them it was completed, it's still work in progress. I would
be looking for them to say, "OK, now you've got your Certificate of
Lawful Use, so today's the day of completion, and here's your Section
36 notice to pull it down".

*** A separate process. At some point the building went from being a
barn to a dwelling, in which case the clock starts running again.
--
Hugo Nebula
"If no-one on the internet wants a piece of this,
just how far from the pack have I strayed"?