Owain wrote:
dg wrote:
Although Building Regulations have changed over the years, much of the
basic structural parts are essentially the same - ie that walls and
foundations are adequate and safe for the loading.
So to prove that a wall or foundation will be safe, then could I just
point out a few properties from the early part of the century which
have been built a certain way and are still as sound today as when
built?
Why can't such an example be used as proof that a particular
construction method will be adequate and safe for then next 100 years
and thus comply with the Building Act?

Because it isn't proof that a particular construction method will be
adequate and safe. It is merely evidence that that particular house has
stayed standing, not that all houses built with that technique are
structurally sound. They weren't; the unsound ones have fallen down or
been demolished, and those standing may have had extensive repair work.

The Leaning Tower of Pisa is not an example to follow.

However, if your structural engineer can show by calculation that
whatever you're proposing is no less safe than the Approved Documents
then the council should accept that as being complying with the Regs.
You can, for example, have a Tudor style oak post and beam house if you
want to.

Indeed. I almost DO have such a house.

Extensive oak and softwood frame. BUT they wanted it checked by
structural engineers, and it ended up bolted together in many
places...and with bits of hidden steel.


Owain