Roland Perry Wrote in message:
In message , at
16:34:36 on Thu, 20 Jun 2019, newshound
remarked:
On 20/06/2019 14:49, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 07:05:04 on Thu, 20 Jun
2019, The Natural Philosopher remarked:

I'm hoping that a hybrid approach will reduce:
the depth of foundations

Building control dicattes that
But would they be less than a classic all-brick cavity wall?

the overall wall thickness
...compared to a conventional cavity brick wall plus plaster.
I'm even happy if it turns out to be more insulated.
It'll have a fairly lightweight flat [yes, I know] roof.

First of all the easy way to build this is inside out. Put up the
stufdwork cover the ouside with semi permeable, whack in nails and
use those to key the external cladding brickwork to it
Unfortunately there's no access to the outside, because it's up
against a fence (that's the main reason it has no windows[1]). But
I'm told the planning people still need it to be brick (conservation
area, red line etc etc), in case the fence falls down and people can

[1] In that wall, ventilation will be in other walls.

I think you need to talk to Building Control.

I will, but first I'm tying to get a feel for whether this approach has
any merit before I start getting some costings.

They are presumably going to want to see standard footings and
buttresses (for single skin). I wonder if they will accept buttresses
"on the inside" to maximise your available space?

That's how garages are built.

You're not building a garage.

And it's not mainly about the space,
rather than the weight and therefore perhaps depth of foundations.

I suspect that reality, in the form of a chat with Building
Control, will rather kybosh this approach; introduce the party
wall act & stipulate the only worthwhile route... Unless of
course you successfully build it by stealth & keep it secret for
a few years....


--
Jim K


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/