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?

--
Roger Chapman

Roger wrote:
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 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

On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 10:56:45 +0100, Roger
wrote:

So where does Building Control want to get involved?

When you volunteer yourself by foolishly informing them.

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

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.

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?

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.
--
Hugo Nebula
"If no-one on the internet wants a piece of this,
just how far from the pack have you strayed?"

The message
from Hugo Nebula abuse@localhost contains these words:

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.

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 Chapman

The message
from The Natural Philosopher contains these words:

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.

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?)*

--
Roger Chapman

*Oh dear here I go again escalating a simple project into one too
complicated and/or too expensive for anywhere other than the round tuit
pile.

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

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

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.
--
Hugo Nebula
"If no-one on the internet wants a piece of this,
just how far from the pack have you strayed?"

The message
from Hugo Nebula abuse@localhost contains these words:

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

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.

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.

--
Roger Chapman

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

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.

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

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

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.
--
Hugo Nebula
"If no-one on the internet wants a piece of this,
just how far from the pack have you strayed?"

The message
from Hugo Nebula abuse@localhost 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.

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

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

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

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.

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 Chapman

The message
from Owain contains these words:

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.

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

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).

--
Roger Chapman

The message
from Owain contains these words:

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

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).

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

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.

--
Roger Chapman

On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 21:26:08 +0100, Hugo Nebula abuse@localhost
wrote:

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

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.

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?

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.

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?


--

On 27 Jul, 10:56, Roger wrote:
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.

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

My hovel has a slight damp floor problem

//snip

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.

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 http://www.ardex.co.uk/

There's comprehensive 40+ page guide at http://www.ardex.co.uk/pdfs/saf%20brochure.pdf

Basic procedu

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

The message . com
from jim contains these words:

snip

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?

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.

--
Roger Chapman

On 31 Jul, 19:10, Roger wrote:
The message . com
from jim contains these words:

snip

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?

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.

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.


I would ideally like to reduce the floor height


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
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.

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

The message . com
from jim contains these words:

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?

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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 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.

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.

I will bear that in mind.


I would ideally like to reduce the floor height


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'.

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.


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.

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?

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.

Good luck

HTH

Thanks.

--
Roger Chapman

On Wed, 1 Aug 2007 22:04:41 +0100, Roger
wrote:

The message . com
from jim contains these words:

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?

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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 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.

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.

I will bear that in mind.


I would ideally like to reduce the floor height


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'.

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.


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.

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?

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.

In which case just get on and do it either with or without Building
Regs approval. Personally I'd say screw the BCO, as Regs Approval in
this case does nothing but cost you money you could spend on extra
insulation, or a jigger pick, or skip hire, or a concrete pump or a
whole multitude of more useful things.

Forget skimming with Ardex as it only makes a smooth surface and does
bugger all insulation wise. I used it in my workshop and it's hard
wearing but with a knackered lossy concrete floor in the house it's
not a solution apart from where you might wish to level a floor out
for laying vinyl tiles.

A proper DPC, insulation and a smooth floor will transform comfort and
contribute towards saving a fortune in heating costs.

Paying the BCO will do nothing but lighten your wallet




--

The message
from Matt contains these words:

but with a knackered lossy concrete floor in the house it's
not a solution apart from where you might wish to level a floor out
for laying vinyl tiles.

One of the many things that has me dithering is what floor coverings are
compatible with solid floor under floor heating. Anything will act as an
insulator to some extent and a nice thick carpet of even the mat under a
floating floor will have a considerable effect.

A proper DPC, insulation and a smooth floor will transform comfort and
contribute towards saving a fortune in heating costs.

Floor losses are small compared with what I lose through my uninsulated
(2 ft thick stone) walls and the dubious rubbish in the sloping roof.
(Most of the house lacks a loft. I sometimes wake up in the middle of
the night and wonder what those railway lines [3 purlins and a ridge
pole] are doing above me. :-))

Paying the BCO will do nothing but lighten your wallet

Too true and it is a light enough wallet to start with.

--
Roger Chapman