We're about to buy a house, and _next_ _door_ the neighbour has
"converted" his loft. He's a roofer, his father is a builder. I don't
know them from Adam.

The conversion (and the loft!) isn't very tall - it's about 6ft tall
along the very middle, but move 1 ft either way and you bang your
head.

He's using it as his main bedroom - though he said that, if sold, the
room couldn't be counted or listed as a bedroom because of the reduced
head height, though it would probably be valued as one.

The bizarre thing is that in this 1973 terraced house, he claims not
to have strengthened the roof, rafters, etc because "it was already
strong enough". He's used kingspan+plaster board, added a velux window
at the back, the stairs are accessed via a door, and the whole thing
looks very nice. Other doors in the house are new, but I've no idea if
they would survive a fire for 30 minutes.


The thing is, I would like to convert the loft of the house we're
buying (next door!) in a similar way. I want a habitable room (not a
loft). I don't care if it doesn't count as a bedroom due to the
height, but I certainly _do_ care that it's safe (they'll be some
records kept up there - they're heavy!), and wouldn't impair a future
sale of the house.

I've searched this group for "loft conversion" stories, and found that
some people seem fine with "attic rooms that aren't really bedrooms",
while others find problems getting a mortgage due to rooms without
building control approval.


So, two questions:

1. how has the neighbour got away with it (or how does he think he'll
get away with it when he comes to sell)?
2. what should I do?

Cheers,
David.

2Bdecided wrote:
We're about to buy a house, and _next_ _door_ the neighbour has
"converted" his loft. He's a roofer, his father is a builder. I don't
know them from Adam.

The conversion (and the loft!) isn't very tall - it's about 6ft tall
along the very middle, but move 1 ft either way and you bang your
head.

He's using it as his main bedroom - though he said that, if sold, the
room couldn't be counted or listed as a bedroom because of the reduced
head height, though it would probably be valued as one.

The bizarre thing is that in this 1973 terraced house, he claims not
to have strengthened the roof, rafters, etc because "it was already
strong enough". He's used kingspan+plaster board, added a velux window
at the back, the stairs are accessed via a door, and the whole thing
looks very nice. Other doors in the house are new, but I've no idea if
they would survive a fire for 30 minutes.


The thing is, I would like to convert the loft of the house we're
buying (next door!) in a similar way. I want a habitable room (not a
loft). I don't care if it doesn't count as a bedroom due to the
height, but I certainly _do_ care that it's safe (they'll be some
records kept up there - they're heavy!), and wouldn't impair a future
sale of the house.

I've searched this group for "loft conversion" stories, and found that
some people seem fine with "attic rooms that aren't really bedrooms",
while others find problems getting a mortgage due to rooms without
building control approval.


So, two questions:

1. how has the neighbour got away with it (or how does he think he'll
get away with it when he comes to sell)?
2. what should I do?

Cheers,
David.

I'd talk to a loft conversion firm. That way you'd find out what your
options are.

"2Bdecided" wrote in message
...
We're about to buy a house, and _next_ _door_ the neighbour has
"converted" his loft. He's a roofer, his father is a builder. I don't
know them from Adam.

The conversion (and the loft!) isn't very tall - it's about 6ft tall
along the very middle, but move 1 ft either way and you bang your
head.

He's using it as his main bedroom - though he said that, if sold, the
room couldn't be counted or listed as a bedroom because of the reduced
head height, though it would probably be valued as one.

The bizarre thing is that in this 1973 terraced house, he claims not
to have strengthened the roof, rafters, etc because "it was already
strong enough". He's used kingspan+plaster board, added a velux window
at the back, the stairs are accessed via a door, and the whole thing
looks very nice. Other doors in the house are new, but I've no idea if
they would survive a fire for 30 minutes.


The thing is, I would like to convert the loft of the house we're
buying (next door!) in a similar way. I want a habitable room (not a
loft). I don't care if it doesn't count as a bedroom due to the
height, but I certainly _do_ care that it's safe (they'll be some
records kept up there - they're heavy!), and wouldn't impair a future
sale of the house.

I've searched this group for "loft conversion" stories, and found that
some people seem fine with "attic rooms that aren't really bedrooms",
while others find problems getting a mortgage due to rooms without
building control approval.


So, two questions:

1. how has the neighbour got away with it (or how does he think he'll
get away with it when he comes to sell)?
2. what should I do?

He may not have sought or received planning permission and/or building
regulations approval. In fact it sounds like a typical cowboy builder bodge.

Ask the local planning department if you need/would get plannign approval.

Peter Crosland

"2Bdecided" wrote in message
...
We're about to buy a house, and _next_ _door_ the neighbour has
"converted" his loft. He's a roofer, his father is a builder. I don't
know them from Adam.

SNIP
I love this one.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/l...re/3770939.stm

Baz

2Bdecided
wibbled on Friday 20 November 2009 11:49

We're about to buy a house, and _next_ _door_ the neighbour has
"converted" his loft. He's a roofer, his father is a builder. I don't
know them from Adam.

The conversion (and the loft!) isn't very tall - it's about 6ft tall
along the very middle, but move 1 ft either way and you bang your
head.

He's using it as his main bedroom - though he said that, if sold, the
room couldn't be counted or listed as a bedroom because of the reduced
head height, though it would probably be valued as one.

The bizarre thing is that in this 1973 terraced house, he claims not
to have strengthened the roof, rafters, etc because "it was already
strong enough". He's used kingspan+plaster board, added a velux window
at the back, the stairs are accessed via a door, and the whole thing
looks very nice. Other doors in the house are new, but I've no idea if
they would survive a fire for 30 minutes.


The thing is, I would like to convert the loft of the house we're
buying (next door!) in a similar way. I want a habitable room (not a
loft). I don't care if it doesn't count as a bedroom due to the
height, but I certainly _do_ care that it's safe (they'll be some
records kept up there - they're heavy!), and wouldn't impair a future
sale of the house.

I've searched this group for "loft conversion" stories, and found that
some people seem fine with "attic rooms that aren't really bedrooms",
while others find problems getting a mortgage due to rooms without
building control approval.


So, two questions:

1. how has the neighbour got away with it (or how does he think he'll
get away with it when he comes to sell)?
2. what should I do?

Cheers,
David.

You can insulate your loft without PP, though technically you might need BR
(modifcation of 25% of a thermal element) but no one is going to bust you
for this - just do it.

You can board your loft floor.

You may even be able to shove a velux window in - this is the only bit AFAIK
that PP may be involved with if you don't change the roof line.

Adding fixed stairs becomes dodgey, but if you had a ladder going through a
hatch, well, that's pretty normal.

If you then wanted to shove a bed in your *loft* that's your problem...

The point being, that if you are able to undo anything that may be dubious
at the time of sale (ie remove bed and ladder), I can't see it matters what
you do. As long as you accept the risk of falling down the ladder half
asleep, or your insurance company getting arsey about someone sleeping up
there. But your a big boy, you decide. You're not going to let any children
kip up there presumably?

Your main problem is how strong is the loft floor? Your bed is going to
point load up either 2 or 4 ceiling rafters significantly not to mention
your other stuff.

If you do something to strengthen the floor, then you may need BR as this is
rather more permanant.

I've seen this done in a house I was looking at buying - all the owners had
done was one velux window (legal round my way on the rearside) and a guard
rail around the hatch which was otherwise pretty standard. And the "ladder"
was bolted on.

They were quite upfront with the floor not being beefed up and that it
wasn't really a bedroom.

Didn't phase me in the slightest. What's the worst I could have done -
unbolted the ladder and called it a loft with a window.

But - if you'd like to do a pukka job, including possibly getting more head
height with a dormer and beefing up the floor, then it would be worth
having a chat to some firms. At least your efforts will partly payback with
added value on the house.

--
Tim Watts

This space intentionally left blank...

On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 03:49:59 -0800 (PST), 2Bdecided
wrote:


2. what should I do?

Buy a bigger house.

On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 12:27:43 -0000, "Peter Crosland"
wrote:

He may not have sought or received planning permission and/or building
regulations approval. In fact it sounds like a typical cowboy builder bodge.


Agreed. There are also insurance issues. In the event of a fire, an
insurer may not pay out.

Of course house fires don't ever happen ...

On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 03:49:59 -0800 (PST), 2Bdecided
wrote:




So, two questions:

1. how has the neighbour got away with it (or how does he think he'll
get away with it when he comes to sell)?
2. what should I do?

Cheers,
David.

There are frequent conversations about dodgy loft conversions here
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/...play.html?f=16

--
http://www.Christmasfreebies.co.uk
http://www.holidayunder100.co.uk

On 20 Nov, 13:50, mogga wrote:
On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 03:49:59 -0800 (PST), 2Bdecided

wrote:

So, two questions:

1. how has the neighbour got away with it (or how does he think he'll
get away with it when he comes to sell)?
2. what should I do?

Cheers,
David.

There are frequent conversations about dodgy loft conversions here http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/...play.html?f=16

Thanks - a search of that was very helpful.

Cheers,
David.

On Nov 20, 11:49*am, 2Bdecided wrote:

We're about to buy a house, and _next_ _door_ the neighbour has
"converted" his loft. He's a roofer, his father is a builder. I don't
know them from Adam.

The conversion (and the loft!) isn't very tall - it's about 6ft tall
along the very middle, but move 1 ft either way and you bang your
head.

He's using it as his main bedroom - though he said that, if sold, the
room couldn't be counted or listed as a bedroom because of the reduced
head height, though it would probably be valued as one.

The bizarre thing is that in this 1973 terraced house, he claims not
to have strengthened the roof, rafters, etc because "it was already
strong enough". He's used kingspan+plaster board, added a velux window
at the back, the stairs are accessed via a door, and the whole thing
looks very nice. Other doors in the house are new, but I've no idea if
they would survive a fire for 30 minutes.

The thing is, I would like to convert the loft of the house we're
buying (next door!) in a similar way. I want a habitable room (not a
loft). I don't care if it doesn't count as a bedroom due to the
height, but I certainly _do_ care that it's safe (they'll be some
records kept up there - they're heavy!), and wouldn't impair a future
sale of the house.

I've searched this group for "loft conversion" stories, and found that
some people seem fine with "attic rooms that aren't really bedrooms",
while others find problems getting a mortgage due to rooms without
building control approval.

So, two questions:

1. how has the neighbour got away with it (or how does he think he'll
get away with it when he comes to sell)?
2. what should I do?

Cheers,
David.


If you want the relevant paperwork for it you need to insulate the
roof, and that'll leave you with not enough height to stand up. The
only approach then would be to lower the loft floor or opt for a thin
solid joistless floor. Also going from 2 storeys to 3 adds more
requirements.

The other approach is which you do what you choose and live with the
reuslt.


NT

2Bdecided wrote:
We're about to buy a house, and _next_ _door_ the neighbour has
"converted" his loft. He's a roofer, his father is a builder. I don't
know them from Adam.

The conversion (and the loft!) isn't very tall - it's about 6ft tall
along the very middle, but move 1 ft either way and you bang your
head.

He's using it as his main bedroom - though he said that, if sold, the
room couldn't be counted or listed as a bedroom because of the reduced
head height, though it would probably be valued as one.

The bizarre thing is that in this 1973 terraced house, he claims not
to have strengthened the roof, rafters, etc because "it was already
strong enough". He's used kingspan+plaster board, added a velux window
at the back, the stairs are accessed via a door, and the whole thing
looks very nice. Other doors in the house are new, but I've no idea if
they would survive a fire for 30 minutes.


The thing is, I would like to convert the loft of the house we're
buying (next door!) in a similar way. I want a habitable room (not a
loft). I don't care if it doesn't count as a bedroom due to the
height, but I certainly _do_ care that it's safe (they'll be some
records kept up there - they're heavy!), and wouldn't impair a future
sale of the house.

I've searched this group for "loft conversion" stories, and found that
some people seem fine with "attic rooms that aren't really bedrooms",
while others find problems getting a mortgage due to rooms without
building control approval.


So, two questions:

1. how has the neighbour got away with it (or how does he think he'll
get away with it when he comes to sell)?
2. what should I do?


I'm a chartered structural engineer and i must
confess to being terrified by much of the 'advice'
you're getting on here.

If you follow what's being suggested then I'm
afraid you'll end up in pretty much the same mire
as your neighbour. You need paid-for professional
advice from an architect or a structural engineer.

Maybe call in to see your friendly LABC initially
and get some good, free advice to point you in the
right direction

On 20 Nov, 18:46, Roof wrote:
2Bdecided wrote:
We're about to buy a house, and _next_ _door_ the neighbour has
"converted" his loft. He's a roofer, his father is a builder. I don't
know them from Adam.

The conversion (and the loft!) isn't very tall - it's about 6ft tall
along the very middle, but move 1 ft either way and you bang your
head.

He's using it as his main bedroom - though he said that, if sold, the
room couldn't be counted or listed as a bedroom because of the reduced
head height, though it would probably be valued as one.

The bizarre thing is that in this 1973 terraced house, he claims not
to have strengthened the roof, rafters, etc because "it was already
strong enough". He's used kingspan+plaster board, added a velux window
at the back, the stairs are accessed via a door, and the whole thing
looks very nice. Other doors in the house are new, but I've no idea if
they would survive a fire for 30 minutes.

The thing is, I would like to convert the loft of the house we're
buying (next door!) in a similar way. I want a habitable room (not a
loft). I don't care if it doesn't count as a bedroom due to the
height, but I certainly _do_ care that it's safe (they'll be some
records kept up there - they're heavy!), and wouldn't impair a future
sale of the house.

I've searched this group for "loft conversion" stories, and found that
some people seem fine with "attic rooms that aren't really bedrooms",
while others find problems getting a mortgage due to rooms without
building control approval.

So, two questions:

1. how has the neighbour got away with it (or how does he think he'll
get away with it when he comes to sell)?
2. what should I do?

I'm a chartered structural engineer and i must
confess to being terrified by much of the 'advice'
you're getting on here.

perhaps this is a bit too "real world" from your ivory tower? :)
I've just read this through and I'm not that surprised that your
training etc leads you to that statement...whether I agree with you is
a different matter...

If you follow what's being suggested then I'm
afraid you'll end up in pretty much the same mire
as your neighbour.

which is what exactly?

You need paid-for professional
advice from an architect or a structural engineer.

naturally!


Maybe call in to see your friendly LABC initially
and get some good, free advice to point you in the
right direction

I concur on that one..

JimK

On Nov 20, 11:49*am, 2Bdecided wrote:
We're about to buy a house, and _next_ _door_ the neighbour has
"converted" his loft. He's a roofer, his father is a builder. I don't
know them from Adam.

The conversion (and the loft!) isn't very tall - it's about 6ft tall
along the very middle, but move 1 ft either way and you bang your
head.

He's using it as his main bedroom - though he said that, if sold, the
room couldn't be counted or listed as a bedroom because of the reduced
head height, though it would probably be valued as one.

The bizarre thing is that in this 1973 terraced house, he claims not
to have strengthened the roof, rafters, etc because "it was already
strong enough". He's used kingspan+plaster board, added a velux window
at the back, the stairs are accessed via a door, and the whole thing
looks very nice. Other doors in the house are new, but I've no idea if
they would survive a fire for 30 minutes.

The thing is, I would like to convert the loft of the house we're
buying (next door!) in a similar way. I want a habitable room (not a
loft). I don't care if it doesn't count as a bedroom due to the
height, but I certainly _do_ care that it's safe (they'll be some
records kept up there - they're heavy!), and wouldn't impair a future
sale of the house.

I've searched this group for "loft conversion" stories, and found that
some people seem fine with "attic rooms that aren't really bedrooms",
while others find problems getting a mortgage due to rooms without
building control approval.

So, two questions:

1. how has the neighbour got away with it (or how does he think he'll
get away with it when he comes to sell)?
2. what should I do?

Cheers,
David.

Over the years I have come across many loft conversions that do have
building regulations and/or planning permission. You can spend £1000's
on a loft conversion and it will add no value at all if it is non
compliant. In fact, this would devalue a property. You should call in
a loft conversion expert and they will provide a free survey and
quote, although if you haven't exchanged there maybe an admin fee.

On 20 Nov, 21:20, lordnelson wrote:
a loft conversion expert and they will provide a free survey and
quote, although if you haven't exchanged there maybe an admin fee.

an admin fee if not exchanged?????

are you a loft "con"version specialist perchance.....

JimK

John Rumm wrote:
Roof wrote:

I'm a chartered structural engineer and i must confess to being
terrified by much of the 'advice' you're getting on here.

Was the title of your post an attempt to get your high horse to slow down?

If you follow what's being suggested then I'm afraid you'll end up in
pretty much the same mire as your neighbour. You need paid-for
professional advice from an architect or a structural engineer.

Perhaps you reading a different thread to the rest of us? So far most
advice I have seen given in this thread describes the various ways in
which the conversion described will *deviate* from building regs and
suggests consulting LABC and Planning authorities to clarify the
situation in this circumstance. Not dissimilar to your own suggestion
and hardly a road to disaster.


When you use phrases like this, '...there may be
no requirement for strengthening of the roof
structure, however there will be one for
strengthening the floor', I know that you don't
know what you're talking about and, that being the
case, you're simply not qualified to give out advice.

lordnelson wrote:
On Nov 20, 11:49 am, 2Bdecided wrote:
We're about to buy a house, and _next_ _door_ the neighbour has
"converted" his loft. He's a roofer, his father is a builder. I don't
know them from Adam.

The conversion (and the loft!) isn't very tall - it's about 6ft tall
along the very middle, but move 1 ft either way and you bang your
head.

He's using it as his main bedroom - though he said that, if sold, the
room couldn't be counted or listed as a bedroom because of the reduced
head height, though it would probably be valued as one.

The bizarre thing is that in this 1973 terraced house, he claims not
to have strengthened the roof, rafters, etc because "it was already
strong enough". He's used kingspan+plaster board, added a velux window
at the back, the stairs are accessed via a door, and the whole thing
looks very nice. Other doors in the house are new, but I've no idea if
they would survive a fire for 30 minutes.

The thing is, I would like to convert the loft of the house we're
buying (next door!) in a similar way. I want a habitable room (not a
loft). I don't care if it doesn't count as a bedroom due to the
height, but I certainly _do_ care that it's safe (they'll be some
records kept up there - they're heavy!), and wouldn't impair a future
sale of the house.

I've searched this group for "loft conversion" stories, and found that
some people seem fine with "attic rooms that aren't really bedrooms",
while others find problems getting a mortgage due to rooms without
building control approval.

So, two questions:

1. how has the neighbour got away with it (or how does he think he'll
get away with it when he comes to sell)?
2. what should I do?

Cheers,
David.

Over the years I have come across many loft conversions that do have
building regulations and/or planning permission. You can spend £1000's
on a loft conversion and it will add no value at all if it is non
compliant. In fact, this would devalue a property. You should call in
a loft conversion expert and they will provide a free survey and
quote, although if you haven't exchanged there maybe an admin fee.


How would you suggest the OP satisfies himself
that the 'loft conversion expert' he selects is
competent?

On 20 Nov, 21:27, Roof wrote:
John Rumm wrote:
Roof wrote:

I'm a chartered structural engineer and i must confess to being
terrified by much of the 'advice' you're getting on here.

Was the title of your post an attempt to get your high horse to slow down?

If you follow what's being suggested then I'm afraid you'll end up in
pretty much the same mire as your neighbour. You need paid-for
professional advice from an architect or a structural engineer.

Perhaps you reading a different thread to the rest of us? So far most
advice I have seen given in this thread describes the various ways in
which the conversion described will *deviate* from building regs and
suggests consulting LABC and Planning authorities to clarify the
situation in this circumstance. Not dissimilar to your own suggestion
and hardly a road to disaster.

When you use phrases like this, '...there may be
no requirement for strengthening of the roof
structure, however there will be one for
strengthening the floor', I know that you don't
know what you're talking about and, that being the
case, you're simply not qualified to give out advice.

So in the spirit of public newsgroups - explain it then "alleged
expert" so we can all learn from your specialist wisdom.....

JimK wrote:
On 20 Nov, 21:27, Roof wrote:
John Rumm wrote:
Roof wrote:
I'm a chartered structural engineer and i must confess to being
terrified by much of the 'advice' you're getting on here.
Was the title of your post an attempt to get your high horse to slow down?
If you follow what's being suggested then I'm afraid you'll end up in
pretty much the same mire as your neighbour. You need paid-for
professional advice from an architect or a structural engineer.
Perhaps you reading a different thread to the rest of us? So far most
advice I have seen given in this thread describes the various ways in
which the conversion described will *deviate* from building regs and
suggests consulting LABC and Planning authorities to clarify the
situation in this circumstance. Not dissimilar to your own suggestion
and hardly a road to disaster.
When you use phrases like this, '...there may be
no requirement for strengthening of the roof
structure, however there will be one for
strengthening the floor', I know that you don't
know what you're talking about and, that being the
case, you're simply not qualified to give out advice.

So in the spirit of public newsgroups - explain it then "alleged
expert" so we can all learn from your specialist wisdom.....




It isn't 'specialist wisdom', Jim, it's merely an
understanding of structural principle. You don't
need the knowledge; leave it to the people that
know what they're doing with it.

On 20 Nov, 21:37, Roof wrote:
JimK wrote:
On 20 Nov, 21:27, Roof wrote:
John Rumm wrote:
Roof wrote:
I'm a chartered structural engineer and i must confess to being
terrified by much of the 'advice' you're getting on here.
Was the title of your post an attempt to get your high horse to slow down?
If you follow what's being suggested then I'm afraid you'll end up in
pretty much the same mire as your neighbour. You need paid-for
professional advice from an architect or a structural engineer.
Perhaps you reading a different thread to the rest of us? So far most
advice I have seen given in this thread describes the various ways in
which the conversion described will *deviate* from building regs and
suggests consulting LABC and Planning authorities to clarify the
situation in this circumstance. Not dissimilar to your own suggestion
and hardly a road to disaster.
When you use phrases like this, '...there may be
no requirement for strengthening of the roof
structure, however there will be one for
strengthening the floor', I know that you don't
know what you're talking about and, that being the
case, you're simply not qualified to give out advice.

So in the spirit of public newsgroups - explain it then "alleged
expert" so we can all learn from your specialist wisdom.....

It isn't 'specialist wisdom', Jim, it's merely an
understanding of structural principle. You don't
need the knowledge; leave it to the people that
know what they're doing with it.

yeah yeah yeah...

So no explanation for your derision then? sounds about right.. quiet
at the office?

Why are you touting as doom-monger on UK-DIY if you're not prepared to
explain your position ?

JimK

Roof
wibbled on Friday 20 November 2009 21:27


When you use phrases like this, '...there may be
no requirement for strengthening of the roof
structure, however there will be one for
strengthening the floor', I know that you don't
know what you're talking about and, that being the
case, you're simply not qualified to give out advice.

Sounds like hot air to me. The strength of the floor is an obvious point
that needs to be considered. in most cases.

Unless the floor gains much of it's strength from the roof, or the
conversion is going to remove a lot of the roof or add weight to it, why
would the roof need strengthening? Even with mine, 2 dormers and a huge
amount of the original roof is chopped away, nothing much has been
strengthened beyond the floor and the addition of an extra "ridge beam"
(below the existing ridge beam, to take the weight of the centre of the
dormer roof. Of course the purlin supports have been replaced and
repositioned but that's par for the course.

You pop out of nowhere and start accusing people who have actually built
their own loft extensions (properly and by the book) of not knowing
anything.

Would you like to back your own credibility up as you have no history here
to base any judgement on?

Cheers

Tim

--
Tim Watts

This space intentionally left blank...

Roof
wibbled on Friday 20 November 2009 21:37


It isn't 'specialist wisdom', Jim, it's merely an
understanding of structural principle. You don't
need the knowledge; leave it to the people that
know what they're doing with it.

Well, there's an attitude to put the Holy Guild of Master Masons to shame.

Or you are a troll and I claim my £5.

--
Tim Watts

This space intentionally left blank...

On 20 Nov, 21:46, Tim W wrote:

Or you are a troll and I claim my £5.


smells about right Tim, can I split it with you? :)

JimK

Tim W wrote:
Roof
wibbled on Friday 20 November 2009 21:27


When you use phrases like this, '...there may be
no requirement for strengthening of the roof
structure, however there will be one for
strengthening the floor', I know that you don't
know what you're talking about and, that being the
case, you're simply not qualified to give out advice.

Sounds like hot air to me. The strength of the floor is an obvious point
that needs to be considered. in most cases.

Unless the floor gains much of it's strength from the roof, or the
conversion is going to remove a lot of the roof or add weight to it, why
would the roof need strengthening? Even with mine, 2 dormers and a huge
amount of the original roof is chopped away, nothing much has been
strengthened beyond the floor and the addition of an extra "ridge beam"
(below the existing ridge beam, to take the weight of the centre of the
dormer roof. Of course the purlin supports have been replaced and
repositioned but that's par for the course.

You pop out of nowhere and start accusing people who have actually built
their own loft extensions (properly and by the book) of not knowing
anything.

Would you like to back your own credibility up as you have no history here
to base any judgement on?


No, I'm not accusing anybody of 'not knowing
anything', I'm suggesting that people that don't
understand structural principles shouldn't give
structural advice.

From the way you describe the work carried out on
your own roof, I know that you don't understand
how your roof behaves structurally.

Roof
wibbled on Friday 20 November 2009 22:05


No, I'm not accusing anybody of 'not knowing
anything', I'm suggesting that people that don't
understand structural principles shouldn't give
structural advice.

From the way you describe the work carried out on
your own roof, I know that you don't understand
how your roof behaves structurally.

Then kindly prove you do. Otherwise your words might as well be the
trumpeting emissions of an after-curry kip.

I learnt a long time ago to take a general distain people who are verbally
all fur coat and no knickers...

--
Tim Watts

This space intentionally left blank...

Tim W wrote:
Roof
wibbled on Friday 20 November 2009 22:05


No, I'm not accusing anybody of 'not knowing
anything', I'm suggesting that people that don't
understand structural principles shouldn't give
structural advice.

From the way you describe the work carried out on
your own roof, I know that you don't understand
how your roof behaves structurally.

Then kindly prove you do. Otherwise your words might as well be the
trumpeting emissions of an after-curry kip.

I learnt a long time ago to take a general distain people who are verbally
all fur coat and no knickers...


Or how about you describe your roof structure to
me and explain how it stands up, for the situation
before and after you converted the roof space?

No, I'm not accusing anybody of 'not knowing anything', I'm suggesting
that people that don't understand structural principles shouldn't give
structural advice.

From the way you describe the work carried out on your own roof, I know
that you don't understand how your roof behaves structurally.



15 years ago when we bought our current house it was an absolute wreck of a
house and riddled with Dry Rot. We looked for professional structural advice
(especially as the dry rot was having a good old munch on the ground floor,
first floor and roof timbers) and the advice we were given was frighteningly
expensive and time consuming. A local builder had a look and for a tiny
fraction of the price and time he supported the house/roof with dozens of
acro props and in no time he'd cut out the ground floor, first floor and
roof timbers and replaced and treated all the roof and floor timbers.

Sorry 'roof' but sometimes the more accomplished DIY person or local builder
has more knowledge and common sense then the 'professionals' and their
certificates and diplomas.

Ash

PS. ... the house/roof is still standing and no sign of the dry rot

Remember the Ark was built by an amateurs and the Titanic was built by
professionals

Ash wrote:
No, I'm not accusing anybody of 'not knowing anything', I'm suggesting
that people that don't understand structural principles shouldn't give
structural advice.

From the way you describe the work carried out on your own roof, I know
that you don't understand how your roof behaves structurally.



15 years ago when we bought our current house it was an absolute wreck of a
house and riddled with Dry Rot. We looked for professional structural advice
(especially as the dry rot was having a good old munch on the ground floor,
first floor and roof timbers) and the advice we were given was frighteningly
expensive and time consuming. A local builder had a look and for a tiny
fraction of the price and time he supported the house/roof with dozens of
acro props and in no time he'd cut out the ground floor, first floor and
roof timbers and replaced and treated all the roof and floor timbers.

Sorry 'roof' but sometimes the more accomplished DIY person or local builder
has more knowledge and common sense then the 'professionals' and their
certificates and diplomas.

Ash

PS. ... the house/roof is still standing and no sign of the dry rot





What you're describing is a straightforward repair
situation. I would expect any competent builder
to be capable of replacing deteriorated timber
members on a like for like basis.

What bothers me is who gave you the advice in the
first place that you needed 'professional
structural advice'...was it someone on this newsgroup?

What you're describing is a straightforward repair situation. I would
expect any competent builder to be capable of replacing deteriorated
timber members on a like for like basis.

What bothers me is who gave you the advice in the first place that you
needed 'professional structural advice'...was it someone on this
newsgroup?

No ... not this Newsgroup .... but if you look at a few more threads you'll
find this Newsgroup offers a lot of good old common sense advice and also
professional advice.

It was the damned building surveyor who, as a condition of a mortgage,
recommended a full structural survey and it was them that wanted to provide
additional support to the walls, floors and roof whilst the work was
undertaken. They even wanted to underpin part of the house because it had
settled a little (the house was built circa 1900) all of which was over the
top in my humble opinion and proved to be over the top because the local
builder knew the houses and the area and what to expect from a 100 year old
house.

Ash

On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 18:46:04 +0000, Roof wrote:
I'm a chartered structural engineer and i must
confess to being terrified by much of the 'advice'
you're getting on here.

Do you have any experience of fall-out shelters?

Ash wrote:
What you're describing is a straightforward repair situation. I would
expect any competent builder to be capable of replacing deteriorated
timber members on a like for like basis.

What bothers me is who gave you the advice in the first place that you
needed 'professional structural advice'...was it someone on this
newsgroup?

No ... not this Newsgroup .... but if you look at a few more threads you'll
find this Newsgroup offers a lot of good old common sense advice and also
professional advice.

That it might be, but it is not the right place to
be giving out structural advice.

It was the damned building surveyor who, as a condition of a mortgage,
recommended a full structural survey and it was them that wanted to provide
additional support to the walls, floors and roof whilst the work was
undertaken. They even wanted to underpin part of the house because it had
settled a little (the house was built circa 1900) all of which was over the
top in my humble opinion and proved to be over the top because the local
builder knew the houses and the area and what to expect from a 100 year old
house.

A 'building surveyor' is not a structural engineer
and a 'full structural survey' is nothing more
than a wordy condition survey.

What did your builder suggest caused the
settlement? And each time you buy buildings
insurance do you advise them that your house has
suffered historic structural movement and that you
chose to ignore professional advice on putting it
right? Because if you did, I doubt you would get
anyone to take on the risk.

Jules wrote:
On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 18:46:04 +0000, Roof wrote:
I'm a chartered structural engineer and i must
confess to being terrified by much of the 'advice'
you're getting on here.

Do you have any experience of fall-out shelters?


Do you?

Roof
wibbled on Friday 20 November 2009 22:25


Or how about you describe your roof structure to
me and explain how it stands up, for the situation
before and after you converted the roof space?

You're the one making grandious claims, so for the last time, put up or shut
up.

I wonder if Dribble has got bored with sparking and plumbing and decided to
morph into a structural expert. At least his hacksaw might find a
justifiable use at last :O

--
Tim Watts

This space intentionally left blank...

Tim W wrote:
Roof
wibbled on Friday 20 November 2009 22:25


Or how about you describe your roof structure to
me and explain how it stands up, for the situation
before and after you converted the roof space?

You're the one making grandious claims, so for the last time, put up or shut
up.

I wonder if Dribble has got bored with sparking and plumbing and decided to
morph into a structural expert. At least his hacksaw might find a
justifiable use at last :O


My 'claim' as you put it, is that people that
don't understand structural principles shouldn't
give structural advice. You shouldn't be giving
out structural advice in a d-i-y newsgroup. Does
this make any sense yet?

That it might be, but it is not the right place to be giving out
structural advice.

But you're giving advice aren't you?


It was the damned building surveyor who, as a condition of a mortgage,
recommended a full structural survey and it was them that wanted to
provide additional support to the walls, floors and roof whilst the work
was undertaken. They even wanted to underpin part of the house because it
had settled a little (the house was built circa 1900) all of which was
over the top in my humble opinion and proved to be over the top because
the local builder knew the houses and the area and what to expect from a
100 year old house.

A 'building surveyor' is not a structural engineer and a 'full structural
survey' is nothing more than a wordy condition survey.

The building surveyor called in the structural engineer


What did your builder suggest caused the settlement? And each time you
buy buildings insurance do you advise them that your house has suffered
historic structural movement and that you chose to ignore professional
advice on putting it right? Because if you did, I doubt you would get
anyone to take on the risk.

Settlement
1. The house is circa 100 years old so you'd expect some settlement
2. The house is built on clay
3. Since 1900 additional drainage, pumping stations etc have been installed
in city to lower the water table which has led to some drying of the clay
4. The house is built on stepped brick foundations and not modern solid
concrete foundations
5. World War 2 and a lot of bombs !

Insurance
1. Ha ... caught you out ... you're working hand in glove with the insurance
companies aren't you to push up premiums!
2. The 'best professional advice' I got was from the local builder who
agreed with me that there was absolutely no need whatsoever to underpin the
house. The house is 100 years old and you can't expect the walls to be 100%
plum.Over about 10m the house wall maybe drops 2to3mm but is that sufficient
to underpin ... I think not ... there's no large cracks and the house is in
keeping with the houses either side and is water tight and repointed to a
high standard. To the average 'common' eye the house looks fine but to the
pedantic money grabbing 'I've got a diploma' professional it's a gold mine
for structural repair ... B#####ks

Ash

No

Ash wrote:

Insurance
1. Ha ... caught you out ... you're working hand in glove with the insurance
companies aren't you to push up premiums!

No, Ash, no vested interest in insurance. I'm
just aware of a number of instances where
insurance companies have withdrawn cover and
refused to settle claims for structural damage as
a result of non-disclosure

Roof
wibbled on Friday 20 November 2009 23:08

Tim W wrote:
Roof
wibbled on Friday 20 November 2009 22:25


Or how about you describe your roof structure to
me and explain how it stands up, for the situation
before and after you converted the roof space?

You're the one making grandious claims, so for the last time, put up or
shut up.

I wonder if Dribble has got bored with sparking and plumbing and decided
to morph into a structural expert. At least his hacksaw might find a
justifiable use at last :O


My 'claim' as you put it, is that people that
don't understand structural principles shouldn't
give structural advice. You shouldn't be giving
out structural advice in a d-i-y newsgroup. Does
this make any sense yet?

Oh do **** off you pompous ****.

--
Tim Watts

This space intentionally left blank...

On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 22:54:00 +0000, Roof wrote:

Jules wrote:
On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 18:46:04 +0000, Roof wrote:
I'm a chartered structural engineer and i must
confess to being terrified by much of the 'advice'
you're getting on here.

Do you have any experience of fall-out shelters?

Do you?

No, and I don't need any...

"Roof" wrote in message
...
Ash wrote:

Insurance
1. Ha ... caught you out ... you're working hand in glove with the
insurance companies aren't you to push up premiums!

No, Ash, no vested interest in insurance. I'm just aware of a number of
instances where insurance companies have withdrawn cover and refused to
settle claims for structural damage as a result of non-disclosure

So the moral of the story is to go to a Newsgroup for advice because if you
ask for professional advice and don't take it then your insurance may be
void!

I thank you.