And because the Mexicans aren't paying for it, I'm looking for something
adequate (and which meets any regs) but not over-engineered.

It'll be an outside wall, no windows, and from the outside in:

One thickness of bricks
Some form of insulation
Studwork/plasterboard
Kitchen cabinets

I'm hoping that a hybrid approach will reduce:

the depth of foundations
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.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote:

And because the Mexicans aren't paying for it, I'm looking for something
adequate (and which meets any regs) but not over-engineered.

It'll be an outside wall, no windows, and from the outside in:

One thickness of bricks

Do you mean one brick (ie the metrified version of 9")? Or half a
brick (do.) 41/2"?

Are you interested in meeting building regulation standards?

If you mean a half brick, I should recommend a maximum height of about
900mm without buttresses.








Some form of insulation
Studwork/plasterboard
Kitchen cabinets

I'm hoping that a hybrid approach will reduce:

the depth of foundations
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.


--

Roger Hayter

On 19/06/2019 20:29, Roland Perry wrote:
And because the Mexicans aren't paying for it, I'm looking for something
adequate (and which meets any regs) but not over-engineered.

It'll be an outside wall, no windows, and from the outside in:

One thickness of bricks
Tick.
Some form of insulation
4" celotex, gouged out for wires and pipes and made good with expanding
foam, foil tapeed to the studs for vapour barrier.

Studwork/plasterboard
use 4" stud and then plate with strawboard wood - the really cheap
structural chipboard. Then shove thin pb on top. That will make hanging
the....

Kitchen cabinets


.....much easier.

Dont forget and extractor fan

I'm hoping that a hybrid approach will reduce:

the depth of foundations

Building control dicattes that

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

Building control will dictate the foundations.

use a strawboard roof, and get a pro in to pop the roof ing on - there
is an expensive hot sealed rubber memberane thing that is te dogs bollox.

You will be les thanb a double cavity in 3width, but not a lot. It will
be a lot cheaper however, and very easy to mount off the strawboard.

--
Its easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.
Mark Twain

On 19/06/2019 23:34, Roger Hayter wrote:
If you mean a half brick, I should recommend a maximum height of about
900mm without buttresses.

Nah. You make the studwork structural and use the bricks as cladding.
Its standard practice.

Studs with a stressed skin (strawboard) outer is usual, then a membrane
tacked on, then some kind of support nailed on to key the blockwork too.
Or you can clad with fake timber cladding that never needs painting.



PS I just realised that what I mean by strawboard is strictly sterling
board.

Strawboards is really made of straw!


--
"Corbyn talks about equality, justice, opportunity, health care, peace,
community, compassion, investment, security, housing...."
"What kind of person is not interested in those things?"

"Jeremy Corbyn?"

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
And because the Mexicans aren't paying for it, I'm looking for something
adequate (and which meets any regs) but not over-engineered.

It'll be an outside wall, no windows, and from the outside in:

One thickness of bricks
Some form of insulation
Studwork/plasterboard
Kitchen cabinets

I'm hoping that a hybrid approach will reduce:

the depth of foundations


depth of foundations depends on frost heave .......

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 19/06/2019 23:34, Roger Hayter wrote:
If you mean a half brick, I should recommend a maximum height of about
900mm without buttresses.

Nah. You make the studwork structural and use the bricks as cladding.
Its standard practice.

Studs with a stressed skin (strawboard) outer is usual, then a membrane
tacked on, then some kind of support nailed on to key the blockwork too.
Or you can clad with fake timber cladding that never needs painting.



PS I just realised that what I mean by strawboard is strictly sterling
board.

Strawboards is really made of straw!

Interesting. I didn't realise you could tie the bricks to the stud wall
with insulation in between.


--

Roger Hayter

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 19/06/2019 23:34, Roger Hayter wrote:
If you mean a half brick, I should recommend a maximum height of about
900mm without buttresses.

Nah. You make the studwork structural and use the bricks as cladding. Its
standard practice.

Studs with a stressed skin (strawboard) outer is usual, then a membrane
tacked on, then some kind of support nailed on to key the blockwork too.
Or you can clad with fake timber cladding that never needs painting.



PS I just realised that what I mean by strawboard is strictly sterling
board.

Strawboards is really made of straw!


strawboard is stramit board shirley?

Building Control at the Council.
Brian

--
----- --
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
And because the Mexicans aren't paying for it, I'm looking for something
adequate (and which meets any regs) but not over-engineered.

It'll be an outside wall, no windows, and from the outside in:

One thickness of bricks
Some form of insulation
Studwork/plasterboard
Kitchen cabinets

I'm hoping that a hybrid approach will reduce:

the depth of foundations
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.
--
Roland Perry

"Jim GM4DHJ ..." wrote in message
...

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 19/06/2019 23:34, Roger Hayter wrote:
If you mean a half brick, I should recommend a maximum height of about
900mm without buttresses.

Nah. You make the studwork structural and use the bricks as cladding. Its
standard practice.

Studs with a stressed skin (strawboard) outer is usual, then a membrane
tacked on, then some kind of support nailed on to key the blockwork too.
Or you can clad with fake timber cladding that never needs painting.



PS I just realised that what I mean by strawboard is strictly sterling
board.

Strawboards is really made of straw!


strawboard is stramit board shirley?

sterling board is a timber OSB board.....good stuff

get one of the old guys not a pimple faced BSc...tee hee



"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
...
Building Control at the Council.
Brian

--
----- --
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
And because the Mexicans aren't paying for it, I'm looking for something
adequate (and which meets any regs) but not over-engineered.

It'll be an outside wall, no windows, and from the outside in:

One thickness of bricks
Some form of insulation
Studwork/plasterboard
Kitchen cabinets

I'm hoping that a hybrid approach will reduce:

the depth of foundations
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.
--
Roland Perry

In article ,
Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 19/06/2019 23:34, Roger Hayter wrote:
If you mean a half brick, I should recommend a maximum height of about
900mm without buttresses.

Nah. You make the studwork structural and use the bricks as cladding. Its
standard practice.

Studs with a stressed skin (strawboard) outer is usual, then a membrane
tacked on, then some kind of support nailed on to key the blockwork too.
Or you can clad with fake timber cladding that never needs painting.



PS I just realised that what I mean by strawboard is strictly sterling
board.

Strawboards is really made of straw!


strawboard is stramit board shirley?

Strammit board is a brand name for one version of strawboard. I used for my
garage roof c1970

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

"charles" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 19/06/2019 23:34, Roger Hayter wrote:
If you mean a half brick, I should recommend a maximum height of about
900mm without buttresses.

Nah. You make the studwork structural and use the bricks as cladding.
Its
standard practice.

Studs with a stressed skin (strawboard) outer is usual, then a membrane
tacked on, then some kind of support nailed on to key the blockwork
too.
Or you can clad with fake timber cladding that never needs painting.



PS I just realised that what I mean by strawboard is strictly sterling
board.

Strawboards is really made of straw!


strawboard is stramit board shirley?

Strammit board is a brand name for one version of strawboard. I used for
my
garage roof c1970

"stramit" shirley...it had its uses .......

"Jim GM4DHJ ..." wrote in message
...

"charles" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 19/06/2019 23:34, Roger Hayter wrote:
If you mean a half brick, I should recommend a maximum height of
about
900mm without buttresses.

Nah. You make the studwork structural and use the bricks as cladding.
Its
standard practice.

Studs with a stressed skin (strawboard) outer is usual, then a
membrane
tacked on, then some kind of support nailed on to key the blockwork
too.
Or you can clad with fake timber cladding that never needs painting.



PS I just realised that what I mean by strawboard is strictly sterling
board.

Strawboards is really made of straw!


strawboard is stramit board shirley?

Strammit board is a brand name for one version of strawboard. I used for
my
garage roof c1970

"stramit" shirley...it had its uses .......

I used to think it was made in Scotland.......

In message , at 23:34:35 on
Wed, 19 Jun 2019, Roger Hayter remarked:
Roland Perry wrote:

And because the Mexicans aren't paying for it, I'm looking for something
adequate (and which meets any regs) but not over-engineered.

It'll be an outside wall, no windows, and from the outside in:

One thickness of bricks

Do you mean one brick (ie the metrified version of 9")? Or half a
brick (do.) 41/2"?

I mean like half of a cavity wall.

Are you interested in meeting building regulation standards?

"which meets any regs" which was shorthand for "which meets any
appropriate regs" which is shorthand again for "meets all appropriate
regs".

If you mean a half brick, I should recommend a maximum height of about
900mm without buttresses.

From a structural point of view, single-brick garages don't seen to fall
down very often. But some modest buttresses would be OK as long as they
don't prejudice the insulation value. Any vertical loading applied
inside would be carried by the studwork, so we are mainly interested in
the brick wall not topping over.
--
Roland Perry

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 see it.

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

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:
Â*the depth of foundations

Building control dicattes that

But would they be less than a classic all-brick cavity wall?

the overall wall thickness
Â*...compared to a conventional cavity brick wall plus plaster.
Â*I'm even happy if it turns out to be more insulated.
Â*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
stufdworkÂ* 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 see it.

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

I think you need to talk to Building Control. 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? How will you point it with no access from the outside?

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:
Â*the depth of foundations

Building control dicattes that

But would they be less than a classic all-brick cavity wall?

the overall wall thickness
Â*...compared to a conventional cavity brick wall plus plaster.
Â*I'm even happy if it turns out to be more insulated.
Â*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
stufdworkÂ* 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 see it.

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



Are you reckoning on doing foundations for the wall with the fence in place?

What's on the other side of the fence?

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

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

How will you point it with no access from the outside?

I'm not a prospective bricklayer, but I've been told it's done
"overhand" from the inside, as the wall is constructed.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at
16:48:56 on Thu, 20 Jun 2019, Robin 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.

Are you reckoning on doing foundations for the wall with the fence in place?

Yes.

What's on the other side of the fence?

Neighbour's garden.
--
Roland Perry

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/

Roland Perry wrote:

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

For an existing building, you need to achieve a U value for a new wall
of 0.28 or better, have a poke around with a calculator, e.g.

https://www.uvalue-calculator.co.uk/calculator/walls/timber%20frame/insulation%20between%20timber%20studs%20with%20(in sulated)%20plasterboard/89mm/brick/standard/32.5/50/

An 89mm timber-framed wall, with 50mm PIR insulation between studs
(obviously you could go up to the full stud depth to improve it),
external brick skin and 32.5mm PIR backed plasterboard inside can meet
it, not any less thick than an insulated brick/block cavity wall though ...

On 21/06/2019 06:53, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at
16:48:56 on Thu, 20 Jun 2019, Robin 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:
Â*the depth of foundations

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

the overall wall thickness
Â*...compared to a conventional cavity brick wall plus plaster.
Â*I'm even happy if it turns out to be more insulated.
Â*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
stufdworkÂ* cover the ouside with semi permeable, whack in nails and
use those to key the external cladding brickwork to it
Â*Unfortunately there's no access to the outside, because it's up
againstÂ* a fence (that's the main reason it has no windows[1]). But
I'm told theÂ* planning people still need it to be brick (conservation
area, red lineÂ* etc etc), in case the fence falls down and people can
Â*[1] In that wall, ventilation will be in other walls.

Are you reckoning on doing foundations for the wall with the fence in
place?

Yes.

What's on the other side of the fence?

Neighbour's garden.

If you are building so close to the boundary that you cannot access the
wall externally from your property I wonder if the end result will
satisfy the requirements of a conservation are as to appearance (which
is not just a matter of the bricks).


--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 20:29:17 +0100, Roland Perry wrote:


I'm hoping that a hybrid approach will reduce:

the depth of foundations

That will all depend on the local ground conditions

the overall wall thickness

That you can reduce significantly

https://www.kingspan.com/gb/en-gb/pr...al-wall-system

0.007 W/m·K


Would you be permitted to use brick slips rather than full sized bricks?

--

The Other Mike wrote:

https://www.kingspan.com/gb/en-gb/pr...al-wall-system

Just don't ask the price ... and don't nail or screw anything into that
wall!

On Fri, 21 Jun 2019 10:39:19 +0100, Andy Burns wrote:

The Other Mike wrote:

https://www.kingspan.com/gb/en-gb/pr...al-wall-system

Just don't ask the price ... and don't nail or screw anything into that
wall!

Just have lots of accommodation addresses and ask for samples

--

On 20/06/2019 11:24, Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:
"Jim GM4DHJ ..." wrote in message
...

"charles" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 19/06/2019 23:34, Roger Hayter wrote:
If you mean a half brick, I should recommend a maximum height of
about
900mm without buttresses.

Nah. You make the studwork structural and use the bricks as cladding.
Its
standard practice.

Studs with a stressed skin (strawboard) outer is usual, then a
membrane
tacked on, then some kind of support nailed on to key the blockwork
too.
Or you can clad with fake timber cladding that never needs painting.



PS I just realised that what I mean by strawboard is strictly sterling
board.

Strawboards is really made of straw!


strawboard is stramit board shirley?

Strammit board is a brand name for one version of strawboard. I used for
my
garage roof c1970

"stramit" shirley...it had its uses .......

I used to think it was made in Scotland.......



Unheated flat roofs, like commercial garage prmises used this
stuff because it has some insulative properties, so avoids the
condensation problems in cold weather.

In message , at 09:36:42 on Fri, 21
Jun 2019, Andy Burns remarked:
Roland Perry wrote:

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

For an existing building, you need to achieve a U value for a new wall
of 0.28 or better, have a poke around with a calculator, e.g.

https://www.uvalue-calculator.co.uk/...er%20frame/ins
ulation%20between%20timber%20studs%20with%20(insu lated)%20plasterboard/8
9mm/brick/standard/32.5/50/

Thanks, I'll give that a go.

An 89mm timber-framed wall, with 50mm PIR insulation between studs
(obviously you could go up to the full stud depth to improve it),
external brick skin and 32.5mm PIR backed plasterboard inside can meet
it,

A first glance I'm surprised a block has greater insulating value than
all that PIR.

not any less thick than an insulated brick/block cavity wall though ...

It'd be thinner than the width of the cavity, but that's not much I
agree. Still looking at mainly achieving a lighter structure.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 10:35:34 on
Fri, 21 Jun 2019, The Other Mike
remarked:

Would you be permitted to use brick slips rather than full sized bricks?

If they matched the existing bricks, I don't see why not.
--
Roland Perry

On 20/06/2019 14:43, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 23:34:35 on
Wed, 19 Jun 2019, Roger Hayter remarked:
Roland Perry wrote:

And because the Mexicans aren't paying for it, I'm looking for something
adequate (and which meets any regs) but not over-engineered.

It'll be an outside wall, no windows, and from the outside in:

One thickness of bricks

Do you mean one brick (ie the metrified version of 9")?Â*Â* Or half a
brick (do.) 41/2"?

I mean like half of a cavity wall.

Are you interested in meeting building regulation standards?

"which meets any regs" which was shorthand for "which meets any
appropriate regs" which is shorthand again for "meets all appropriate
regs".

If you mean a half brick, I should recommend a maximum height of about
900mm without buttresses.

From a structural point of view, single-brick garages don't seen to
fall down very often. But some modest buttresses would be OK as long as
they don't prejudice the insulation value. Any vertical loading applied
inside would be carried by the studwork, so we are mainly interested in
the brick wall not topping over.

If it is just a single run of wall then you will need to buttress
it. If there is a right-angle joint then triangualtion will
provide the necessary strength.

If this is going to be habitable, then building control will
want to see plans with calculations for structure and thermal
performance anyway.

In message , at
09:41:56 on Fri, 21 Jun 2019, Robin remarked:

What's on the other side of the fence?
Neighbour's garden.

If you are building so close to the boundary that you cannot access the
wall externally from your property I wonder if the end result will
satisfy the requirements of a conservation are as to appearance (which
is not just a matter of the bricks).

None of the architects/builders has raised that as a concern, rather
than sucking their teeth about the cost of the matching bricks and depth
of foundations required.
--
Roland Perry

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:
Â*the depth of foundations

Building control dicattes that

But would they be less than a classic all-brick cavity wall?

the overall wall thickness
Â*...compared to a conventional cavity brick wall plus plaster.
Â*I'm even happy if it turns out to be more insulated.
Â*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
stufdworkÂ* 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 see it.

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

So how will the bricky 'rub' the joints if it is bang up against
a fence panel (presumably not yours) ?.

On 21/06/2019 09:41, Robin wrote:
On 21/06/2019 06:53, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at
16:48:56 on Thu, 20 Jun 2019, Robin 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:
Â*the depth of foundations

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

the overall wall thickness
Â*...compared to a conventional cavity brick wall plus plaster.
Â*I'm even happy if it turns out to be more insulated.
Â*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
stufdworkÂ* cover the ouside with semi permeable, whack in nails and
use those to key the external cladding brickwork to it
Â*Unfortunately there's no access to the outside, because it's up
againstÂ* a fence (that's the main reason it has no windows[1]). But
I'm told theÂ* planning people still need it to be brick
(conservation area, red lineÂ* etc etc), in case the fence falls down
and people can
Â*[1] In that wall, ventilation will be in other walls.

Are you reckoning on doing foundations for the wall with the fence in
place?

Yes.

What's on the other side of the fence?

Neighbour's garden.

If you are building so close to the boundary that you cannot access the
wall externally from your property I wonder if the end result will
satisfy the requirements of a conservation are as to appearance (which
is not just a matter of the bricks).



If you are within 2 metres of your neighbours walls then the party wall
act applies. be careful.

Roland Perry wrote:

A first glance I'm surprised a block has greater insulating value than
all that PIR.

Smaller is better with U values (not R values)

On 21/06/2019 11:55, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at
09:41:56 on Fri, 21 Jun 2019, Robin remarked:

What's on the other side of the fence?
Â*Neighbour's garden.

If you are building so close to the boundary that you cannot access
the wall externally from your property I wonder if the end result will
satisfy the requirements of a conservation are as to appearance (which
is not just a matter of the bricks).

None of the architects/builders has raised that as a concern, rather
than sucking their teeth about the cost of the matching bricks and depth
of foundations required.

Fair enough - assuming they knew that they were supposed to meet the
necessary standard without access to the external face of the wall.


--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On 20/06/2019 16:34, newshound wrote:
I think you need to talk to Building Control. They are presumably going
to want to see standard footings and buttresses (for single skin).
Not if it is timber framed which it might as well be - you need 4" of
celotex to meet regs and 4" or 6" of timber will provide enough strength
for the brickwork.

Hard to make a fair job of the brick outside face when its rammed
against a fence tho



--
€œit should be clear by now to everyone that activist environmentalism
(or environmental activism) is becoming a general ideology about humans,
about their freedom, about the relationship between the individual and
the state, and about the manipulation of people under the guise of a
'noble' idea. It is not an honest pursuit of 'sustainable development,'
a matter of elementary environmental protection, or a search for
rational mechanisms designed to achieve a healthy environment. Yet
things do occur that make you shake your head and remind yourself that
you live neither in Joseph Stalins Communist era, nor in the Orwellian
utopia of 1984.€�

Vaclav Klaus

In message , at 11:54:22 on Fri, 21 Jun
2019, Andrew remarked:

If you mean a half brick, I should recommend a maximum height of
about 900mm without buttresses.

From a structural point of view, single-brick garages don't seen to
fall down very often. But some modest buttresses would be OK as long
as they don't prejudice the insulation value. Any vertical loading
applied inside would be carried by the studwork, so we are mainly
interested in the brick wall not topping over.

If it is just a single run of wall then you will need to buttress
it. If there is a right-angle joint then triangualtion will
provide the necessary strength.

It would have right-angles at both ends.

If this is going to be habitable, then building control will
want to see plans with calculations for structure and thermal
performance anyway.

I know, but trying to get some rough idea before spending a lot of time
on proposals that won't fly (or indeed caving into unimaginative
suppliers who want an easy life).
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 12:01:30 on Fri, 21
Jun 2019, Andy Burns remarked:

A first glance I'm surprised a block has greater insulating value
than all that PIR.

Smaller is better with U values (not R values)

Whatever. The point I was making was the ability to insulate.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at
12:22:54 on Fri, 21 Jun 2019, Robin remarked:
What's on the other side of the fence?
*Neighbour's garden.

If you are building so close to the boundary that you cannot access
the wall externally from your property I wonder if the end result
will satisfy the requirements of a conservation are as to appearance
(which is not just a matter of the bricks).
None of the architects/builders has raised that as a concern, rather
than sucking their teeth about the cost of the matching bricks and
depth of foundations required.

Fair enough - assuming they knew that they were supposed to meet the
necessary standard without access to the external face of the wall.

As I've said several times now, meeting the required standards was
always required.

If I had my own way I'd put up some external cladding that looks like
pebble-dashing, which about half the houses round here have anyway (plus
others with painted brick) and you can't see the surface in question
from the road. But one thing my current suppliers agree on is they think
the conservation officer will insist on "matching bricks".

Maybe I'll have to wait and see what comes through from the planning
people.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 11:56:33 on Fri, 21 Jun
2019, Andrew 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.

So how will the bricky 'rub' the joints if it is bang up against
a fence panel (presumably not yours) ?.

It's not going to be literally touching, perhaps a three inch gap.
--
Roland Perry

In article ,
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 11:56:33 on Fri, 21 Jun
2019, Andrew 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.

So how will the bricky 'rub' the joints if it is bang up against
a fence panel (presumably not yours) ?.

It's not going to be literally touching, perhaps a three inch gap.

Round here the planners want half a metre these days.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle