loft conversion _without_ strengthening roof?!?
2Bdecided
"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.
Stuart Noble
I'd talk to a loft conversion firm. That way you'd find out what your
options are.
Peter Crosland
news:366a1c40-44a5-4f56...@v30g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
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
Baz
"2Bdecided" <davidr...@postmaster.co.uk> wrote in message
news:366a1c40-44a5-4f56...@v30g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> "converted" his loft. He's a roofer, his father is a builder. I don't
> know them from Adam.
>
I love this one.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/leicestershire/3770939.stm
Baz
Tim W
wibbled on Friday 20 November 2009 11:49
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...
Peter Johnson
<davidr...@postmaster.co.uk> wrote:
>2. what should I do?
>
Buy a bigger house.
Bruce
<g6...@yahoo.co.uk> 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 ...
Owain
> 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.
AIUI there is no minimum height for a habitable room, but there is a
minimum height over a staircase. There is no special requirement for a
bedroom compared to any other habitable room as respects fire safety,
insulation etc, although things like bathrooms and storecupboards may
be allowed some leeway on means of escape therefrom, either because
there's not usually much to catch fire in a bathroom or because people
tend not to escape from cupboards.
> 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".
Given this is a terrace, if his house falls down your proposed house
is quite likely to be inclined to fall into the gap. Depending on how
the joists run and the lateral support between walls, the weight of
his loft conversion might be trying to pull your party wall in on
itself.
Owain
mogga
<davidr...@postmaster.co.uk> 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/forumdisplay.html?f=16
--
http://www.Christmasfreebies.co.uk
http://www.holidayunder100.co.uk
2Bdecided
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 03:49:59 -0800 (PST), 2Bdecided
>
>
> >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/forumdisplay.html?f=16
Thanks - a search of that was very helpful.
Cheers,
David.
NT
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
John Rumm
> 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.
There is no minimum height for rooms, only over staircases.
> 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 height is not an issue. Whether it has a building regulations
completion certificate however may be an issue.
> 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.
As others have mentioned, there may be no requirement for strengthening
of the roof structure, however there will be one for strengthening the
floor.
> 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.
There are a couple of "layers" here you need to address. Structural
safety is one - i.e. is the conversion done well enough to not suffer
structural problems or failure later. The second major issue of that of
fire protection. Rules for what is required get more stringent when you
go above two stories - So a loft conversion in a house has more onerous
requirements than one in a bungalow. There are additional things to
consider regarding heating and ventilation, controlling the passage of
sound, wiring etc.
In true blue peter tradition, I can give you some ideas of the stages
involved with a "here is one I did earlier":
http://www.internode.co.uk/loft/
> 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.
What difficulties you run into will depend on the actual circumstances.
For example, our current place had a loft conversion back in the 80's
and there were records of building control involvement, but no actual
completion certificate. This was a non issue however since the work was
obviously done to a good standard, there were full plans, and it was
still standing a 25 years later.
> 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)?
That depends on what if anything he has "got away" with. The obvious way
is to simply not inform building control. If that is the case then how
much difficulty that will cause on selling will vary on who is buying
and whether he it attempting to sell it for a price over an above the
bog standard terrace.
> 2. what should I do?
If you are keen on buying, then seek some reassurance from your surveyor
that the work done next door will have no meaningful effect on your
property. As to converting your own place, then you probably need to
follow the full plans submission route with building control. Note also
with recent "simplifications" in planning law introduced the the current
government, there is now a fair chance you will need planning permission
for simple loft conversions when before you did not.
--
Cheers,
John.
/=================================================================\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\=================================================================/
Roof
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
John Rumm
> 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.
JimK
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
lordnelson
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.
JimK
> 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
Roof
> 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.
>
>
structure, however there will be one for
know what you're talking about and, that being the
case, you're simply not qualified to give out advice.
Roof
How would you suggest the OP satisfies himself
that the 'loft conversion expert' he selects is
competent?
JimK
So in the spirit of public newsgroups - explain it then "alleged
expert" so we can all learn from your specialist wisdom.....
Roof
understanding of structural principle. You don't
need the knowledge; leave it to the people that
know what they're doing with it.
JimK
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
Tim W
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 W
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.
JimK
> Or you are a troll and I claim my £5.
>
smells about right Tim, can I split it with you? :>)
JimK
Roof
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.
Tim W
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...
Roof
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?
Ash
> 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
Ash
professionals
Roof
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?
Ash
> 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
Jules
> 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?
Roof
>> 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.
Roof
Tim W
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
Roof
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?
Ash
> 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
Ash
Roof
> 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
Tim W
wibbled on Friday 20 November 2009 23:08
Oh do fuck off you pompous twat.
Jules
No, and I don't need any...
Ash
"Roof" <redredred...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7momm2F...@mid.individual.net...
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.
geoff
<redredred...@gmail.com> writes
Bit of advice
either offer some useful, practical advice or fuck off
uk.d-i-y really doesn't suffer people with wankish attitudes like yours
put up or shut up and fuck off, you won't last long in here
--
geoff
Dave Plowman (News)
<bccf569c-c438-4bfb...@b15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
Owain <spuorg...@gowanhill.com> wrote:
> AIUI there is no minimum height for a habitable room,
There is if a new build or conversion. Cost me loadsa money to raise the
ceiling height when extending an existing attic room.
--
*Men are from Earth, women are from Earth. Deal with it.
Dave Plowman da...@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
Dave Plowman (News)
Roof <redredred...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 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.
Would that be like the structural engineer who insisted on having
continuous joists from front to back here only supported at the ends?
Requiring timber brought in from miles away - 10 x 4" 30ft long? Until the
local BS insisted they were supported in the middle because of deflection?
And the same structural engineer who supplied three pages of drawings for
padstones?
--
*A conclusion is the place where you got tired of thinking *
Dave Plowman (News)
Roof <redredred...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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?
No. There are standard ways of doing most jobs. I'm willing to bet you
don't start from zero when working on a property similar to a type you
know. You'll rely on experience.
--
*Why is "abbreviated" such a long word?
John Rumm
> 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.
>>
>> 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.
As an engineer (like you), and as someone who has actually built a loft
conversion themselves (like you?), I am probably better qualified than
most to offer guidance.
Regarding my comments above, firstly: "there may be no requirement for
strengthening the roof structure". I said this to highlight that
strengthening the roof structure may not be required, so is not in
itself something to get worried about without further information about
exactly what has been done and how.
Are you suggesting that there *always* will be a requirement? If not
then we are in agreement it would seem. If so then I would have to doubt
*your* knowledge of the subject.
For a simple loft conversion that stays within the envelope of the
existing roof, and where that roof is of traditional joinery
construction (i.e. not trussed) there will be little need of structural
changes to the roof space in many cases. You may need to double the
joists either side of a roof window. You can rely on LABC advice here,
or do the calculations. You are generally adding relatively little
loading by way of insulating and lining the space.
If you start adding dormers, removing purlins, or converting a hipped
roof to gable wall then obviously the situation in different, as would
be the case if you have a "forest of matchsticks" style trussed roof.
Moving on to the floor; I said "however there will be one for
strengthening the floor".
It would be very rare to find a loft floor that was capable of taking a
loading of 1kN/m^2 or 0.8kN/m of distributed linear joist loading (400mm
ctc) without additional strengthening.
--
Cheers,
John.
/=================================================================\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\=================================================================/
John Rumm
>> 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.
Nothing wrong with giving advice, you just need to exercise a little
common sense when deciding what to do with that advice. Without people
freely giving of their time to advice, this group would be much the poorer.
One of the advantages of corresponding with a group such as this over
many years (rather than leaping in from the dark brandishing one's
willy[1]), is that you get to know the backgrounds of the regular
posters. You learn which are building inspectors, builders, and
engineers etc in real life, and what projects they have successfully
undertaken. You also get to see lots of advice on a wide range of topics
exchanged. Some of those topics you may know nothing about, while others
may be within your domain of expertise. You can hence learn which advice
is likely to be good, which is a handy pointer that needs following up
elsewhere, and which is likely to be doubtful.
If you genuinely have useful information to give (rather than "go find
an 'expert' and pay them), why not contribute some of it? We have a wiki
site full of articles; perhaps you would like to author some on the
structural aspects of loft conversions?
[1] Alas we see if from time to time, names pop up with much hot air and
bluster, then disappear a couple of days later to never be seen again.
Owain
> > 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.
Don't give out any, then.
Owain
brass monkey
You are a trainee Steve Firth AICMFP.
Owain
> You are a trainee Steve Firth AICMFP.
Shouldn't that be a trainee Steve Firth MIstructE?
;-)
Owain
brass monkey
"Owain" <spuorg...@gowanhill.com> wrote in message
news:24b64be4-172a-413c...@o10g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
Or, MIcamelshagginginthesaharaE
brass monkey
> lordnelson wrote:
>> On Nov 20, 11:49 am, 2Bdecided <davidrobin...@postmaster.co.uk> 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?
Not by talking to you, that's a cert.
Dont'cha just love these jumped-up 'holier than thou' smart arseholes with
nothing to say of any consequence?
I think we call 'em trolls.
NT
Structural advice is within the remit of this group. Whether people
think its a good idea to give or take such advice on unseen structures
is another matter, but nonetheless structral questions are certainly
discussed here. This includes BR compliant and at times non-compliant
approaches. This is far from a Black & Decker owning shelf fitting
group.
'Experts' of whatever type are welcome to share their input here, but
it does get questioned like any other. This is definitely not a group
of people that play the child and leave all that to daddy, so unbacked-
up claims of expertise count for little here. If you want to discuss
your opinions, great, if you want to just say 'always speak to mommy
first' then this probably isn't your kind of group. Enough of us here
know that just because someone formally qulififed says so doesnt make
it so, and some of us can outdesign them in our own specialist areas.
And the range of specialist knowledge here is surprisingly wide.
NT
Roger Chapman
> In article
> <bccf569c-c438-4bfb...@b15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
> Owain <spuorg...@gowanhill.com> wrote:
>> AIUI there is no minimum height for a habitable room,
>
> There is if a new build or conversion. Cost me loadsa money to raise the
> ceiling height when extending an existing attic room.
>
It certainly used to be the case but I think you will find that the
minimum height requirement was restricted to stairs several years ago.
FWIW my downstairs headroom is just 6 feet under the beams which doesn't
much bother me as I am not that tall. The only real problem is lighting.
With the ceiling at just 6 inches higher choice of light fittings is
extremely restricted.
The clearance on the stairs is however another matter. I have long since
learnt to duck on the way down as the clearance is about a foot down on
modern regulations and, as the offending structure is a main floor beam,
there is no easy way round other than repositioning the stairs which
would be a major operation.
Roof
No, if you knew what you were talking about, it
would be MIStructE
Roof
> In article <7moggoF...@mid.individual.net>,
> Roof <redredred...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 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.
>
> Would that be like the structural engineer who insisted on having
> continuous joists from front to back here only supported at the ends?
> Requiring timber brought in from miles away - 10 x 4" 30ft long? Until the
> local BS insisted they were supported in the middle because of deflection?
> And the same structural engineer who supplied three pages of drawings for
> padstones?
>
What was the structural engineers terms of
appointment? Was an architect involved? Why
didn't you tell the structural engineer in the
first place that he could use an intermediate
support if it made the design any easier. Was the
structural engineer chartered? What fee did you
pay him?
More importantly, and to keep it on topic, what
was the advice you got from your 'resident
experts' when you posted the query on this newsgroup?
Roof
Geoff, presumably you just got back from the pub?
It may come as some surprise to you, but I don't
need your advice. I don't need to 'put up or shut
up' either. Since you given such a warm welcome,
I think I'll hand around a bit longer.
What time is it now...about 8.40am. What time are
you back down the pub, then?
Roof
> Roof <redredred...@gmail.com>
> wibbled on Friday 20 November 2009 23:08
>
>> Tim W wrote:
>>> Roof <redredred...@gmail.com>
>>> 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 fuck off you pompous twat.
>
Fortunately, Tim, the most of my 'debates' are
with people that don't need to resort to swearing.
However, I am aware that sort of environment
exists, especially, it would seem, on newsgroups
Stuart Noble
And certainly on building sites.
Tim W
wibbled on Saturday 21 November 2009 09:07
I'm not trying to debate with you. I'm trying to tell you you are a pompous
twat, or a troll.
I don't bother trying to have meaningful conversations with either class of
being.
I'll put a larger waver on you being a troll, because a real engineer,
especially a pompous blustering twat, would have taken offence and left by
now.
Andy Cap
>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
I think your fundamental problem is in misinterpreting the status of a
newsgroup! It is not the source of definitive advice for any problem.
It is akin to going down the pub and having a chat with some mates and anyone
else who happens to be stood at the bar.
Presumably in such circumstance, you would feel you had the wit to make a fair
judgement. The great benefit of such diverse views, is in obtaining a range of
opinion, which may include 'I employed such and such a professional and he both
misinformed me and charged me a fortune for the privilege.' It does happen you
know.
If anyone is stupid enough to take as gospel, anything some anonymous individual
quotes on the Internet, then they are destined for a fall.
Andy C
Dave Plowman (News)
Roger Chapman <ro...@nospam.zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
> Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> > In article
> > <bccf569c-c438-4bfb...@b15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
> > Owain <spuorg...@gowanhill.com> wrote:
> >> AIUI there is no minimum height for a habitable room,
> >
> > There is if a new build or conversion. Cost me loadsa money to raise the
> > ceiling height when extending an existing attic room.
> >
> It certainly used to be the case but I think you will find that the
> minimum height requirement was restricted to stairs several years ago.
Right - I'm talking round about '90.
> FWIW my downstairs headroom is just 6 feet under the beams which doesn't
> much bother me as I am not that tall. The only real problem is lighting.
> With the ceiling at just 6 inches higher choice of light fittings is
> extremely restricted.
On a new build? Wouldn't that make it difficult to sell? I notice that
youngsters are getting taller. I'm 6 ft, and as a lad was taller than
most. Not anymore.
> The clearance on the stairs is however another matter. I have long since
> learnt to duck on the way down as the clearance is about a foot down on
> modern regulations and, as the offending structure is a main floor beam,
> there is no easy way round other than repositioning the stairs which
> would be a major operation.
Seems weird not to have a minimum ceiling height these days considering
all the other regs?
--
*There are two sides to every divorce: Yours and shit head's*
Dave Plowman (News)
Roof <redredred...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Would that be like the structural engineer who insisted on having
> > continuous joists from front to back here only supported at the ends?
> > Requiring timber brought in from miles away - 10 x 4" 30ft long? Until
> > the local BS insisted they were supported in the middle because of
> > deflection? And the same structural engineer who supplied three pages
> > of drawings for padstones?
> >
> What was the structural engineers terms of
> appointment? Was an architect involved?
Yes. He chose the firm having used them before.
> Why
> didn't you tell the structural engineer in the
> first place that he could use an intermediate
> support if it made the design any easier.
I wasn't asked. Had I been I'd have told him he could bear off the *very*
over engineered support between the two ground floor rooms which had been
made into one.
> Was the structural engineer chartered?
I've no idea. He belonged to a firm of structural engineers. Who I assume
were qualified since my qualified architect used them.
> What fee did you pay him?
Told them to get stuffed and sue me. Thought about suing them.
> More importantly, and to keep it on topic, what
> was the advice you got from your 'resident
> experts' when you posted the query on this newsgroup?
Happened before this group existed. Wish it had - as I know I'd have got
good advice here. You're a newbie here. Stick around before making instant
judgements.
--
*If I throw a stick, will you leave?
Dave Plowman (News)
> Fortunately, Tim, the most of my 'debates' are
> with people that don't need to resort to swearing.
> However, I am aware that sort of environment
> exists, especially, it would seem, on newsgroups
They do tend to when someone new comes in saying they are the only expert
around. *You* have to prove this, and so far you haven't. Give some good
practical advice and we'll see. This isn't a group about 'just get a pro
in' - it's about DIY. But most will give warnings about employing a pro
where needed.
--
*Geeks shall inherit the earth *
Dave Plowman (News)
Tim W <t...@dionic.net> wrote:
> > Fortunately, Tim, the most of my 'debates' are
> > with people that don't need to resort to swearing.
> > However, I am aware that sort of environment
> > exists, especially, it would seem, on newsgroups
> I'm not trying to debate with you. I'm trying to tell you you are a
> pompous twat, or a troll.
> I don't bother trying to have meaningful conversations with either class
> of being.
> I'll put a larger waver on you being a troll, because a real engineer,
> especially a pompous blustering twat, would have taken offence and left
> by now.
I dunno. There are plenty who think when they first visit a newsgroup that
they will be the expert. They might well be used to that in their local
pub. A little experience of newsgroups shows no one is ever the expert
about everything. As there are usually several ways of skinning a cat...
--
*If you tell the truth, you don't have to remember anything.*
geoff
<redredred...@gmail.com> writes
Fuck off then if you can't handle it - go and join uk.rec.motorcycles
...
I don't see a single useful bit of information that you have imparted in
your short time here
--
geoff
Owain
> > It certainly used to be the case but I think you will find that the
> > minimum height requirement was restricted to stairs several years ago.
> all the other regs?
I think it was Mr Bryer in an earlier discussion who noted that
headroom predated the post-war Building Regulations and was so people
didn't get asphyxiated from gas lights
As a 6'-er myself I do note that a lot of modern properties are
claustrophobic. But it does make painting the ceiling easier when I
don't have to stand on anything.
Owain
geoff
<redredred...@gmail.com> writes
No, in fact I haven't had an alcoholic drink of any sort since last
Sunday
You. As others have pointed out come across as a pompous twat
hang around if you have something useful to say otherwise go and take
your evangelical bollocks elsewhere - we have little time for it here
--
geoff
Tim W
wibbled on Saturday 21 November 2009 13:15
> I dunno. There are plenty who think when they first visit a newsgroup that
> they will be the expert. They might well be used to that in their local
> pub. A little experience of newsgroups shows no one is ever the expert
> about everything. As there are usually several ways of skinning a cat...
>
Which is interesting. If you have a look at the IET (IEE) forums, the users
group roughly like this:
"Arrrgh no do touch it you will blow yourself up and everyone within 3
streets death to DIY" (suspect some minimally qualified and minimal
experience guild members)
"Straightforward and practical suggestions, sometimes with a: are you sure
you want to do this?" (suspect well qualified and very experienced sparks)
"Deeply insightful return question to make you think and short succinct and
exteremely polite information, often with elements you never even thought
about" (engineers and long term multi-disciplinary sparks)
The 3rd group is where matey claims to be, and yet I have to see a true
master on a forum behave like a prima donna.
geoff
<redredred...@gmail.com> writes
So, you pay your yearly subs
So what
and you know the difference between lower case and upper case letters
respect here is earned through imparted knowledge, not through letters
one puts after ones thumbprint
--
geoff
Bob Eager
> Which is interesting. If you have a look at the IET (IEE) forums, the
> users group roughly like this:
I really must get round to reading them more!
Pity they don't gateway to Usenet...! :-)
--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org
Roger Chapman
>>> Owain <spuorg...@gowanhill.com> wrote:
>>>> AIUI there is no minimum height for a habitable room,
>>> There is if a new build or conversion. Cost me loadsa money to raise the
>>> ceiling height when extending an existing attic room.
>>>
>
>> It certainly used to be the case but I think you will find that the
>> minimum height requirement was restricted to stairs several years ago.
>
> Right - I'm talking round about '90.
>
>> FWIW my downstairs headroom is just 6 feet under the beams which doesn't
>> much bother me as I am not that tall. The only real problem is lighting.
>> With the ceiling at just 6 inches higher choice of light fittings is
>> extremely restricted.
>
> On a new build? Wouldn't that make it difficult to sell? I notice that
> youngsters are getting taller. I'm 6 ft, and as a lad was taller than
> most. Not anymore.
>
>> The clearance on the stairs is however another matter. I have long since
>> learnt to duck on the way down as the clearance is about a foot down on
>> modern regulations and, as the offending structure is a main floor beam,
>> there is no easy way round other than repositioning the stairs which
>> would be a major operation.
>
> Seems weird not to have a minimum ceiling height these days considering
> all the other regs?
Very odd. Would make house construction cheaper though as long as there
was still sufficient height to use standard doors. Save over 10% on
brickwork.
Back in the 70s the minimum ceiling height for a habitable room was 7'
6" and for a bay window 6' 6". ISTR that this provision had disappeared
by the time I was involved in a loft conversion in the late 90s but
ceiling height wasn't a problem anyway so I could easily be wrong about
when I first learnt of the change.
Tim W
wibbled on Saturday 21 November 2009 15:25
> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 15:20:34 +0000, Tim W wrote:
>
>> Which is interesting. If you have a look at the IET (IEE) forums, the
>> users group roughly like this:
>
> I really must get round to reading them more!
>
> Pity they don't gateway to Usenet...! :-)
They have RSS. I've been meaning to look at gating RSS to NNTP locally here.
js.b1
> > all the other regs?
>
> Very odd. Would make house construction cheaper though as long as there
> was still sufficient height to use standard doors. Save over 10% on
> brickwork.
Ah, but fortunately even noddy house builders know that they can't
drop ceilings too low without shrinking the room - visually it makes
it unsaleable.
What I wish we would do is copy the German/Dutch long overhang eaves,
it makes for dryer walls, longer roof life before reroof and better
aesthetics.
ROOF is not being explicit, but obsfuscating.
USENET discussion was basically...
a) "Loft storage" - you can line a loft for storage, but would be
unwise to load it heavily without checking ceiling joist strength
b) "Loft more habitable" - trying to convert to "more habitable
office" by cheats such as fixed ladder, lining, avoiding the necessary
structural assessment and alteration re roof, floor, fire
c) "Loft habitable bedroom" - creating a habitable bedroom to add
value rather than the appropriately cited "cowboy bodge" requires PP
BR etc - and for the OP a Dormer re headroom
I see nothing wrong with that.
OP needs to be clear in their mind about use.
- "a)" Loft storage
- "c)" Habitable dormer conversion
- because "b)" is not a shortcut to "c)" :-)
Bluntly "b)" is building a shed without house foundations with a view
to convert it to a house later. It will always be a shed even if you
stick Canary Wharf on top of it (or falling through it).
OP might well look at other houses if they DO want c) because it can
directly affect the end cost and thus end value added.
Jules
> I think your fundamental problem is in misinterpreting the status of a
> newsgroup! It is not the source of definitive advice for any problem.
I typed most of a sensible, logical reply like that - then I canned it
because I reached the conclusion that Tim's, "Oh do fuck off you pompous
twat" one-liner was far better ;)
cheers
Jules
nkb
'Hand' what around ? pray..... certainly don't pass it our way thank-you
geoff
<jules.rich...@remove.this.gmail.com> writes
--
geoff
Dave Plowman (News)
He's probably crying to his mates: 'I went there to help and only got
abuse'
--
*There are 3 kinds of people: those who can count & those who can't.
Ash
"Dave Plowman (News)" <da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message
news:50bdcb9...@davenoise.co.uk...
> In article <qC+ZGGTv...@demon.co.uk>,
> geoff <ra...@kateda.org> wrote:
>> In message <pan.2009.11.21....@remove.this.gmail.com>, Jules
>> <jules.rich...@remove.this.gmail.com> writes
>> >On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 12:50:24 +0000, Andy Cap wrote:
>> >> I think your fundamental problem is in misinterpreting the status of a
>> >> newsgroup! It is not the source of definitive advice for any problem.
>> >> ...
>> >
>> >I typed most of a sensible, logical reply like that - then I canned it
>> >because I reached the conclusion that Tim's, "Oh do fuck off you pompous
>> >twat" one-liner was far better ;)
>> >
>> Has he gone yet ?
>
> He's probably crying to his mates: 'I went there to help and only got
> abuse'
>
Made himself as welcome as a fart in a space suit if you ask me ... but then
again I'm not a professional !
geoff
<B...@bobsworld.co.uk> writes
Paaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrpppppp
oops
--
geoff
Dave Plowman (News)
Ash <B...@bobsworld.co.uk> wrote:
> > He's probably crying to his mates: 'I went there to help and only got
> > abuse'
> >
> Made himself as welcome as a fart in a space suit if you ask me ... but
> then again I'm not a professional !
There was a professional farter many years ago - French, I think.
Le Petomane?
--
*Fax is stronger than fiction *
geoff
<da...@davenoise.co.uk> writes
>In article <7qGdnewnod-crJXW...@eclipse.net.uk>,
> Ash <B...@bobsworld.co.uk> wrote:
>> > He's probably crying to his mates: 'I went there to help and only got
>> > abuse'
>> >
>
>> Made himself as welcome as a fart in a space suit if you ask me ... but
>> then again I'm not a professional !
>
>There was a professional farter many years ago - French, I think.
>Le Petomane?
>
What about our own Mr Methane in his green batman suit and cape?
Guaranteed to break wind at parties
--
geoff
Clot
I'm fed up of clearing either coffee or wine off the monitor. Could you
please refrain from such comments! :)
geoff
<clo...@ntlglobe.goon> writes
--
geoff
geoff
Doctor Drivel
"geoff" <ra...@kateda.org> wrote in message
news:Mccwh+zm...@demon.co.uk...
Maxie! Wow!! You coming out with those sort of things and you being a man
who knows things as well.
Doctor Drivel
> No, in fact I haven't had an alcoholic drink of any sort since last Sunday
Maxie! Do not porkie tell! My word!
> You. As others have pointed out come across as a pompous twat
>
> hang around if you have something useful to say otherwise go and take your
> evangelical bollocks elsewhere - we have little time for it here
Maxie! Some religion would do you some good. You need it.
Doctor Drivel
Maxie! I thought you had been cured of constant swearing. Have the police
stopped roping you in for swearing at people in the streets in Watford?
Doctor Drivel
Maxie! Is that what you are into? I though your flatulence problems had been
sorted by now. I know you broke wind loudly in public in Watford on
Saturdays afternoons. But Maxie!
Doctor Drivel
Maxie! What a man!!! No shame at all! No wonder people avoid you.
John Rumm
Seems like it...
he does not seem to want to reply to the posts that would actually
engage him in meaningful dialogue either, which is a shame if he really
is a good as he thinks he is.
--
Cheers,
John.
/=================================================================\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\=================================================================/
geoff
<kill...@invalid.invalid> writes
What's this - been hidibng the pills under your tongue again ?
Nursie won't be pleased with you
--
geoff
geoff
Rumm <see.my.s...@nowhere.null> writes
>geoff wrote:
>> In message <pan.2009.11.21....@remove.this.gmail.com>,
>>Jules <jules.rich...@remove.this.gmail.com> writes
>>> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 12:50:24 +0000, Andy Cap wrote:
>>>> I think your fundamental problem is in misinterpreting the status of a
>>>> newsgroup! It is not the source of definitive advice for any problem.
>>>> ...
>>>
>>> I typed most of a sensible, logical reply like that - then I canned it
>>> because I reached the conclusion that Tim's, "Oh do fuck off you pompous
>>> twat" one-liner was far better ;)
>>>
>> Has he gone yet ?
>
>Seems like it...
>
>he does not seem to want to reply to the posts that would actually
>engage him in meaningful dialogue either, which is a shame if he really
>is a good as he thinks he is.
>
Didn't strike me as the sort who would be willing to impart useful
information to mere mortals. He was a "professional"
--
geoff
Roof
Hello Geoff. No, still here, just had better
things to do.
I'm curious. What's this Maxie thing? Seems you
have a fan. Does your reputation go before you, then?
Roof
> In article <qC+ZGGTv...@demon.co.uk>,
> geoff <ra...@kateda.org> wrote:
>> In message <pan.2009.11.21....@remove.this.gmail.com>, Jules
>> <jules.rich...@remove.this.gmail.com> writes
>>> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 12:50:24 +0000, Andy Cap wrote:
>>>> I think your fundamental problem is in misinterpreting the status of a
>>>> newsgroup! It is not the source of definitive advice for any problem.
>>>> ...
>>> I typed most of a sensible, logical reply like that - then I canned it
>>> because I reached the conclusion that Tim's, "Oh do fuck off you pompous
>>> twat" one-liner was far better ;)
>>>
>> Has he gone yet ?
>
> He's probably crying to his mates: 'I went there to help and only got
> abuse'
>
Don't follow. Care to explain?
Roof
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 18:46:04 +0000, Roof <redredred...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> 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
>
> I think your fundamental problem is in misinterpreting the status of a
> newsgroup! It is not the source of definitive advice for any problem.
> else who happens to be stood at the bar.
> Presumably in such circumstance, you would feel you had the wit to make a fair
> judgement. The great benefit of such diverse views, is in obtaining a range of
> opinion, which may include 'I employed such and such a professional and he both
> misinformed me and charged me a fortune for the privilege.' It does happen you
> know.
> If anyone is stupid enough to take as gospel, anything some anonymous individual
> quotes on the Internet, then they are destined for a fall.
>
> Andy C
Hi Andy. Can I suggest you read your contribution
before you post it? You've defeated your own
argument.
Roof
> In article <7mpmi5F...@mid.individual.net>,
> Roof <redredred...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Would that be like the structural engineer who insisted on having
>>> continuous joists from front to back here only supported at the ends?
>>> Requiring timber brought in from miles away - 10 x 4" 30ft long? Until
>>> the local BS insisted they were supported in the middle because of
>>> deflection? And the same structural engineer who supplied three pages
>>> of drawings for padstones?
>>>
>
>> What was the structural engineers terms of
>> appointment? Was an architect involved?
>
> Yes. He chose the firm having used them before.
>
>> Why
>> didn't you tell the structural engineer in the
>> first place that he could use an intermediate
>> support if it made the design any easier.
>
> I wasn't asked. Had I been I'd have told him he could bear off the *very*
> over engineered support between the two ground floor rooms which had been
> made into one.
>
>> Was the structural engineer chartered?
>
> I've no idea. He belonged to a firm of structural engineers. Who I assume
> were qualified since my qualified architect used them.
>
>> What fee did you pay him?
>
> Told them to get stuffed and sue me. Thought about suing them.
>
>> More importantly, and to keep it on topic, what
>> was the advice you got from your 'resident
>> experts' when you posted the query on this newsgroup?
>
> Happened before this group existed. Wish it had - as I know I'd have got
> good advice here. You're a newbie here. Stick around before making instant
> judgements.
>
So between you and your architect, you screw the
job up and blame the structural engineer?
ARWadsworth
Steffie Graf had a fan.
Adm