Loft conversion of a bungalow
David W.E. Roberts
(1) How long is a piece of string :-)
(2) Looking at possibly buying a bungalow and converting the loft.
The joists are 2*4 on about 13" spacing ( standard for older style houses
and bungalows) and so would not be up to current building regs.
I assume from reading various threads over the years that the best way to go
would probably be to have steel beams inserted to provide the main load
bearing structure, and then joist and floor over the steel.
[I am aware that there are other options also]
I know neighbours who have been quoted abot £25k for a full loft conversion
of a similar area on a two storey house.
Does any one have a guide to how much the basic structural work (new load
bearing structure plus stairway) is likely to cost to give me an idea of how
much I can save by DIYing the rest?
Yeah, I know (see question re piece of string) but if someone has done a
similar job and has ball park figures it would give me a start before I
begin involving architects, builders and the like.
Even with the lost space due to new floor and extra insulation I reckon I
should be able to fit in two bedrooms and a shower/toilet. This is withoput
a dormer of any kind.
All very tentative at the moment - weighing up potential and future costs in
buying a detached 2 bedroom bungalow compared to buying a 3 bedroom semi.
TIA
Dave R
Owain
| (1) How long is a piece of string :-)
About <waves hands> that long.
Once the structural and roof work is done, the rest of it is usually just
floorboards, plasterboard, wire and plumb.
| (2) Looking at possibly buying a bungalow and converting the loft.
| I know neighbours who have been quoted abot £25k for a full loft
| conversion of a similar area on a two storey house.
If the bungalow is one of a scheme of identical/similar bungalows have a
walk round and see if any neighbours have loft conversions; if several do
then it's a good indication that conversion is possible and economically
viable. If you're brave you could even knock on their door and ask them what
it cost and which builder they used (and look where they put the stairs). If
no-one else has done a loft conversion you might ask yourself why.
People often forget that bungalows have foundations intended for single
storey houses and conversion to a two storey might mean improving the
foundations. Costly and disruptive.
| All very tentative at the moment - weighing up potential and future costs
| in buying a detached 2 bedroom bungalow compared to buying a 3 bedroom
semi.
Remember you might lose one of those 2 ground floor bedrooms when you put
the staircase in. But a det bung probably has more ground floor extension
potential than a semi, and with an ageing population ground floor accessible
bedrooms might be in more demand in future.
Owain
Peter Crosland
> have a walk round and see if any neighbours have loft conversions; if
> several do then it's a good indication that conversion is possible
> and economically viable. If you're brave you could even knock on
> their door and ask them what it cost and which builder they used (and
> look where they put the stairs). If no-one else has done a loft
> conversion you might ask yourself why.
>
> People often forget that bungalows have foundations intended for
> single storey houses and conversion to a two storey might mean
> improving the foundations. Costly and disruptive.
>
>> All very tentative at the moment - weighing up potential and future
>> costs in buying a detached 2 bedroom bungalow compared to buying a 3
>> bedroom semi.
>
> Remember you might lose one of those 2 ground floor bedrooms when you
> put the staircase in. But a det bung probably has more ground floor
> extension potential than a semi, and with an ageing population ground
> floor accessible bedrooms might be in more demand in future.
All sound advice. Also remember that you may well have difficulty obtaining
planning approval. At the very least you need to gto and talk to the
planners about what is, or more importantly is not, likely to be acceptable
to them.
John Rumm
> (1) How long is a piece of string :-)
Twice half its length...
> (2) Looking at possibly buying a bungalow and converting the loft.
> I assume from reading various threads over the years that the best way to go
> would probably be to have steel beams inserted to provide the main load
> bearing structure, and then joist and floor over the steel.
The "best" way, is to do whatever is necessary to get a supporting
structure for the floor that is "good enough". Depending on the spans
required, you may only need timber joists, if not then perhaps timber
joists with some flitch beams (a pair of joists with a steel plate
bolted between them).
> I know neighbours who have been quoted abot ï½£25k for a full loft conversion
> of a similar area on a two storey house.
The real cost of said conversion is likely to be more - i.e. if builder
quotes 25K then you can expect the end cost (i.e. by the time you are
all finished and decorated) to be 30K or more. Builders obviously only
take the build as far as finishing the rooms - and tend not to include
the carpets and decorating etc. Also if there is a bath/shower room in
the conversion then they will tend to quote without the cost of the
fittings included since the cost of these will vary greatly depending on
what the buyer wants. Also remember to include the cost of preparatary
work - like in our case removing all the water tanks from the loft
before we started also required a change of boiler.
> Does any one have a guide to how much the basic structural work (new load
> bearing structure plus stairway) is likely to cost to give me an idea of how
> much I can save by DIYing the rest?
Just played this game, so I have some numbers to hand. Not sure how
applicable they will be to your situation but they should give you a
ball park. In my case I am adding three new rooms to a three bed semi,
the new floor area is approx 35 sq m. The total cost of the floor
structure (i.e. joists, steel where needed, and fixings etc) was under
1500 for the materials. It took about six days to get it all installed
with two of us working. Contrary to popular belief, this bit is actually
not that difficult to do properly if you have a reasonable loft
structure in the first place. If you have a trussed roof however then it
is far more difficult!
Floor boarding adds say another 200 (for chipboard). Note you may also
need to install some extra sound and fire proofing under the new floor.
Chicken wire and rockwool will normally do it - but don't underestimate
the time it takes to install!
You will need to start with a properly engineered plan (with structural
calculations) to prove the floor design before you start. I got an
architect to draw a full set of plans (570 quid) - having seen them -
and worked out what software package he used for the structural
calculations - I would probably be inclined to do them myself next
time (if there is one!)
Stairs (in a typical loft conversion) would usually be one of the last
items to go in. That way you can isolate much of the work, mess and
noise from the rest of the house. I had various quotes for having a
staircase made up (with two quarter winders) that were in the 800 quid
range. That did not include fitting. In the end I decided to build my
own from scratch. Cost of materials works out about 200 ish - but that
does not include spindles, handrails, snazzy turned newel posts etc
which will cost extra depending on what you want. Took a couple of days
to make, and then another four to get completely installed. (if you can
get away without needing the complicated changes of direction a straight
flight would be much simpler and quicker).
Also don't forget to add the incidental costs like scaffolding (you are
not going to get a 4m long beam up through the loft hatch!). Cost of
full plans submission to the local council was about 264 IIRC yours may
be different (you are unlikely to actually need planning permission -
just building regs approval - but check with your district council or
architect).
> Even with the lost space due to new floor and extra insulation I reckon I
> should be able to fit in two bedrooms and a shower/toilet. This is withoput
> a dormer of any kind.
The floor will add approx 5" - 6" inches from the top of the current
joists. The insulation (if we are talking on a sloping roof section)
will take away as little as 1.5" by the time the plasterboard is on when
you use things like celotex. Note however that you may need to make
changes such as adding soffit and ridge vents to compensate for the loss
of air flow to the roof timbers.
> All very tentative at the moment - weighing up potential and future costs in
> buying a detached 2 bedroom bungalow compared to buying a 3 bedroom semi.
Chances are you will add more value to the house than the cost of doing
it given current property prices - hence why so many people are taking
that route.
--
Cheers,
John.
/=================================================================\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\=================================================================/
IMM
"Owain" <owain...@stirlingcity.co.uk> wrote in message
news:108947846...@ersa.uk.clara.net...
> "David W.E. Roberts" wrote
> | (1) How long is a piece of string :-)
>
> About <waves hands> that long.
>
> Once the structural and roof work is done, the rest of it is usually just
> floorboards, plasterboard, wire and plumb.
>
> | (2) Looking at possibly buying a bungalow and converting the loft.
> | I know neighbours who have been quoted abot £25k for a full loft
> | conversion of a similar area on a two storey house.
>
> If the bungalow is one of a scheme of identical/similar bungalows have a
> walk round and see if any neighbours have loft conversions; if several do
> then it's a good indication that conversion is possible and economically
> viable. If you're brave you could even knock on their door and ask them
what
> it cost and which builder they used (and look where they put the stairs).
If
> no-one else has done a loft conversion you might ask yourself why.
>
> People often forget that bungalows have foundations intended for single
> storey houses and conversion to a two storey might mean improving the
> foundations. Costly and disruptive.
Better then to pull the bungalow down and build a 2 or 1.5 floor house, with
high insulation levels and passive solar if a decent south face. It will be
cheaper doing it this way. You will certainly recoup the cost when selling.
IMM
"John Rumm" <see.my.s...@nowhere.null> wrote in message
news:40f09a27$0$543$ed26...@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net...
> David W.E. Roberts wrote:
>
>
> > (1) How long is a piece of string :-)
>
> Twice half its length...
>
> > (2) Looking at possibly buying a bungalow and converting the loft.
>
> > I assume from reading various threads over the years that the best way
to go
> > would probably be to have steel beams inserted to provide the main load
> > bearing structure, and then joist and floor over the steel.
>
> The "best" way, is to do whatever is necessary to get a supporting
> structure for the floor that is "good enough". Depending on the spans
> required, you may only need timber joists, if not then perhaps timber
> joists with some flitch beams (a pair of joists with a steel plate
> bolted between them).
>
A neighbour is building an extension to give and extra bedroom from 3 beds
and living space. I said why not move into next door which was 4 beds,
decking a conservatory and all, which was for sale. He worked it out that
with stamp duty, having to do decorations, bits of new kitchen, lights etc,
on house next door, he would save around 20-25K. He is spending 60K on the
2 floor extension, which is 2/3 the size of the existing house, making the
house into an "L". He figured the 60K would at least put 60K on the house
value, going by local estate agents. So, he saves 20-25K, which is akin to
making 20-25K.
Also, the extension is to their design with large en-suite therapeutic bath,
shower room, walk in wardrobe, etc.
The work did not effect them too much as they closed the rear windows and
door and the extension went up. Only when they broke into the main house
was there some disruption.
Mary Fisher
>
> People often forget that bungalows have foundations intended for single
> storey houses and conversion to a two storey might mean improving the
> foundations. Costly and disruptive.
I wonder if building regs inspectors thoroughly consider the foundation
aspect when allowing vertical extensions.
The houses on our estate (built 1936/7) have no foundations, just about four
courses of bricks below ground. all the houses are on a hill.
A house behind us is at this moment having its roof removed and a two
bedroom extension built at the rear, it might be extended to the front too
but there's no evidence of that at the moment.
Two adjoined houses at the bottom of our street have also extended upwards
but outwards, to the rear, too. There are good foundations on the new
extension so the whole unit will be more stable than it has been for almost
70 years. But the one behind us is a different story, the houses are all
showing some signs of movement as it is, I can see that one partially
toppling over and taking its neighbour with it.
Surely, if the foundation aspect had thoroughly been investigated there
would have been objections?
Mary
John Rumm
> Better then to pull the bungalow down and build a 2 or 1.5 floor house, with
> high insulation levels and passive solar if a decent south face. It will be
> cheaper doing it this way. You will certainly recoup the cost when selling.
nonsense...
Mike Mitchell
Actually, quite a good idea! Radical, but yep, the costings appear
favourable. However, the OP may not be able to get PP for a house.
Another idea: Since bungalows invariably have larger (often MUCH
larger) plots than houses, can the OP not consider an extension
instead?
MM
Mike Mitchell
<see.my.s...@nowhere.null> wrote:
>Chances are you will add more value to the house than the cost of doing
>it given current property prices - hence why so many people are taking
>that route.
On the other hand, some buyers (e.g. me!) will not consider a
"bungalow" that is trying to be a house. When I look for a property
with loft space, that's what I want. A bungalow or a house. If it's a
house I want with enough rooms to fulfil my needs, I won't be looking
at bungalows with no loft space!
MM
IMM
"Mike Mitchell" <kyli...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:feu2f01gqfdgl6v9n...@4ax.com...
If he can get PP for a loft extension he can get it for a 1.5 floor house,
which is the best bet. New, to new rags, insulation levels, etc, etc.
> Another idea: Since bungalows invariably have larger (often MUCH
> larger) plots than houses, can the OP not consider an extension
> instead?
Or that is space is available, which appears not because he is thinking of
moving upwards.
John Rumm
> "Mike Mitchell" <kyli...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>>Actually, quite a good idea! Radical, but yep, the costings appear
>>favourable. However, the OP may not be able to get PP for a house.
If you are looking to do a self build then yes it is one way to do it.
Having said that, it is one of the more expensive ways since you are
buying a house you don't want, and then paying for a lot of skips to put
it in!
> If he can get PP for a loft extension he can get it for a 1.5 floor house,
> which is the best bet. New, to new rags, insulation levels, etc, etc.
The sale price of the new house will be much the same as the converted
old one though. The only difference is the build price will be at least
three times the cost of the conversion. The build being to modern regs
etc does not really have much (if any) impact on the price people will
pay for a house. As mentioned here recently, people will often associate
an older property with a "more solid", and "better built" one (even if
that is not necessarily the case). Hence the older "extended" property
with modernisation (i.e. rewire and new heating, nicely decorated) will
sell as well.
>>Another idea: Since bungalows invariably have larger (often MUCH
>>larger) plots than houses, can the OP not consider an extension
>>instead?
Not a dramatic difference in price either way I would have thought. The
extension may be a little cheaper that a loft conversion once you are
"off the ground", but the ground work will add a large lump to the
costs. (a neighbour is doing just this with a two storey extension
rather than a loft conversion - costs have been roughly equal so far)
John Rumm
> On the other hand, some buyers (e.g. me!) will not consider a
> "bungalow" that is trying to be a house. When I look for a property
> with loft space, that's what I want. A bungalow or a house. If it's a
> house I want with enough rooms to fulfil my needs, I won't be looking
> at bungalows with no loft space!
Yup I quite understand. I am no fan of "chalet style" properties either.
When buying our house we were offered lots - none of which appealed.
With twenty twenty hindsight I am glad I went for a "proper" two storey
house, since it gave the option of expanding upward now ;-)
IMM
"John Rumm" <see.my.s...@nowhere.null> wrote in message
> IMM wrote:
>
> > "Mike Mitchell" <kyli...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> >>Actually, quite a good idea! Radical, but yep, the costings appear
> >>favourable. However, the OP may not be able to get PP for a house.
>
> If you are looking to do a self build
> then yes it is one way to do it.
> Having said that, it is one of the more
> expensive ways since you are
> buying a house you don't want, and then
> paying for a lot of skips to put it in!
You are paying for the plot. In 99% of cases demolishing an old bungalow
and rebuilding is profitable, and much cheaper than many conversions.
> > If he can get PP for a loft extension he can get it for a 1.5 floor
house,
> > which is the best bet. New, to new rags, insulation levels, etc, etc.
But the rest of the house is still crap.
> The sale price of the new house will be much the same as the converted
> old one though.
Depends on how big style, etc. If the one across the road is converted and
the same style the new will go for more.
> The only difference is the build price will be at least
> three times the cost of the conversion.
Not, so. Conversions can be very expensive,especially if foundation have to
be meddled with.
> The build being to modern regs
> etc does not really have much (if any)
> impact on the price people will
> pay for a house.
If all mod cons are there it will.
> As mentioned here recently, people will often associate
> an older property with a "more solid", and "better built" one (even if
> that is not necessarily the case).
You are comparing developer estate homes. And individual homes is looked at
differently.
> Hence the older "extended" property
> with modernisation (i.e. rewire and new heating,
> nicely decorated) will sell as well.
Not so.
N. Thornton
Let me take a wild tack here, something I've always wondered. Usable
area depends on available height, which is often deficient or at best
tight. If one added a foot onto the brick wall height it would make a
great difference to what one could do up there. So... here goes: is it
possible to jack up the entire roof structure - or perhaps one side at
a time - and build up the brickwork course by course?
My barely formed thinking is that most or many roof structures are
safe enough to work on when supported only along the 2 sides, with
additional top support removed. With jacks it ought to be possible to
lift one side of it, do a couple of brick courses, and once hard lower
the roof, jack the other side...
Sounds kinda crazy, but why isnt it done?
Regards, NT
IMM
"N. Thornton" <big...@meeow.co.uk> wrote in message
news:a7076635.04071...@posting.google.com...
May as well remove the roof. run up the bricks and replace the roof with a
warm roof made of SIP panels. This does not have supports so a clear area
tat can be easily used as an extension. Can all be done in a day. Just
hire a crane to remove the old roof (if necessary) and crane in the new
SIPs. Easy. High insulation and lots of space.
John Rumm
> You are paying for the plot. In 99% of cases demolishing an old bungalow
> and rebuilding is profitable, and much cheaper than many conversions.
Assuming you replace it with something more desirable then I could
believe the first bit - although 99% seems doubtful.
However many loft conversions can be completed for under 25K (or much
less if you DIY). You are not going to demolish and rebuild for that.
>>>which is the best bet. New, to new rags, insulation levels, etc, etc.
>
>
> But the rest of the house is still crap.
Who says? it might be just fine. It may even have real character, and
"period features" that are so sought after...
>>The only difference is the build price will be at least
>>three times the cost of the conversion.
>
>
> Not, so. Conversions can be very expensive,especially if foundation have to
> be meddled with.
Loft conversions don't normally need foundation work. If they do, then
it is not an ideal property for conversion in the first place.
>>The build being to modern regs
>>etc does not really have much (if any)
>>impact on the price people will
>>pay for a house.
>
>
> If all mod cons are there it will.
You can add "all mod cons" to an older place. As I said - decent
heating, rewire, add an onsuite and utility room perhaps, and a good
many prospective buyers will be more than happy. Lets face it, painting
the outside of a place can vastly increase the chances of selling it -
and adds far more to the value than the cost of doing it. House buyers
(i.e. people) often have hidden shallows!
>>As mentioned here recently, people will often associate
>>an older property with a "more solid", and "better built" one (even if
>>that is not necessarily the case).
>
>
> You are comparing developer estate homes. And individual homes is looked at
> differently.
Huh?
>>Hence the older "extended" property
>>with modernisation (i.e. rewire and new heating,
>>nicely decorated) will sell as well.
>
>
> Not so.
Suit yourself. Personally if I were buying, the fact that a property is
a "new build" in itself would not be a main purchasing factor. Even if I
could sell the new house for 10K more it is still less return on my
investment than the converted property. (i.e. buy for 150K, knock down
and rebuild for 75K, sell for 250K - net gain 25K Vs. Buy for 150K,
refurb and convert for 30K, sell for 240K, net gain 60K)
John Rumm
> May as well remove the roof. run up the bricks and replace the roof with a
> warm roof made of SIP panels. This does not have supports so a clear area
> tat can be easily used as an extension.
> Can all be done in a day.
On which planet?
S Viemeister
>
> IMM wrote:
>
> > May as well remove the roof. run up the bricks and replace the roof with a
> > warm roof made of SIP panels. This does not have supports so a clear area
> > tat can be easily used as an extension.
>
> > Can all be done in a day.
>
> On which planet?
>
David W.E. Roberts
"John Rumm" <see.my.s...@nowhere.null> wrote in message
> David W.E. Roberts wrote:
Thanks for the most constructive response :-)
Now, to deal with some other responses and flesh out our reasons:
The plot is not particularly large - the floor area is roughly the same as
the ground floor of our current 4/5 bedroom house and the garden is smaller.
The small cul-de-sac has nothing but bungalows on it (all the same design) -
so planning for a new 2 storey property may be an issue.
The asking price is £220k (I am told that a building plot in the area is
worth about £100k). There have been various suggestions about the cost of a
demolish/build so I will assume at least £100k for a good quality 4 bedroom
house with PROPER room sizes - not a modern estate build with no hall or
landing and 8' * 6' 3rd and 4th bedrooms. I assume that this brand new
property would then be worth between £350k and £400k judging by prices of
upmarket detached houses in the area. There is, of course, the cost of
storage of furniture and also accomodation during the demolish/build cycle.
So we spend around £320K (but possibly more depending on size, quality of
fittings etc., cost overruns) to get a good quality 4 bedroom house on a
smaller plot than current, in a slightly less upmarket area, West facing
garden instead of South facing garden. No sun lounge, no balcony, no view of
the sea. Six to 18 months of hassle depending on the bugger factor.
So we could potentially make money - but wouldn't it be better to find a run
down property at a much cheaper price? The demolish/build costs are the same
but you aren't paying for an attractive and well maintained property. We
like this bungalow and want to live in it. We would be paying a premium
compared with a 3 bed semi with more accomodation, much more garden (they
tend to come with 80' to 100' rear gardens) and much more potential for
extension (2 storey extensions are generally more cost effective than single
storey or loft conversions).
I didn't mention our reason for moving house. We are looking to downsize. So
a strategy which involves a major work program to leave us with a similar
house to our current one and no equity release is not top of our agenda :-)
The bungalow is 1930's - which means that it has a huge high loft with real
wood beams and no cheap crap cross braced supports as found in most modern
builds. So there is an obvious potential to make more of this loft area. The
downside is the 2" * 4" joists. Other properties in this street have already
had loft conversions (but no dormers).
There are 4 downstairs rooms (excluding kitchen/bathroom) which really makes
it a 2 bedroom bungalow, although it is currently used as a 3 bedoom
bungalow with a 16' lounge/diner. This would do us fine as a 'mature couple'
but unfortunately we are currently infested with adult super-rugrats (in
urban environments they can grow to 6' 2" or more) and need a minimum of 3
bedrooms until the poisoned bait (my cooking) or the lure of the great blue
yonder clears some space for us.
So I am looking for ways in which a modest outlay (£25k or less) can expand
the accomodation to cope with occasional peaks (Lord help us all if they
ever breed) and still leave us with some cash to spend on ourselves.
We are looking at all properties within our budget and chosen area, but this
is the nicest we can see currently (although a tad overpriced).
So - demolish/build is out.
Extending backwards is a possibility - but to get as much floor area as
convering the loft we would have to increase the size of the property by
50%-75% which would use up a lot of back garden and involve replacing the
garage. Unlikely to cost less than a loft extension.
Anything involving more than £25k is out unless we do it with the aim of a
quick conversion, onward sale, and then look again for a long term home.
Again, if we were looking for property to develop and sell on then we
wouldn't be looking at this one!
Favourite option is to convert the loft at minimum cost, which means maximum
DIY and minimum commercial tradespeople.
Which brings us back to the length of a piece of string.......
Cheers
Dave R
Hugo Nebula
"Mary Fisher" <mary....@zetnet.co.uk> randomly hit the keyboard and
produced:
>I wonder if building regs inspectors thoroughly consider the foundation
>aspect when allowing vertical extensions.
>Surely, if the foundation aspect had thoroughly been investigated there
>would have been objections?
The additional loading on most foundations from a loft conversion is
usually minimal compared to what's there already. Unless there is an
arrangement of beams and columns which concentrates a load at a
particular point, the foundations aren't usually checked by the BCO.
Building Control don't "allow" work to be carried out; their role is
to determine whether the work being carried out complies with the
technical requirements of the Building Regulations. I often put it
as, "Planning determine the who, what and where; Building Control
determine the how".
If the existing property is showing signs of movement, that's a matter
that should be addressed _before_ any loft conversion is considered.
One would presume that if the conversion was being paid for by a
secured loan, even a valuation survey would pick it up.
--
Hugo Nebula
'What you have to ask yourself is,"if no-one on the internet wants a piece of this, just how far from the pack have you strayed?"'
Hugo Nebula
Rumm <see.my.s...@nowhere.null> randomly hit the keyboard and
produced:
>IMM wrote:
> > Can all be done in a day.
>
>On which planet?
Come on, how long have you lurked here? Don't you know by now IMM is
on the same planet; it's just that the universe it's in is parallel to
this one.
Mary Fisher
"Hugo Nebula" <ab...@local.host> wrote in message
news:emj4f05916038lvs6...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 11 Jul 2004 16:48:50 +0100, a particular chimpanzee named
> "Mary Fisher" <mary....@zetnet.co.uk> randomly hit the keyboard and
> produced:
>
> >I wonder if building regs inspectors thoroughly consider the foundation
> >aspect when allowing vertical extensions.
>
> >Surely, if the foundation aspect had thoroughly been investigated there
> >would have been objections?
>
> The additional loading on most foundations from a loft conversion is
> usually minimal compared to what's there already. Unless there is an
> arrangement of beams and columns which concentrates a load at a
> particular point, the foundations aren't usually checked by the BCO.
When there ARE foundations! But while the new load of the structure might
not be any greater there'll be a greter face to winds and when the extension
is loaded with furniture and people, possibly storage and the like it will
add to the whole load.
>
> Building Control don't "allow" work to be carried out; their role is
> to determine whether the work being carried out complies with the
> technical requirements of the Building Regulations. I often put it
> as, "Planning determine the who, what and where; Building Control
> determine the how".
Thanks for that explanation.
>
> If the existing property is showing signs of movement, that's a matter
> that should be addressed _before_ any loft conversion is considered.
> One would presume that if the conversion was being paid for by a
> secured loan, even a valuation survey would pick it up.
I suspect, knowing the family, that there won't be a loan. They're also
doing the work 'in-house'. Very well, I must say, from what I can see.
Mary
Mary Fisher
"S Viemeister" <firstname...@which.net> wrote in message
news:40F1E9BB...@which.net...
Sounds like Time Team ...
Mary
>
IMM
Yep. I have seen it done, even in parts of Little Middle England too.
John Rumm
> I didn't mention our reason for moving house. We are looking to downsize. So
> a strategy which involves a major work program to leave us with a similar
> house to our current one and no equity release is not top of our agenda :-)
Since you want to stay in the property, and the current one is nice, it
sounds like loft conversion could be a good way forward.
> The bungalow is 1930's - which means that it has a huge high loft with real
> wood beams and no cheap crap cross braced supports as found in most modern
That makes it easy...
> builds. So there is an obvious potential to make more of this loft area. The
> downside is the 2" * 4" joists. Other properties in this street have already
4x2" is good by comparison to most. Not much of an issue either way
since you can just install a real floor structure beside them - then all
they have to do is hold up the ceiling below.
> had loft conversions (but no dormers).
Chances are you could add a rear dormer without needing PP if you wanted
= depending on the slope of the roof it it can make a huge difference
to the usable floor space (especially if specimins in your rug rat
infestation has grown to be sizeable!)
> So I am looking for ways in which a modest outlay (ï½£25k or less) can expand
> the accomodation to cope with occasional peaks (Lord help us all if they
> ever breed) and still leave us with some cash to spend on ourselves.
> Favourite option is to convert the loft at minimum cost, which means maximum
> DIY and minimum commercial tradespeople.
If you are not hacking the rrof structure about (sans adding some roof
windows) then much / all of it is DIYable if you are feeling brave and
have the time. Getting a decent set of plans drawn up, assistance from a
chippie to put in the floor structure and add the roof windows would
then put you in a position to carry on by yourself for pretty much most
of the rest.
> Which brings us back to the length of a piece of string.......
Sticks finger in the air...
6 - 7K would take care of all of the above (depending on floor area and
how esoteric the design of the floor joists needs to be)... another 4 to
5K would see it decorated if you DIY the rest.
Hugo Nebula
>When there ARE foundations! But while the new load of the structure might
>not be any greater there'll be a greter face to winds and when the extension
>is loaded with furniture and people, possibly storage and the like it will
>add to the whole load.
There are always foundations, by the very definition of the word.
Whether they would be regarded as adequate if a new building was being
built on the same site is another issue. For instance, they may be
bearing on clay at a shallow depth, which means they could be
susceptible to shrinkage, but this wouldn't affect the ground's
bearing capacity.
The increased loads I mentioned included 'live' or 'imposed' loads for
most domestic floor loads, and the roof loads include a figure for
snow or wind loading. Doing some back of envelope figures for a
typical bungalow, I doubt that the loads on the foundations would
increase by more than 10-15%, well within most structure's factor of
safety.
>I suspect, knowing the family, that there won't be a loan.
...And maybe not a Building Regulations application?
Mike Mitchell
Dormers that are "stuck on" afterwards look absolutely awful, in my
opinion. If you do go ahead with the conversion, I suggest only
Velux-style windows. That way, you have a light, airy room, but the
roofline is maintained. I had them in my new-build flat in Germany and
they were great. If a property was designed from the outset with
dormer windows, then it *may* look okay, but those add-ons oftenlook
cheap and tacky.
MM
Mike Mitchell
<nos...@talk21.com> wrote:
Start planning your marital canoodling with the other half on the sofa
in the front room. Nothing gets the sprogs shifted more quickly.
They'll be down at the bank, asking to borrow money, quicker than you
can say pass the tube, dear! :)
MM
IMM
"David W.E. Roberts" <nos...@talk21.com> wrote in message
news:2lf014F...@uni-berlin.de...
>
> "John Rumm" <see.my.s...@nowhere.null> wrote in message
> news:40f09a27$0$543$ed26...@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net...
> > David W.E. Roberts wrote:
> <megasnip>
>
> Thanks for the most constructive response :-)
Read this report of house design, then build a new house.
http://www.ukace.org/pubs/reportfo/BuildIgn.pdf
David W.E. Roberts
"IMM" <abus...@easy.com> wrote in message
news:cctu2l$niq$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
Why?
</FEEDTHETROLL>
IMM
No. best rip it down and build a proper one that looks good. Waste of time
fannying around.
Dave Plowman (News)
> http://www.ukace.org/pubs/reportfo/BuildIgn.pdf
Some might be interested to know just who are *allowed* to belong to this
organisation.
**********************
"Membership of ACE is limited to twenty-four UK based companies which have
substantial interest in energy conservation equipment and services.
Current members include controls manufacturers, energy service companies,
and manufacturers and distributors of insulation materials."
**********************
So a broad range of independant views, then?
--
*If vegetable oil comes from vegetables, where does baby oil come from? *
Dave Plowman da...@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
Mary Fisher
>
> opinion. If you do go ahead with the conversion, I suggest only
> Velux-style windows. That way, you have a light, airy room, but the
> roofline is maintained. I had them in my new-build flat in Germany and
> they were great. If a property was designed from the outset with
> dormer windows, then it *may* look okay, but those add-ons oftenlook
> cheap and tacky.
I agree 100%
Mary
>
> MM
>
Mary Fisher
>
> Start planning your marital canoodling with the other half on the sofa
> in the front room. Nothing gets the sprogs shifted more quickly.
It didn't work with ours ... and STILL they come back at <hem> inconvenient
moments.
Mary
Owain
| The plot is not particularly large - the floor area is roughly the
| same as the ground floor of our current 4/5 bedroom house and the
| garden is smaller.
| The small cul-de-sac has nothing but bungalows on it (all the same
| design) - so planning for a new 2 storey property may be an issue.
Yes.
| The bungalow is 1930's - which means that it has a huge high loft
| with real wood beams and no cheap crap cross braced supports as
| found in most modern builds. So there is an obvious potential to
| make more of this loft area. The downside is the 2" * 4" joists.
| Other properties in this street have already had loft conversions
| (but no dormers).
That sounds /very/ promising, but dormer would add some very useful
headroom. One advantage of loft-converting a bungalow is you don't have the
fire safety regulations which come into force when you take a property into
three storeys.
| There are 4 downstairs rooms (excluding kitchen/bathroom) which really
| makes it a 2 bedroom bungalow, although it is currently used as a 3
| bedoom bungalow with a 16' lounge/diner. This would do us fine as a
| 'mature couple' but unfortunately we are currently infested with
| adult super-rugrats (in urban environments they can grow to 6' 2"
| or more) and need a minimum of 3 bedrooms until the poisoned bait
| (my cooking) or the lure of the great blue yonder clears some space
| for us.
| So I am looking for ways in which a modest outlay (£25k or less)
| can expand the accomodation to cope with occasional peaks (Lord help
| us all if they ever breed) and still leave us with some cash to spend
| on ourselves.
A lot will depend on the site and this might not make you popular with your
neighbours, but £25k will get you an ex campsite static caravan. A lot less
will get you an ex building site static caravan. Planning permission is not
normally needed for a caravan provided it is not used as a self-contained
dwelling (ie it's part of your own household). It might be a blunt reminder
to the super-rugrats that you're not expecting them to be a permanent
fixture. Further encouragement to fly the nest could be provided by giving
them only a 5A electricity supply in the depths of winter. Of course, it
wouldn't add value to the house like a loft conversion, but it also wouldn't
permanently rob you of garden like a ground level extension.
Owain
Owain
| Let me take a wild tack here, something I've always wondered.
| Usable area depends on available height, which is often deficient
| or at best tight. If one added a foot onto the brick wall height
| it would make a great difference to what one could do up
| there. So... here goes: is it possible to jack up the entire
| roof structure - or perhaps one side at a time - and build
| up the brickwork course by course?
It is possible to jack up the entire roof structure (NOT one side at a time,
or it will go squint) and rebuild underneath and this is not unusual in
renovation work. However the costs and difficulty in doing this are only
worthwhile where it would be extremely expensive or impractical to rebuilt
the roof. You might not get any extra height, because the joists holding up
the ceiling of the storey below are often an integral part of the roof
structure, preventing spreading, so you couldn't remove them. You would also
have the difficulty of matching the existing wall finish or having a band of
different colour wall all round the house. And because you would be building
above the existing ridge line you would need full planning permission.
For a loft conversion, the structural work involved in modifying the roof
mean that it's as easy to rebuild the roof with alterations as it would be
to lift it; if it can't be rebuilt it probably won't be much use after
lifting.
What can sometimes be done, where the ceilign joists aren't part of the roof
structure or their function can be replaced, is drop the ceiling level in
the first floor bedrooms a couple of ft to gain extra headroom in the loft.
Owain
Mike Mitchell
Even better, lift the roof with a crane hired for the day, insert pit
props/struts/scaffolding as necessary, then fill in the gaps. If the
struts are the screwed sort, you might not even need to get the crane
back to lower the roof onto the new courses.
MM
Mike Mitchell
I bet those Huf Haus builders could do it in a day!
MM
Mary Fisher
>
> Even better, lift the roof with a crane hired for the day, insert pit
> props/struts/scaffolding as necessary, then fill in the gaps. If the
> struts are the screwed sort, you might not even need to get the crane
> back to lower the roof onto the new courses.
Methinks there's a tongue in someone's cheek ...
:-)
Mary
>
> MM
IMM
They would do a block of flats in a day.
N. Thornton
> "N. Thornton" wrote
> | Let me take a wild tack here, something I've always wondered.
> | Usable area depends on available height, which is often deficient
> | or at best tight. If one added a foot onto the brick wall height
> | it would make a great difference to what one could do up
> | there. So... here goes: is it possible to jack up the entire
> | roof structure - or perhaps one side at a time - and build
> | up the brickwork course by course?
>
> It is possible to jack up the entire roof structure (NOT one side at a time,
> or it will go squint) and rebuild underneath and this is not unusual in
> renovation work. However the costs and difficulty in doing this are only
> worthwhile where it would be extremely expensive or impractical to rebuilt
> the roof. You might not get any extra height, because the joists holding up
> the ceiling of the storey below are often an integral part of the roof
> structure, preventing spreading, so you couldn't remove them.
I kinda forgotted that :)
> You would also
> have the difficulty of matching the existing wall finish or having a band of
> different colour wall all round the house.
I guess if matching bricks could not be found, complementary bricks
could be used with a little decorative patterning. Then it forms a
mildly decorative band along the top.
> And because you would be building
> above the existing ridge line you would need full planning permission.
>
> For a loft conversion, the structural work involved in modifying the roof
> mean that it's as easy to rebuild the roof with alterations as it would be
> to lift it; if it can't be rebuilt it probably won't be much use after
> lifting.
>
> What can sometimes be done, where the ceilign joists aren't part of the roof
> structure or their function can be replaced, is drop the ceiling level in
> the first floor bedrooms a couple of ft to gain extra headroom in the loft.
So how could the roof structure be modified to not need to use the
joists? The only structure I can think of would be an A shaped one,
which would require stronger woodwork and lose head height. As well as
be less stable.
Now I see why its not very practical.
Regards, NT
Andy Hall
They huf and they puf and they blow your house down.... :-)
.andy
To email, substitute .nospam with .gl
Niel A. Farrow
diyer consider this.
Planning should not be a problem for a bungalow.
New joists can be placed on existing wall plate or hung from wall plate
- I'm using the new composite I beam wooden joists - go to Travis Perkins
etc and they design and quote for you - all accepted by the Building
Control Officer - also lightweight and straight so can be handeled by one
person.
Insulation will be a large part of the cost - needs to be 0.3 for
refurbishment. Mines going to cost 4-5k (proably 15k if done by a builder).
Neil
David W.E. Roberts
"Niel A. Farrow" <n...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote in message
news:cd2rlk$3cu$1...@naig.caltech.edu...
Thanks - this is just the kind of information I was looking for!
Will go to our local Travis P. and see if they have details.
Cheers
Dave R
IMM
> diyer consider this.
> Planning should not be a problem for a bungalow.
> New joists can be placed on existing wall plate or hung from wall plate
> - I'm using the new composite I beam wooden joists - go to Travis Perkins
> etc and they design and quote for you - all accepted by the Building
> Control Officer - also lightweight and straight so can be handeled by one
> person.
To prevent impact sound travelling through, have the ceiling on the ground
floor on the existing joists and the floor above on the TJI "I" beams. Do
not have the "I" beams touch the existing joists or the ceiling below. Fill
the void with Rockwool bats tight up against the "I" beams.
> Insulation will be a large part of the
> cost - needs to be 0.3 for
> refurbishment.
Best go way over building regs ininsulation. The levels are to increase in a
few years so bets get to those levels at least. You are saving 10K so extra
on insulation is nothing.
> Mines going to cost
> 4-5k (proably 15k if done by a builder).
> Neil
Read this report. It give the insulation levels for various countries, etc.
It virtually castigates the British way of doing things.
http://www.ukace.org/pubs/reportfo/BuildIgn.pdf
Niel A. Farrow
There are lots of other considerations such as tieing the wall plate to
new joists, if the old ceiling joists are removed, insulating walls etc. etc.
Neil
Andy Hall
>
>
>Read this report. It give the insulation levels for various countries, etc.
>It virtually castigates the British way of doing things.
>
>http://www.ukace.org/pubs/reportfo/BuildIgn.pdf
>
From this paper:
"The Association for the Conservation of Energy (ACE) is a lobby
organization which also carries out policy research on energy
conservation."
"Membership of ACE is limited to twenty-four UK based companies which
have substantial interest in energy conservation equipment and
services. Current members include controls manufacturers, energy
service companies, and manufacturers and distributors of insulation
materials."
Not exactly impartial or without vested interest.......
Hugo Nebula
named n...@alumni.caltech.edu (Niel A. Farrow) randomly hit the
keyboard and produced:
>New joists can be placed on existing wall plate or hung from wall plate
>- I'm using the new composite I beam wooden joists - go to Travis Perkins
>etc and they design and quote for you - all accepted by the Building
>Control Officer - also lightweight and straight so can be handeled by one
>person.
Bear in mind that these type of joists have their limitations; looking
at the literature
(http://www.apa-europe.org/Languages/English/Ijoists/A725UK.pdf), the
minimum depth is over 240mm, which causes problems in loft conversions
where headroom is usually at a premium. AIUI they can't be chamfered
nor can they can't be simply supported by resting on a wallplate, they
have to be either hung from proprietary joist hangers, built-in or
noggined. Both of which situations are more likely to arise in loft
conversions where the joists have to be inserted between the existing
ceiling joists on top of the existing wallplate under the existing
roofing felt.
Mike Mitchell
>Best go way over building regs ininsulation. The levels are to increase in a
>few years so bets get to those levels at least.
If they keep on increasing, we will eventually be buying blocks of
insulation, not houses...
When I was a lad there was ice on the INSIDE of the windows in winter.
MM
Mary Fisher
Same here. I miss watching the crystals grow, like feathers or flowers ...
and pressing a warm penny (a proper penny) on the patterns (like fractals)
to make a peephole.
We do still get ice on the inside of the single glazed windows of our old
caravans, in winter. We solved that by clipping woolen car blankets to the
OUTSIDE of the windows overnight and we can still have the windows open a
little.
Mary
> > MM
Nick Brooks
>
>
> When I was a lad there was ice on the INSIDE of the windows in winter.
>
> MM
You had windows? You were lucky . . .
(Apologies to Monty Python)
Dave Plowman (News)
Nick Brooks <nick....@mailandnews.com> wrote:
> > When I was a lad there was ice on the INSIDE of the windows in winter.
> You had windows? You were lucky . . .
Oh, we had windows. Glass, now...
--
*I wonder how much deeper the ocean would be without sponges.
Mary Fisher
"Dave Plowman (News)" <da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4cce72a...@davenoise.co.uk...
> In article <2lkuqiF...@uni-berlin.de>,
> Nick Brooks <nick....@mailandnews.com> wrote:
> > > When I was a lad there was ice on the INSIDE of the windows in winter.
>
> > You had windows? You were lucky . . .
>
> Oh, we had windows. Glass, now...
At least the ice will have stopped the winter winds.
Mary
>
Toby
> Bear in mind that these type of joists have their limitations....
> minimum depth is over 240mm, which causes problems in loft conversions
> where headroom is usually at a premium. AIUI they can't be chamfered
> nor can they can't be simply supported by resting on a wallplate, they
There might be a plan C....
> conversions where the joists have to be inserted between the existing
> ceiling joists on top of the existing wallplate under the existing
> roofing felt.
The new joists may be able to go perpendicular & under the existing joists.
Loft headroom is maintained at the expense of first floor headroom, of
course a new ceiling is also required. This route seems to work quite well
in standard Victorian / Edwardian terraces at low material cost although
arguably greater disruption.
--
Toby.
'One day son, all this will be finished'
Niel A. Farrow
Hugo Nebula <hugo....@dsl.pipex.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 08:42:28 +0000 (UTC), a particular chimpanzee
>named n...@alumni.caltech.edu (Niel A. Farrow) randomly hit the
>keyboard and produced:
>
>>New joists can be placed on existing wall plate or hung from wall plate
>>- I'm using the new composite I beam wooden joists - go to Travis Perkins
>>etc and they design and quote for you - all accepted by the Building
>>Control Officer - also lightweight and straight so can be handeled by one
>>person.
>
>Bear in mind that these type of joists have their limitations; looking
>at the literature
>(http://www.apa-europe.org/Languages/English/Ijoists/A725UK.pdf), the
>minimum depth is over 240mm, which causes problems in loft conversions
>where headroom is usually at a premium. AIUI they can't be chamfered
>nor can they can't be simply supported by resting on a wallplate, they
>have to be either hung from proprietary joist hangers, built-in or
>noggined. Both of which situations are more likely to arise in loft
>conversions where the joists have to be inserted between the existing
>ceiling joists on top of the existing wallplate under the existing
>roofing felt.
Mine will be 9" deep so hanging from the 3" wall plate I loose 6" height
from the rooms below (ceilings are dropping, lath and plaster needs to
come down anyway). However, they will be flush with the wall plate so that
when I remove the old ceiling joists I gain 3". These joists are also
straight, don't warp, can be set at 600mm centres, have knock outs for
cables and pipes, and come in lengths up to 45 feet?. Being much lighter
than solid wood they can be handled by one person. To get them you
take in your rough plans which are sent out to the firm that supplies
them (Travis Perkins do it in house) who design the floor and produce a
laminated plan which is accepted by Building Control. They are more
expensive but they do have many advantages.
Neil
John Rumm
> To prevent impact sound travelling through, have the ceiling on the ground
> floor on the existing joists and the floor above on the TJI "I" beams. Do
> not have the "I" beams touch the existing joists or the ceiling below. Fill
> the void with Rockwool bats tight up against the "I" beams.
Nice trick if you can do it. What I found was that to insert the new
floor joists, I needed to cut away tie beams that run perpendicular to
the original joists. These were typically placed in the middle of the
span of the longer ceiling joists to give lateral support and also to
spread the load of the ceiling over several adjacent beams.
To stop the ceilings sagging when you cut through the ties you need to
replicate the function of these beams. The usual way to do this is to
add noggins between the new joists that can be fixed to the old ceiling
joists to brace them. You also need to make sure that you strap each
ceiling joist to something solid before you take out the tie beam, and
until you have fixed it to the noggin.
The down side of doing this is you now have a point of contact between
the floor and ceiling joists.
--
Cheers,
John.
/=================================================================\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\=================================================================/
IMM
>
> >Best go way over building regs ininsulation. The levels are to increase
in a
> >few years so bets get to those levels at least.
>
> If they keep on increasing, we will eventually be buying blocks of
> insulation, not houses...
Exactly. That is what SIP panels are. Insulation sandwiched between OSB
boards. They are strong enough to form the structure of a house. So the
insulation holds up the house.
IMM
"John Rumm" <see.my.s...@nowhere.null> wrote in message
news:40f5dcc9$0$92641$ed26...@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net...
> IMM wrote:
>
> > To prevent impact sound travelling through, have the ceiling on the
ground
> > floor on the existing joists and the floor above on the TJI "I" beams.
Do
> > not have the "I" beams touch the existing joists or the ceiling below.
Fill
> > the void with Rockwool bats tight up against the "I" beams.
>
> Nice trick if you can do it. What I found was that to insert the new
> floor joists, I needed to cut away tie beams that run perpendicular to
> the original joists. These were typically placed in the middle of the
> span of the longer ceiling joists to give lateral support and also to
> spread the load of the ceiling over several adjacent beams.
>
> To stop the ceilings sagging when you cut through the ties you need to
> replicate the function of these beams. The usual way to do this is to
> add noggins between the new joists that can be fixed to the old ceiling
> joists to brace them. You also need to make sure that you strap each
> ceiling joist to something solid before you take out the tie beam, and
> until you have fixed it to the noggin.
>
> The down side of doing this is you now have a point of contact between
> the floor and ceiling joists.
If the existing joists are only holding up the ceiling in the extension,
then they don't need strutting.
John Rumm
>>The down side of doing this is you now have a point of contact between
>>the floor and ceiling joists.
>
>
> If the existing joists are only holding up the ceiling in the extension,
> then they don't need strutting.
Actually they do (or did in our case) - for two reasons: Firstly if you
remove them then chances are you will sustain damage to the ceiling
below - because they will sag over time (even with the ties they had
already sagged a couple of inches in the centre of the span over the years.
Secondly, the BCO would insist they were there, are hence would not pass
the floor structure without.
If the existing joists were short enough (under 3m say) you may then get
away with removing the ties.
mark
<abus...@easy.com> writes
>> the floor and ceiling joists.
>
>If the existing joists are only holding up the ceiling in the extension,
>then they don't need strutting.
>
>
--
mark
IMM
"Andy Hall" <an...@hall.nospam> wrote in message
news:5m4af0hg8rccfs261...@4ax.com...
It gives indisputable facts and compares the UK to others. The Uk is
abysmal.
Dave Plowman (News)
> It gives indisputable facts and compares the UK to others. The Uk is
> abysmal.
Are those the same 'indisputable facts' you so often use in your posts?
--
*You never really learn to swear until you learn to drive *
IMM
"Andy Hall" <an...@hall.nospam> wrote in message
news:5m4af0hg8rccfs261...@4ax.com...
It gives indisputable facts and compares the UK to others. The Uk is
abysmal.
Andy Hall
When somebody has a vested interest, "facts" are never indisputable
and are certainly selected to make the case for the interested party.
John Rumm
> When somebody has a vested interest, "facts" are never indisputable
> and are certainly selected to make the case for the interested party.
A kind of eco "dodgy dossier" then... perhaps there should be an inquiry ;-)
Andy Hall
<see.my.s...@nowhere.null> wrote:
>Andy Hall wrote:
>
>> When somebody has a vested interest, "facts" are never indisputable
>> and are certainly selected to make the case for the interested party.
>
>A kind of eco "dodgy dossier" then... perhaps there should be an inquiry ;-)
Naturally.... and of course it won't be anybody's fault......