Timber frame garage.

[Screech20]

Hey guys.

I'm looking for a little bit of advice if you don't mind, I realise it's probably a big can of worms, but i want to check before i do, or dont, drop myself in any brown stuff.

I'm about to knock down my carport that the previous owner built, well, tried to build.

I want the biggest garage i can get, and after some research, it will be 10 x 3m, to keep it within the 30m2, no permission needed.

Here's the but...
I've now realised that my plans to build it off the existing garden wall are no good, as not much is holding it up!

So I would like to get rid of this wall, and go fully timber frame. But the problem is with the 'non-combustible material' part of the regs.


So what i've thought of today, is would making this wall fire proof be sufficient? i.e, plasterboarded inside, and rendered or supalux on the outside?



I hope this all makes sense


Thanks in advacne!

 

[ban-all-sheds]

The requirement is that the building be constructed substantially of non-combustible material, not just the wall on the boundary, so 1 wall out of 4 plus roof does not qualify.

 

[Screech20]

Thanks for your input, and it makes sense.

So because its within 2m of the boundary, it's need to be built from substantially non-combustible material.

So bearing that in mind, the insides going to be plasterboarded anyway, I just need to 'non-combustibleise' the whole of the outside walls (supalux?)


Cheers.

 

[tony1851]

@OP;

The rule is that the building should be of 'substantially non-combustible materials' if it is within 1m of the boundary. This rule is to prevent fire spread across a boundary, either from your garage to the neighbour's property, or the other way round.

But the chief fire risk here is presented only by the wall running along the boundary. If that is fire-resistant (say with render outside and some fire-resistant board internally), you should not have any problem with building control if the garage is timber-framed.

Fire regs particularly are often open to interpretation, and a common-sense awareness of why the rule exists should apply.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

So because its within 2m of the boundary, it's need to be built from substantially non-combustible material.

No - you have got that wrong.

The building needs to be substantially constructed from non-combustible material. i.e. a substantial amount of the building has to be non-combustible.

That is not the same as the building being made of stuff which is substantially non-combustible. The material has to be non-combustible, not substantially non-combustible.

 

[cjard]

i.e. a substantial amount of the building has to be non-combustible.

Amount quantified how? Weight? Volume? Count of pieces? Cost of material?

Whether that's your statement or the law's, it's rather meaningless don't you think?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Whether it be vague, pretty meaningless, or downright ridiculous, the fact remains that it is the law, and no decent person with scruples or morality or sense of responsibility would ever tell someone to ignore it.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

But the chief fire risk here is presented only by the wall running along the boundary. If that is fire-resistant (say with render outside and some fire-resistant board internally), you should not have any problem with building control if the garage is timber-framed.

That may well be the case, but the OP cannot get a determination like that unless he applies for BR approval, as the law requires him to do.

 

[noseall]

We converted a large double garage flattie into a pitched, which was within 1m of the boundary and constructed the gable end in timber stud.

So, the whole roof is wood, the gable is wood and the gable stud wall was sheathed in ply. The only thing we were asked to do was cover the sheathing with 6mm cement particle board prior to cladding it with plastic.

Ho hum.

Pastor Bas is our moral compass.

 

[cjard]

Whether it be vague, pretty meaningless, or downright ridiculous, the fact remains that it is the law, and no decent person with scruples or morality or sense of responsibility would ever tell someone to ignore it.

I apologise on behalf of anyone who may have forgotten that the requirement here for giving advice you deem contra to the law, should be posed as a question

Vague laws are unenforceable. For someone who demands absolute precision I find it surprising that in this context you can be so lax. Do you only do it when it suits the point you're making?

While you're answering my question, if you will, could you also qualify "substantial" ? 80%? 51%?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Vague laws are unenforceable.

That's irrelevant - you do not advise people to break them.

For someone who demands absolute precision I find it surprising that in this context you can be so lax. Do you only do it when it suits the point you're making?

I'm not being lax - I'm saying don't advise people to break the law.

While you're answering my question, if you will, could you also qualify "substantial" ? 80%? 51%?

No.

 

[geraldthehamster]

No.

Oh, go on

Cheers
Richard

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Sorry - I can't.

 

[clifford1]

"Substantially constructed" I'd have thought meant it was sturdily built.

If the substantially was meant to apply to the proportion of combustible material, it would say "constructed of substantially non-combustible materials".

 

[geraldthehamster]

"Substantially constructed" I'd have thought meant it was sturdily built.

If the substantially was meant to apply to the proportion of combustible material, it would say "constructed of substantially non-combustible materials".

You're assuming that the people who write the regulations are literate.

Cheers
Richard