Timber frame garage.

[Screech20]

Thank you so much for the helpful comments! And there was me thinking I'd be able to come on here and get some sensible adult like advice basically saying 'yes, fire proofed timber frame will be sufficient' or just a 'no'.

On a serious note, thank you to those who have actually helped, though at the mo, I'm none the wiser.

Cheers

 

[tony1851]

There is disagreement even among local authority building inspectors as to what constitutes 'substantially non-combustible'.
As this phrase does not seem to have been properly interpreted by a court, it will always lead to disputes - that is why there have been such varied opinions here.
But in the real world, as fmt has pointed out, there are countless timber-frame garages and sheds against boundaries.
Just build your timber-frame garage where you want it - don't let on to the council, and chances are you'll hear nothing from them. On the off chance you did, it would only be a snotty, threatening letter, and it won't go any further.

 

[noseall]

Don't you just love 'grey' areas.

The vagaries of ambiguity, eh...?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

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

No - that's exactly what it would (should) not say in that case.

What you've done there is to apply "substantially" to the non-combustible nature of the materials, not to the degree of use of non-combustible materials in the construction of the building.

Been trying to come up with an analogy, or a way to explain the difference between applying "substantial" to the amount of non-combustible materials used vs the degree of combustibility of the materials used. The best I can think of so far is if you were asked to devise a menu for a vegetarian and vegan restaurant, and were told "a substantial part of the menu should be vegan". That would mean that a substantial number of the dishes should be vegan ones, it would not mean that every dish should be substantially vegan, and dishes which were substantially vegan apart from a bit of egg or cheese would not be vegan at all and you would have failed to produce a menu which was substantially vegan.

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

Jeez just get on with it and build it how you like, you may get a snotty letter, so what it won't go any further. Hopefully this post will be retained long enough for you to read it before BAS goes cry's to the mods yet again!

 

[tony1851]

What you've done there is to apply "substantially" to the non-combustible nature of the materials, not to the degree of use of non-combustible materials in the construction of the building.

Been trying to come up with an analogy, or a way to explain the difference between applying "substantial" to the amount of non-combustible materials used vs the degree of combustibility of the materials used. The best I can think of so far is if you were asked to devise a menu for a vegetarian and vegan restaurant, and were told "a substantial part of the menu should be vegan". That would mean that a substantial number of the dishes should be vegan ones, it would not mean that every dish should be substantially vegan, and dishes which were substantially vegan apart from a bit of egg or cheese would not be vegan at all and you would have failed to produce a menu which was substantially vegan.

Why bat your head against a wall attempting to interpret words and
phrases which are themselves imprecise? The parliamentary draftsmen who write these statutory instruments frequently don't seem to consider the clear meaning of some of the things they come out with: the 2008 revision to the GPDO is a classic case.

FWIW my thoughts are, that if the wording of a statute is ambiguous, and if the statute is one of obligations (such as the Building Act), then the householder should not agonize over trying to comply with it.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Why bat your head against a wall attempting to interpret words and
phrases which are themselves imprecise?

I'm not - I'm trying to explain that there is a significant difference between "constructed substantially of non-combustible material" and "constructed of substantially non-combustible material".

"The car park was substantially full of silver cars" does not mean that it was full of cars which were painted silver apart from one door.

"The street was substantially composed of red-brick houses" does not mean that it had houses made of bricks which were mostly red but had other colours in them.

It's basic English comprehension, really.

The parliamentary draftsmen who write these statutory instruments frequently don't seem to consider the clear meaning of some of the things they come out with: the 2008 revision to the GPDO is a classic case.

Whilst it's true that the "apart from" is rather like the "But apart from that, Mrs Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play?", apart from no definition of "substantial", the wording is very clear and understandable.

FWIW my thoughts are, that if the wording of a statute is ambiguous, and if the statute is one of obligations (such as the Building Act), then the householder should not agonize over trying to comply with it.

I'm unaware of any moral imperative to break, or to advise breaking, laws because they are vaguely worded.

And in any event, "constructed substantially of non-combustible material" is not ambiguous.

 

[RonnyRaygun]

And in any event, "constructed substantially of non-combustible material" is not ambiguous.

I agree. That's basically saying that you shouldn't build your structure from timber, or ,at least, you can have timber joists and roof but the walls had better be masonry or concrete.

However, we all know that timber buildings go up all the time - I've just designed a six storey one - and the fire risk can be substantially (there's that word again) designed out.

So surely, it would be better if the statement read something like "The building should be designed in accordance with Approved Document Part B"?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I haven't read AD B - does it give guidance on what would make a timber framed building "constructed substantially of non-combustible material"?

If it does then the OP could follow that guidance and not have to notify.

I did wonder, briefly, if TRADA could be of help, and then realised that if the answer was "yes", it would actually be "yes, but not for free".

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Jeez just get on with it and build it how you like, you may get a snotty letter, so what it won't go any further. Hopefully this post will be retained long enough for you to read it before BAS goes cry's to the mods yet again!

Stop telling people to break the law, you POS.

 

[RonnyRaygun]

Jeez just get on with it and build it how you like, you may get a snotty letter, so what it won't go any further. Hopefully this post will be retained long enough for you to read it before BAS goes cry's to the mods yet again!

Stop telling people to break the law, you POS.

There's a famous quote that says "Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men"...

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

Jeez just get on with it and build it how you like, you may get a snotty letter, so what it won't go any further. Hopefully this post will be retained long enough for you to read it before BAS goes cry's to the mods yet again!

Stop telling people to break the law, you POS.

I'll say what I like so wind it in you silly little man.

 

[tony1851]

I'm unaware of any moral imperative to break, or to advise breaking, laws because they are vaguely worded.

If the wording of a statute is ambiguous, how would anyone actually know if they were breaking the law?

This was the whole point of the OP's question.

Only a judge could pronounce on the interpretaion, and why should anyone risk going to court over a statute which is imprecise? In this particular case, the law is indeed an ass.

 

[noseall]

If the wording of a statute is ambiguous, how would anyone actually know if they were breaking the law?

Interesting.

Does this mean that no work gets done unless the ambiguities are tested in a court?

If designers are not 100% certain and building control are not 100% certain, then according to Bas no work should be carried out, no matter how important or trivial, unless every aspect is tested in court.

Is this your take Bas?

In the interests of pedanticness, how would a pedant cope if he were in a position that meant he had to break a minor law in order to avoid breaking a more serious one?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

There's a famous quote that says "Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men"...

But not famous enough for you to know that it was not said in relation to laws.