Justification for steel beam on half brick wall

[Dave 123]

They need to be redesigning and paying for implementation of a workable scheme.

You are right, although I cannot tell you how much we do not want to speak with them any more. I just fear they will tell us to run posts from the ground floor all the way to the loft. The house is narrow as it is so adding another obstacle to the corridor is far from ideal. Plus one of the steel beams is above the porch so we can even put a post there.

 

[Dave 123]

Oh dear, sounds like another bit of the job not quite panning out.

Previous owner removed too much of the chimney breast, left around 800mm while the stack is 1100mm. So we need to build it back. However, the loft is small as it is, and where we need to build it back we planned to have a shower. I got another SE to design support with a steel and a post that BC were happy with. Saying that, in the wider context of steel support for the loft this might not work as well.

 

[oldbutnotdead]

You are right, although I cannot tell you how much we do not want to speak with them any more. I just fear they will tell us to run posts from the ground floor all the way to the loft. The house is narrow as it is so adding another obstacle to the corridor is far from ideal. Plus one of the steel beams is above the porch so we can even put a post there.

I can understand your reluctance, but you'll have to continue working with them to have any chance of them paying for their cockup.
The porch column may be addressable by building a steel goalpost into the porch (sensitively and invisibly) and supporting upstairs from that.
Keep reminding yourself that the architect has screwed up, he needs to design and implement alternatives to achieve the scheme you paid him for. He and SE will be blaming building control- you need to keep them focussed

 

[oldbutnotdead]

Previous owner removed too much of the chimney breast, left around 800mm while the stack is 1100mm. So we need to build it back. However, the loft is small as it is, and where we need to build it back we planned to have a shower. I got another SE to design support with a steel and a post that BC were happy with. Saying that, in the wider context of steel support for the loft this might not work as well.

Yerse, that needs to be seen as part of the whole scheme rather than as a standalone

 

[Dave 123]

They need to be redesigning and paying for implementation of a workable scheme.

Could you expand on that? You mean they would pay for whatever work is needed to comply with building regs? They can tell us we shouldn't have started work before BC inspected the site and approved the plan

 

[^woody^]

If the party wall is only 1/2 brick, you will need to upgrade it to 60 minutes fire and sound proofing regardless of the beam issue.

You really need to state what the actual issue is if you are expecting a meaningful answer other than bananas.

 

[Dave 123]

If the party wall is only 1/2 brick, you will need to upgrade it to 60 minutes fire and sound proofing regardless of the beam issue.

This never came up, not even mentioned by BC

 

[Dave 123]

You really need to state what the actual issue is if you are expecting a meaningful answer other than bananas

Fair point, there is a lot in here. The problem is that we are stuck half way through building a loft and need advice on how can we progress it so it gets approved by BC. We do not want to incur additional costs, our budget is limited. So maybe someone knows how to justify added load on a half brick wall? Maybe someone had a similar problem and resolved it fairly easy and quickly. Someone mentioned that the architect/se might pay for the work to make it right (unless I misunderstood). Or any other practical solutions so that we can finish the job and forget about it.

 

[Dave 123]

If the party wall is only 1/2 brick, you will need to upgrade it to 60 minutes fire and sound proofing regardless of the beam issue.

Sorry you mean the one in the loft! There was only a plasterboard, no bricks, our contractor upgraded it as you mentioned

 

[oldbutnotdead]

Could you expand on that? You mean they would pay for whatever work is needed to comply with building regs? They can tell us we shouldn't have started work before BC inspected the site and approved the plan

They can say all that but (as professionals) they should not have prepared a scheme with such a massive error in it. They had time and opportunity to survey the job properly and they didn't.
If you'd gone full plans rather than building notice you'd probably be in the same situation as you are now- BCO might or might not have spotted the discrepancy between calcs and real world before you opened the roof up.
Your architect and original SE were negligent in failing to notice that the party wall was half brick. They are thus liable for any rectification required to achieve the scheme they designed (and you paid them to design). You may have to accept big chunks of steel in the hallway but you shouldn't be paying for them or the builders time to fit them and make good.

 

[mrrusty]

Your architect and original SE were negligent in failing to notice that the party wall was half brick. They are thus liable for any rectification required to achieve the scheme they designed (and you paid them to design). You may have to accept big chunks of steel in the hallway but you shouldn't be paying for them or the builders time to fit them and make good.

I think this is true, but I think that taking a confrontational approach will not get the job dome anytime soon. They will resist claiming on their PI - this insurance cost has gone through the roof post grenfell, and a claim may well make premiums prohibitive. Might be better to take a pragmatic approach, try and perhaps work out a 50-50 solution that gets the job done. Not ideal, but a half completed job and litigation won't be any fun.

 

[Leofric]

Not claiming to completely understand your situation but if the problem is supporting a steel beam going on to a party wall would it be possible to support the beam on another steel beam spanning front to back instead of taking posts down to foundations Just a thought.

 

[tony1851]

On what grounds does the SE say it's not possible to support the beam off the half-brick party wall? If you are a narrow terrace house, the beam won't be carrying too much weight. If the p/wall is bonded to the external wall, there shouldn't really be any issue.
Having steel posts going down through the house would be ridiculous.

 

[oldbutnotdead]

I think this is true, but I think that taking a confrontational approach will not get the job dome anytime soon. They will resist claiming on their PI - this insurance cost has gone through the roof post grenfell, and a claim may well make premiums prohibitive. Might be better to take a pragmatic approach, try and perhaps work out a 50-50 solution that gets the job done. Not ideal, but a half completed job and litigation won't be any fun.

Nobody likes enriching lawyers but why should the professional architects' failure present additional costs to the innocent homeowner who has engaged a professional to do a professional job (and probably on a decent commission of the overall value of the scheme).
I'll defer to tony1851 on the viability of the original scheme- do wonder if there's other stuff on site affecting the capacity of the half brick party wall

 

[Ian H]

With the half brick wall would the steel be in the loft of would you be knocking a hole into your neighbours bedroom?

Before the guys did our roof I went to look at a job of their and that was a half brick party wall, they bolted a steel to the wall and built a new wall up off that just in the loft space, the steel ridge beam sat on that.