Did our brickie do it wrong?

[festive]

My old man popped over today (builder for many years) anyway he pointed out the brick course on the external wall is supposed to be 75mm lower for the back door, so when you screen internal floor screed comes up to door frame so there isn't a large step over to walk outside.

Whereas the two brick courses internal/external are identical, so the door in effect starts from the level of the screed so we have the full height of the door frame definately not what i wanted, is this normal, should i have specified it? My old man says he should of done it like that, but hey i just want a second opinion!

TIA

 

[jeds]

If I read you right you are saying you have a step over the threshold the depth of the door sill.

If you were building new build today the step would not comply with disabled regulations. All door thresholds have to be level and wide enough for wheelchair access.

Sounds like your situation is an alteration to an existing property though, so disabled regs do not apply. In which case what you have is quite normal. If you wanted level I think you should have specified it.

 

[^woody^]

Is common for frames to be set at the DPC/floor level so that there is a slight step over. Raised external path and a timber board internal, take care of disabled access - if Part M even applies in your case - it may not if this is not a front door

But with plastic frames, the more clued up people (which sounds like your old man is) will set the frame one course lower to avoid that awful high threshold inherent with plastic frames ..... but remember to have the frame made 75mm taller ie 2175 and not 2100.

Its not really wrong as it is common, but perhaps not what you wanted. But if the builders did not know how you wanted it, then they would do what is common

If this is a standard timber door frame, then it will go at DPC/floor level so that the head heights of all door and window frames are kept level

 

[noseall]

But with plastic frames, the more clued up people (which sounds like your old man is) will set the frame one course lower to avoid that awful high threshold inherent with plastic frames

be careful on this one.

there is usually about 70mm clearance, if the door swings inward, between the bottom of the door and the floor screed.

if the customer decides he wants oak flooring or tiles then this will leave about 50mm.

dropping the door an entire course will not be wise. it would be better to leave two courses out then lay a row of snap headers across in place of the two courses.

this will drop the door down only 40mm allowing room for floor coverings.

 

[wakey77]

The correct way to do this is to fix the door at dpc height
dpc height should be a minimum of 150mm above finished ground
if the entrance is to be used as a wheel chair access then a frame with a low threshold should be used for level access obviously allowing clearance for any interior floor finish.
In my opinion and im sure the building inspector dropping your frame 75mm below dpc is a bad idea.

 

[noseall]

In my opinion and im sure the building inspector dropping your frame 75mm below dpc is a bad idea.

This was covered in 2008!

However, why is it a bad idea to lower the threshold below dpc?

Why would the BCO be bothered?

 

[wakey77]

In my opinion and im sure the building inspector dropping your frame 75mm below dpc is a bad idea.

This was covered in 2008!

However, why is it a bad idea to lower the threshold below dpc?

Why would the BCO be bothered?

Given that the minimum dpc height from finished ground level is 150mm
you potentially have your door cill 75mm from slab height with the added possibility of water creaping between cill and masonary also any potential back fall from garden to house
hence the reason i think its bad practice to lower the the cill below dpc.

 

[fishcake]

In my opinion and im sure the building inspector dropping your frame 75mm below dpc is a bad idea.

This was covered in 2008!

However, why is it a bad idea to lower the threshold below dpc?

Why would the BCO be bothered?

Given that the minimum dpc height from finished ground level is 150mm
you potentially have your door cill 75mm from slab height with the added possibility of water creaping between cill and masonary also any potential back fall from garden to house
hence the reason i think its bad practice to lower the the cill below dpc.

I agree and also agree with your answer above.

 

[noseall]

How does a lowered door sill effect the performance of a 150mm masonry splash barrier?

 

[noseall]

I agree and also agree with your answer above.

What are your (logical) reasons?

Prey tell?

 

[noseall]

I agree and also agree with your answer above.

What are your (logical) reasons?

Prey tell?

In that case, would it be ok to drop the sill one course if the ground level was more than 150mm below dpc level? If yes/no, can you give your explanations.

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

Eh up, BAS is on the loose!

 

[noseall]

Eh up, BAS is on the loose!

Why should HE have all the fun.

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

 

[wakey77]

I agree and also agree with your answer above.

What are your (logical) reasons?

Prey tell?

In that case, would it be ok to drop the sill one course if the ground level was more than 150mm below dpc level? If yes/no, can you give your explanations.

Can you honestly tell me that you really think its a good idea to drop a door cill a coarse below dpc.
It is bad working practice and can see no reason for it
with the use of a low threshold door and exterior ramp that would get around the disabled access thing
as for lowering the frame a coarse to allow access for a wheel chair therefore bringing your ramp up to the top of the cill and the same with your inside floor this is nothing more than a bodge and there is no sensible reason for it when as stated a low threshold can be used.