Internal Plasterboarding

[Wardster]

Hi all - got a query .....
Renovating a 1880's house, nice little pet project, bits and pieces being done in stages.
However, due to the plaster being completely blown in many areas, the decision was to strip the plaster back to brick work, and redo with plasterboard with steel framework.
One wall, being external (but external only to a covered access alleyway), runs the full length of the house, one long wall from front to back has been done, and skimmed rather nicely.

However, and don't get me wrong, as I'm not skimping or doing anything potentially dodgy, I've got a concern, due to building control poking their noses in.
I've been reliably informed that it might have to all come down due to the property having had its 'thermal characteristics' altered, and that the air gap between the plasterboard and brick wall is not deemed sufficient insulatory quality, and that certain sections of Part L have not been adhered to.

Can anyone point me in the right direction, as search upon search has not brought up anything, and in my opinion, I've altered it for the better, as the old plaster on brickwork would have been pretty dire at insulating in the first place!!

Thanks

 

[ColJack]

throw some rockwool into the voids.. or better yet some rigid foam insulation..

if you don't want to take it all down again then call a cavity wall firm and see if they could foam it for you in situ.. just needs a few small holes filling in then..

 

[Robert too]

I would have thought that plasterboard and skim , on dabs will provide a better U value than 13mm plaster .


Plus , I dont believe that Building control have the right to insist on the U value being increased anyway on minor alterations

 

[noseall]

Plus , I dont believe that Building control have the right to insist on the U value being increased anyway on minor alterations

i had a chat with a b.c.o. a while back who told me that, if more than 25% of a buildings thermal integrity or fabric is removed or interfered with, then it must be replaced compliant with current part p regs.

in other words, if you remove a large flat roof plus deck, then it will need to be replaced with kingspan or cellotex etc.

i don't know if this is law or wether it can be implemented, but be aware.

 

[tompayne82]

Ive recently hacked off all the old plaster in my early 1900s terrace, only for building control to insist i submit an application to replace with 50mm kingspan + plasterboard and skim. Anything less wasn't acceptable.

Rockwool certainly wasn't anyway.

Apparently it's new regs (part L?) that came into effect in the last six months, or so my local bco told me.

 

[Robert too]

Plus , I dont believe that Building control have the right to insist on the U value being increased anyway on minor alterations

i had a chat with a b.c.o. a while back who told me that, if more than 25% of a buildings thermal integrity or fabric is removed or interfered with, then it must be replaced compliant with current part p regs.

in other words, if you remove a large flat roof plus deck, then it will need to be replaced with kingspan or cellotex etc.

i don't know if this is law or wether it can be implemented, but be aware.

I think it was last April that came in.

I havent seen a time yet when a BCO has stuck to his guns on that, certainly something to be aware of now though.

 

[Nige F]

Ive recently hacked off all the old plaster in my early 1900s terrace, only for building control to insist i submit an application to replace with 50mm kingspan + plasterboard and skim. Anything less wasn't acceptable.



so my local bco told me.

lucky the family sold our late Uncle`s 1836 town cottage then, for refurb...........wasn`t much plaster left anywhere let some other silly bugger have the hassle