I am not silly.
Nor am I a morally bankrupt lowlife, and I will not stop telling you that advising people to break the law is unacceptable.
Timber frame garage.
- Thread starter Screech20
- Start date
Nor am I a morally bankrupt lowlife, and I will not stop telling you that advising people to break the law is unacceptable.
Sponsored Links
This one is not ambiguous.
In this particular case, if the OP does not know that his building will be constructed substantially of non-combustible material then he submits a BR application - it's that simple.
Really? And I've said that where, exactly?
I would ask you to show where I have said that, or anything which an idiot could interpret that way, but I fear that is pointless as I think you can barely read.
You didn't. I'm asking your opinion.
So....
Is it your take on it Bas?
P.S I can get a grown up to read your response to me.
Sponsored Links
Fail to see what all the fuss is about really, as the OP has not given the distance from his boundary.
The OP clearly states in his post that garage is within 2 metres of the boundary, which being the case and providing he is not 1 metre or less, then he can do what ever he likes.
Curious to what BAS will say to that.
Regards oldun.
The OP clearly states in his post that garage is within 2 metres of the boundary, which being the case and providing he is not 1 metre or less, then he can do what ever he likes.
Curious to what BAS will say to that.
Regards oldun.
Yes you are.
I'm not sure what ban all sheds is on about, I get what he says in principle, but it is not what actually happens.
Timber frame, clad with non combustible fire resisting materials both sides, that's what is done all the time and building control are happy with. Haven't come across any situation where they demanded the timber frame was swapped for masonry, they normally just want your X hours fire resistance and X surface combustibility rating, cladding it achieves both.
Technically if you insulate between the studs with mineral wool, the timber frame is then considered only 10-15% of the wall, though I suspect that is more relevant to thermal calculations, it can relate to fire and that would give you your "substantially constructed of".....
Timber frame, clad with non combustible fire resisting materials both sides, that's what is done all the time and building control are happy with. Haven't come across any situation where they demanded the timber frame was swapped for masonry, they normally just want your X hours fire resistance and X surface combustibility rating, cladding it achieves both.
Technically if you insulate between the studs with mineral wool, the timber frame is then considered only 10-15% of the wall, though I suspect that is more relevant to thermal calculations, it can relate to fire and that would give you your "substantially constructed of".....
Join the party.
Precisely.
Exactly what I was thinking when you consider things in weight also. I reckon the roof tiles on a timber clad structure are a "substantial" part of the structure also.
Bas says "YOU MUST NOT BREAK THE LAW" and that is pretty much it, without any consideration for interpretation. A bit blinkered me thinks.
If the OP does not understand the meaning of 'substantially non-combustible', then neither will the building inspector, because they both speak English.
You could look at the issue the other way round: let the OP build his timber garage, and if the inspector is not happy, then he can serve a s.36 notice. But the council won't do that, because they will be just as unsure about the outcome of an appeal as the OP.
What I say is that it seems clear to me that it will be on the boundary:Fail to see what all the fuss is about really, as the OP has not given the distance from his boundary.
The OP clearly states in his post that garage is within 2 metres of the boundary, which being the case and providing he is not 1 metre or less, then he can do what ever he likes.
Curious to what BAS will say to that.
Regards oldun.
I'm on about that **** FMT telling the OP to ignore the law.
Not for as long as FMT is allowed to peddle his awful advice here.
All of that is only relevant if there is some official guidance the OP can rely upon to correctly show that his building is constructed substantially of non-combustible materials or if he seeks BR approval and gets agreement from them that it will comply with Part B.
You really, really, are hard-of-reading, whatever you think.
What the OP does is up to him - what I have been objecting to are people here TELLING him to break the law.
And what we are all saying to you is that we don't care.
I know, but that's because you are a defective specimen of humanity, bereft of decency and morality.
DIYnot Local
Staff member
If you need to find a tradesperson to get your job done, please try our local search below, or if you are doing it yourself you can find suppliers local to you.
Select the supplier or trade you require, enter your location to begin your search.
Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local
Sponsored Links
Similar threads
