I think its time you had another couple of weeks in a 'home' BAS! 
Timber frame garage.
- Thread starter Screech20
- Start date
Sponsored Links
The laughable part of Pastor Bas's preachings is he keeps on quoting the phrase "should be constructed out of susbstantially non-combustible...blah...blah...blah...", but refuses to give his take on it and what constitutes "substantially", in any practical sense.
No, instead Bas all you keep doing is give us various analogies about the word and not how it translates into practical building terms.
I, on the other hand have provided an example whereby a new roof AND gable was built entirely out of timber yet complied.
Whilst I agree no one should encourage a poster to break the law, I would however like you to consider this and can you give me your opinion please.....
....If I build a roof out of timber roof trusses, timber wall plate, timber bracing, timber/plywood soffit and fascia detail, plywood sheathing and timber tile battens, but fit a 6mm particle board sheathing to the gable and cover the roof in concrete tiles, would you consider these items to be "substantial"?
How would you interpret the "substantial" rule Bas? By weight, by volume?
I would be interested on your take regarding the words highlighted in red please and without your usual abuse. Thanks.
No, instead Bas all you keep doing is give us various analogies about the word and not how it translates into practical building terms.
I, on the other hand have provided an example whereby a new roof AND gable was built entirely out of timber yet complied.
Whilst I agree no one should encourage a poster to break the law, I would however like you to consider this and can you give me your opinion please.....
....If I build a roof out of timber roof trusses, timber wall plate, timber bracing, timber/plywood soffit and fascia detail, plywood sheathing and timber tile battens, but fit a 6mm particle board sheathing to the gable and cover the roof in concrete tiles, would you consider these items to be "substantial"?
How would you interpret the "substantial" rule Bas? By weight, by volume?
I would be interested on your take regarding the words highlighted in red please and without your usual abuse. Thanks.
- Joined
- 7 Feb 2010
- Messages
- 3,006
- Reaction score
- 332
- Country
And I think it's time you left this forum until you stop trying to debase it with your dreadful advice.I think its time you had another couple of weeks in a 'home' BAS!
Sponsored Links
A long winded way of saying nothing much of help.
All the OP wanted to know is if you could build it from timber frame, and clad it in fire resisting materials to meet regs.
The answer is yes.
Do you have an opinion Bas?
I refuse because I can't do that. It is not my field of expertise. Why you think that is laughable I can't begin to imagine. Shall I laugh at you because you don't know how to cure cancer or how to organise the logistics for a walk to the South Pole?
The analogies were not about the meaning of the word, they were about it's use, and to what it applied, and I did so because there are people here who seemed unable to grasp the difference between "the car park was substantially full of silver cars" and "the car park was full of cars which were substantially silver." I did it because there are people here who seem unable to understand plain English language constructs. What the term means is of absolutely no relevance to the fact that "constructed substantially of non-combustible material" does not mean the same as "constructed of substantially non-combustible material".
And all you've done here is to show, once more, that you are one of the people who are too stupid or lazy or ill-educated, or-whatever-reason to tell the difference yourself:
No - the phrase I keep quoting is "constructed substantially of non-combustible material", not the phrase you have used there which does not mean the same thing.
"The houses in the street mostly had roofs of tiled construction" does not mean that the houses had roofs, each one of which was mostly tiled but also had bits of thatch thrown in - that would be "the houses in the street had roofs of mostly tiled construction".
"Most of the fields were planted with potatoes" does not mean that the fields each had lots of potatoes planted plus a few cabbages.
"Only buses and taxis may use bus lanes" does not mean the same as "Buses and taxis may only use bus lanes"
For me it genuinely does beggar belief that people are so unable (or unwilling) to exercise quite basic skills of written English comprehension, and to understand and follow quite basic rules of grammar.
Let's imagine for a moment that the terms were defined, let's imagine that "substantially" was defined to mean "at least 60% by surface area" and "non-combustible" meant that noncombustible as tested in accordance with ASTM E136.
What those who think you can swap "substantial" from applying to the amount of the building made of non-combustible materials to applying to the degree of non-combustibility would have us believe is that you'd be in compliance if you built the structure entirely out of materials which fell short of the performance required by ASTM E136 by 40%.
"on the other hand"?
Nowhere have I been arguing with anybody about what "constructed substantially of non-combustible material" means, or how to achieve it, nor what might be considered "substantially non-combustible material" were that to be relevant.
Nowhere have I attempted to stop anybody from defining those terms - all I have done is to try to get people to see that the law requires a certain thing, not a different thing which some claim it does, and that advice to break the law should not be allowed.
I do not have expertise which allows me to provide a meaningful interpretation. And if the OP doesn't either, and cannot find any athouratitive advice or construction details to follow which give him a safe assurance that it makes the building a Class 6 exempt one then he should apply for Building Regulations approval.
Bas, stop trying to win the wrong argument.
It's only long-winded to people who have a desperately short attention span.
And it's only nothing much of help to people who don't care what their legal obligations are.
Is that official/authoritative guidance on which the OP can rely to guarantee that his building would be constructed substantially of non-combustible materials in the context of Schedule 2?
I'm not - I'm trying to deal with this:
because it is wrong.
As is this:
And this:
And so are these:
because it is wrong.
As is this:
And this:
And so are these:
Just get on with it and stick two fingers up at the law.
You really are a complete scumbag, aren't you.
Ahh Shucks! You made me blush!
You disgust me - you really do.
I've been told that before! She could talk though!
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
