Permitted development front roof protrusion (ooh-err)
Discussion
Looking for some advice on some ongoing loft conversion work being carried out under permitted development!
Our builder has added a raised box at the front of the house – allegedly, one of the structural steels has been placed as far down as it will go, but still needs this box to accommodate this. We didn’t know this was necessary / built until we went up onto the scaffolding a few weeks ago and asked about it.
The raised box wasn’t included in the architect’s plans, and protrudes more than 150mm from the roof (closer to 250-260mm)…
Obviously the next step is to have a chat with the builder and architect about it – clearly the worry is that it would be an issue on a future sale, and the council would take a dim view of it. Any thoughts or advice in the meantime would be much appreciated!
Our builder has added a raised box at the front of the house – allegedly, one of the structural steels has been placed as far down as it will go, but still needs this box to accommodate this. We didn’t know this was necessary / built until we went up onto the scaffolding a few weeks ago and asked about it.
The raised box wasn’t included in the architect’s plans, and protrudes more than 150mm from the roof (closer to 250-260mm)…
Obviously the next step is to have a chat with the builder and architect about it – clearly the worry is that it would be an issue on a future sale, and the council would take a dim view of it. Any thoughts or advice in the meantime would be much appreciated!
What would worry me is that the beam is either the wrong size or it is not installed per the architects plans or why else is the bulge needed?
In terms of PD I suspect you may fall foul of it especially if it is on the front of the house but will anybody notice? The sign off for completion may be an issue though.
In terms of PD I suspect you may fall foul of it especially if it is on the front of the house but will anybody notice? The sign off for completion may be an issue though.
That is not allowed under PD rules (Class C: Other alterations to the roof) if its more than 150mm projecting above the line of the (front) facing roof slope.
Forgive me for saying it not very attractive either and being felt covered will have a shorter life than the rest of the tile covered roof. I'm very surprised this wasn't brought to your attention earlier - no way an Architect would be happy with that!
Forgive me for saying it not very attractive either and being felt covered will have a shorter life than the rest of the tile covered roof. I'm very surprised this wasn't brought to your attention earlier - no way an Architect would be happy with that!
Edited by Mark V GTD on Tuesday 17th June 15:51
Someone has messed up - either the architect who hasn’t worked out the detailing correctly - or the builder who hasn’t followed it.
Either way it’s not great and given the dimensions not PD compliant so it’s down tools and get the architect and builder talking to each other. Inject yourself into that conversation so that no-one paints you picture after the event.
It’s pretty unsightly and has implications longer term, so time to address is now.
Either way it’s not great and given the dimensions not PD compliant so it’s down tools and get the architect and builder talking to each other. Inject yourself into that conversation so that no-one paints you picture after the event.
It’s pretty unsightly and has implications longer term, so time to address is now.
Hmmm, having done some digging, it is not looking good. Bear with me as I'm clearly not an architect / structural engineer / builder...
Based on the drawings, 'Beam 4 or 5' sits on top of the 'Nominal beam', with a lovely cut to make all the angles work:
Having crawled into the rafters (and successfully not fallen through the ceiling!), it looks like the 'Nominal beam' sits inside 'Beam 4 or 5' (and the 'Nominal beam' looks disproportionately large?):
Interesting placement of the 'Nominal beam' on an old scrap of wood as well...
Am I right in thinking this is very, very bad??
Based on the drawings, 'Beam 4 or 5' sits on top of the 'Nominal beam', with a lovely cut to make all the angles work:
Having crawled into the rafters (and successfully not fallen through the ceiling!), it looks like the 'Nominal beam' sits inside 'Beam 4 or 5' (and the 'Nominal beam' looks disproportionately large?):
Interesting placement of the 'Nominal beam' on an old scrap of wood as well...
Am I right in thinking this is very, very bad??
It's not completely clear but several things:
- looks like the nominal beam is taller than beam 4 or 5, which is not as per drawings
- looks like beam 4 or 5 has been made too short, hence he extension bolted on (needs new calcs to ensure that is even OK)
- possibly nominal beam not sitting down enough into the brickwork so that the top of the I plate is level with top course (though it may be, can't really see)
Is it very, very bad? It's certainly pretty bad and definitely not to drawings. Now, the drawings might not work in real life, but given that hodge podge of steelwork (and that he just cracked on with more bodges without telling you) I'd say the builder ordered wrong sizes of steels, and didn't want to swallow the cost of fixing it or lose the time, so just cracked on.
Given beam 4 or 5 is sitting "in" not "on" the beam, there is something definitely wrong. First coversation is with builder to ask why:
1. beam 4 or 5 is not sitting on beam as per drawing
2. why the nominal beam is taller than beam 4 or 5
3. why there's an extra shim steel bolted to beam 4 or 5 to make it long enough
4. WTF he thought it was OK to put a flat roof protrusion on your roof
IME if the drawings don't work IRL then the builder will come running to the houseowner to tell them how bad the architect has f*cked up. The fact that yours hasn't done this means that to my mind it's his mistake.
Probably don't need to involve architect at this point, he'll just say it's not to drawings (and then charge you for that observation).
- looks like the nominal beam is taller than beam 4 or 5, which is not as per drawings
- looks like beam 4 or 5 has been made too short, hence he extension bolted on (needs new calcs to ensure that is even OK)
- possibly nominal beam not sitting down enough into the brickwork so that the top of the I plate is level with top course (though it may be, can't really see)
Is it very, very bad? It's certainly pretty bad and definitely not to drawings. Now, the drawings might not work in real life, but given that hodge podge of steelwork (and that he just cracked on with more bodges without telling you) I'd say the builder ordered wrong sizes of steels, and didn't want to swallow the cost of fixing it or lose the time, so just cracked on.
Given beam 4 or 5 is sitting "in" not "on" the beam, there is something definitely wrong. First coversation is with builder to ask why:
1. beam 4 or 5 is not sitting on beam as per drawing
2. why the nominal beam is taller than beam 4 or 5
3. why there's an extra shim steel bolted to beam 4 or 5 to make it long enough
4. WTF he thought it was OK to put a flat roof protrusion on your roof
IME if the drawings don't work IRL then the builder will come running to the houseowner to tell them how bad the architect has f*cked up. The fact that yours hasn't done this means that to my mind it's his mistake.
Probably don't need to involve architect at this point, he'll just say it's not to drawings (and then charge you for that observation).
Actually just noticed that the architect's annotations for the steel sizes don't match the scale of the drawings...so either the drawings aren't to any sort of scale, or the beams are annotated wrong, or something else. If the architect ordered beams to size based on drawings (and to be fair, he might well have done that, despite the fact he should have confirmed dimensions on site) then he might have been faced with a puzzle that didn't work. Still should have paused at that point, however.
Just noticed another thing - initially I thought the material perpendicular to the nominal beam left side was brick, but now I'm thinking it's OSB and the flank of the dormer detail he's built. If that's the case then I don't think the builder has dropped the nominal beam into the brickwork so that the top plate finishes flush, he's just sat it on top, and that's the root cause of everything else.
Thank you so much everyone - some really helpful comments here (particularly PhilboSE - cheers!). I owe a lot of you a beer.
Yes, the nominal beam is sat on top of the wall (rather than built into the wall as per the plans, which is causing all of the issues.
It gets worse - I think the plans show the nominal beam covering two windows:
However, the nominal beam clearly only covers one window as that is where the 'power bulge' (credit to Mr Pointy here - seems I am bringing some Mopar to north London!):
Not exactly a small deviation from the plan?!
Remarkably, the notes from the previous building inspector's visit (private company appointed by the builder) says 'Steelwork as per plan, bridging steels noted in position.'
Oh well - looks like it'll be a fairly unpleasant covnersation with the builder tomorrow...
Yes, the nominal beam is sat on top of the wall (rather than built into the wall as per the plans, which is causing all of the issues.
It gets worse - I think the plans show the nominal beam covering two windows:
However, the nominal beam clearly only covers one window as that is where the 'power bulge' (credit to Mr Pointy here - seems I am bringing some Mopar to north London!):
Not exactly a small deviation from the plan?!
Remarkably, the notes from the previous building inspector's visit (private company appointed by the builder) says 'Steelwork as per plan, bridging steels noted in position.'
Oh well - looks like it'll be a fairly unpleasant covnersation with the builder tomorrow...
Alas, I have already paid quite a lot of money (but not all). I suspect at this point, any money to fix this will be cheap compared with dealing with council enforcement or difficulties selling the house in future!
I'll see what the builder suggests as a solution that satisfies building regs / falls under permitted development (or gets retrospective planning permission).
I'll see what the builder suggests as a solution that satisfies building regs / falls under permitted development (or gets retrospective planning permission).
DO NOT accept that dormer detail, or anything like it. That’s just the builder wanting to punt a long term issue onto you to save him some time & money.
The question is WHY did the builder not cut away the brickwork to drop down the nominal beam? Maybe there’s a good reason, like a lintel above the second window, but that doesn’t excuse the builder going off-piste. At the first issue that required an undocumented solution, he should have stopped and consulted.
Good luck with the conversation.
The question is WHY did the builder not cut away the brickwork to drop down the nominal beam? Maybe there’s a good reason, like a lintel above the second window, but that doesn’t excuse the builder going off-piste. At the first issue that required an undocumented solution, he should have stopped and consulted.
Good luck with the conversation.
It’s not to plan for sure, and a bit of a mess, but would the steel go as low as shown on the plan without fouling the windows? I’ve seen some shocking work done on lofts by builders, and I've also seen some ridiculous drawings and structural calculations. A site meeting with the builder and architect/SE would be advisable. There will be a solution better than that god awful ‘power bulge’
PhilboSE said:
Actually just noticed that the architect's annotations for the steel sizes don't match the scale of the drawings...so either the drawings aren't to any sort of scale, or the beams are annotated wrong, or something else. If the architect ordered beams to size based on drawings (and to be fair, he might well have done that, despite the fact he should have confirmed dimensions on site) then he might have been faced with a puzzle that didn't work. Still should have paused at that point, however.
It s very unusual for an architect to be designing and sizing steel structures. This is more likely to have been the work of a structural engineer. He certainly will not have ordered any of the material - that is the builders job Gassing Station | Homes, Gardens and DIY | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff