Moderators: Random Orbital Bob, nev, Noel, Charley, CHJ

 Reply
By skipdiver
#1188640
It's the highest part of the ground adjacent to the building. I was reported by a neighbour when i built a workshop at my last house and the only thing they could get me on was the height. I measured 4 mts from 2 courses below damp, where the concrete path was eventually going around the building. The path wasn't yet in, so it was 4.1 (ish) mts to the dirt. They made me lower the roof by 100mm, which i complained about very loudly, but had to do it in the end. Once the concrete path went in, it was 3.9mts from path to top of the ridge board. The roof wasn't tiled when they measured, so it ended up higher anyway, once the tiles and ridges went on. So it's a bit arbitrary really.

So if you keep it 3mts from the highest part of the ground to the boarding on top of the rafters, you will be okay, but then it depends on how fastidious/pernickety the the inspector is if you have a visit.
User avatar
By DBT85
#1188658
MikeG. wrote:The eaves in planning terms is the height of the imaginary intersection of the plane of the wall and the roof covering. So imagine laying a piece of wood on top of the roof at the verge, and having another pressed up against the wall. Where they would overlap (on the underside) if they could is the height of the eaves.

Right, so its the underside, but of the highest point of the slope or the lowest, outside face or inside? Over a 4" wall thickness the difference wouldn't be much, just nice to know :P

I did a very technical drawing

Image

skipdiver wrote:It's the highest part of the ground adjacent to the building. I was reported by a neighbour when i built a workshop at my last house and the only thing they could get me on was the height. I measured 4 mts from 2 courses below damp, where the concrete path was eventually going around the building. The path wasn't yet in, so it was 4.1 (ish) mts to the dirt. They made me lower the roof by 100mm, which i complained about very loudly, but had to do it in the end. Once the concrete path went in, it was 3.9mts from path to top of the ridge board. The roof wasn't tiled when they measured, so it ended up higher anyway, once the tiles and ridges went on. So it's a bit arbitrary really.

So if you keep it 3mts from the highest part of the ground to the boarding on top of the rafters, you will be okay, but then it depends on how fastidious/pernickety the the inspector is if you have a visit.


Oh this part I know for dual pitched, its for single pitch that I'm wondering whether its the front eaves that would be higher than the rear eaves. On a dual pitch both would be the same so all you need to know is whether its to the underside or the top side specifically for the eaves measurement, not the total height.

I'd be unlikely to get a visit at all tbh, I live 100 yards from my nearest neighbor and while a stickler for rules and regs, hes also my father in law! Surrounding me on 3 sides are an empty field and a 4 acre woodland!
User avatar
By MikeG.
#1188661
DBT85 wrote:
MikeG. wrote:The eaves in planning terms is the height of the imaginary intersection of the plane of the wall and the roof covering. So imagine laying a piece of wood on top of the roof at the verge, and having another pressed up against the wall. Where they would overlap (on the underside) if they could is the height of the eaves.

Right, so its the underside........
I did a very technical drawing

Image.......


No! Not the underside. Your point B. I meant the underside of a notional piece of wood lying on top of the roof.

The eaves is the lowest edge of the roof. The other end is the ridge. Ground level is more pragmatic........the highest part of the natural ground level around the building.
User avatar
By DBT85
#1188665
MikeG. wrote:No! Not the underside. Your point B. I meant the underside of a notional piece of wood lying on top of the roof.

The eaves is the lowest edge of the roof. The other end is the ridge. Ground level is more pragmatic........the highest part of the natural ground level around the building.

Ah ha, my misunderstanding! Apologies.

So I can indeed go from 3m high at the ridge to 2.5m high at the eaves and end up with 2.2m headroom ish at the lowest point inside. More than enough. Thanks for the clarification.

Thanks Mike, your help in this and the workshop construction thread is most illuminating!
By gwr
#1215914
Hi i have had a builder around to give me a price for building me a block shed and he has gave me some food for thought.

I was going to build 9x4.5 meters internal size with pitched roof which would require both PP and BC iwas going to have a portion of this space separated with a stud wall for a small gym and the bigger space for woodworking hobbys.

Builder has suggested building within permited development 7.5 x4 or similar then adding a small timber frame shed on the side for a gym as a totaly separate building.

Do you think this would be ok or could i run into problems from local council?
User avatar
By MikeG.
#1215924
What the buildings are made of is almost entirely irrelevant. Other than in certain designated areas (including national parks) you can cover up to half of your land with outbuildings (so long as they are behind the front of the house), without Planning Permission, so long as each individual building falls within the various dimensions given for Permitted Development. I would always advise clients to separate the two buildings, even if by only a few inches, such that they could never be construed as one.

The 7.5 x 4 m workshop was obviously given as an example such that it falls outside the purview of Building Control. Please note that this is determined on internal floor area, not the footprint, so you can actually build slightly bigger than the suggested size without needing inspection. On a practical note, I would suggest going for something slightly wider than this, and shorter if necessary to compensate. Planning a workshop is just easier with a wider space. 4.8 metres roof spans are easily achievable with standard timber sizes, but over that it gets a bit more complex, so I'd suggest heading towards that dimension for your width if that fits with the area you have available. With about 150 for wall thickness, that would give you an internal width of some 4.5m, which would lead to a max. length of about 6.6 metres.

However, as I've said previously, if you use blocks for your walls you'll end up wasting a lot more space because you'll then have to add insulation. Timber frame produces a much narrower wall.
By gwr
#1215952
Mike that is exactly the type of info I was looking for and it's much appreciated. I did look at eternit cladding and think it would look better but I keep going back to block for several reasons but could be totally wrong in that respect.

I feel block and dashed just seems more secure, I know the main entry points would be doors and windows and if they want in they will get in. Also trying to keep the noise to a minumum is a concern I just feel block with timber stud full of insulation it will help more so than timber frame but I could very well be of the mark.

An interior size of 4.5 x 6.6 does seem a more useful space and is doable with the space I have thanks for pointing that out.

The builder can't start until late may early June so I still have time to make any small changes.
User avatar
By MikeG.
#1215958
You're choice entirely. I would just say that I have never known a shed broken into via the walls. It's almost always the door, and very occasionally the window. And of course, there is no reason at all why you can't have a rendered timber frame workshop (my last one was exactly that). You just need to design in some airflow behind the render, and that is easy.
By dom68
#1222292
hi can anyone tell me if any overhang on the roof will count towards how close the building is to the boundary or is it just the base of the building?

thanks.
By Miffer
#1226501
Just a quick question if you don't mind. With regards to building regs I want to build a workshop and gym that will be approx 7m x 6.8m so will fall under building regs, I'd rather it not so could I build it as two separate buildings but only a couple of inches apart to get around the building regs and then at some later date join them together after getting photographic evidence that they were indeed two separate buildings when built?

Cheers,

Brian
User avatar
By MikeG.
#1226505
The standard answer is to build them as 2 separate buildings, as you suggest. I wouldn't suggest ever connecting them, as you never know......

Just a tip, about those dimensions. It is best to try to keep outbuildings down to under 5.1m in width, particularly because that is the maximum length of readily available timber (longer is generally scarcer or special order, and more expensive), but also because big spans produce big rooves, which can be ugly, and are generally expensive.
By Miffer
#1226512
Thanks for the advice Mike. I'm stuck with having to do it as wide as that because I'll dividing it down the middle, gym one side and workshop the other I need access doors for each on the front, the gym side will be too close to the fence and to be honest the workshop will be even though I'll have a bigger gap but getting machines and timber in would be a problem at the side.
So each side of the building is only going to be 3.4m wide with a pitched roof across that width supported by what was going to be a centre dividing wall which might be the outside wall now!