Building control gone mad?
- Thread starter Lorenzl
- Start date
Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:
The council preservation officer will not prevent double glazing being put into a grade two listed building, but will prevent inappropriate windows being put into a heritage building i.e. UPVC, if the existing windows are of historical interest then they may prevent alteration, but secondary double glazing will be allowed, grade two listing is mostly about external appearance.
sawtooth-9
Established Member
This is a worldwide problem / issue
Building codes are supposed to ensure structures are sound.
So in Aus, you can build a timber home in a fire area - but you can't have stone recognised as a building material ,by our building code. You have to "pretend " it is brick - do a double skin and insulate between the layers !!!
I am all for sensible building practice but this is just plain STUPID - thought up by a bunch of wankers.
I wonder whether Windsor Castle would meet current building codes ?
The same question applies to the Queen Victoria building in the Sydney CBD.
Building codes are supposed to ensure structures are sound.
So in Aus, you can build a timber home in a fire area - but you can't have stone recognised as a building material ,by our building code. You have to "pretend " it is brick - do a double skin and insulate between the layers !!!
I am all for sensible building practice but this is just plain STUPID - thought up by a bunch of wankers.
I wonder whether Windsor Castle would meet current building codes ?
The same question applies to the Queen Victoria building in the Sydney CBD.
Lard
Established Member
shed9
establiSHED member
The whole building control and qualified professionals is a bit of a misnomer in reality. As soon as the 'qualified professional' asks you what you want doing it legally becomes your responsibility to define the works. Technically speaking, the tradesman does what you ask not what the buildings regs define as it's the homeowners responsibility to comply.
Don't get me wrong, there are some very competent and decent professionals out there but a word of advice, get it in writing to any professional carrying out works on your house that you expect the work to comply with current building regulations and that if they feel that cannot comply then they should decline the works.
Don't get me wrong, there are some very competent and decent professionals out there but a word of advice, get it in writing to any professional carrying out works on your house that you expect the work to comply with current building regulations and that if they feel that cannot comply then they should decline the works.
"Professional" as in suitably qualified with a statute recognised body, i.e. RIBA an Architect, or MIStuctE Structural Engineer anyone with either of those qualification is under a legal obligation to ensure their work complies with current building regulations therefore taking the responsibility away from the home/building owner.
shed9
establiSHED member
On paper yes, in practice, meh not so much....
The responsibility always ultimately lies with the home owner in regards to building control.
Not correct, the responsibility lies with the Architect who makes the building application and retains responsibility throughout the works until such times as new work is begun under a new planning application, but even then they are still responsible for the works carried out under the original planning application.
Terry - Somerset
Established Member
I am not convinced that a black and white view of building regulation is effective.
Those who willingly comply with regulation will often take a responsible approach to the work, accepting professional advice and researching issues where they are less than confident. Regulation makes little or no difference to the quality of the work done.
The main risks to building or life arise where cost saving is all, combined with confidence to the point of arrogance about their ability to do the work safely. It is they who won't bother to get approval anyway.
Those who willingly comply with regulation will often take a responsible approach to the work, accepting professional advice and researching issues where they are less than confident. Regulation makes little or no difference to the quality of the work done.
The main risks to building or life arise where cost saving is all, combined with confidence to the point of arrogance about their ability to do the work safely. It is they who won't bother to get approval anyway.
shed9
establiSHED member
See above ^.
Building regulations are only there as a guide, if you can prove that what was carried out was above and beyond the requirements of the regulation that is acceptable in any investigation, this applies to all British Standards.
It is impossible to legislate for those that do not wish to conform to any of the statues.
It is impossible to legislate for those that do not wish to conform to any of the statues.
If you have any, check your Professional Indemnity Insurance which should state quite clearly how and when your responsibility starts and ends, mine certainly did.
bansobaby
Accustomly titled
I'm afraid not.
Since 2015 ALL construction work regardless of size, duration, man hours etc. comes under the CDM regulations.
Under CDM the ultimate responsibilities lie with the client, or their specifically appointed representative. This is primarily with regard to the aspects of the work relating to The Health and Safety Act and other related legislation, but also applies to matters such as planning, listing building consent and building control.
Complete miss-interpretation of the CDM Regs, the Health and Safety Co-ordinator has only the responsibility for ensuring that the appointed persons under the CDM Regs co-ordinate matter in accordance with the CDM Regulations i.e. the Health and Safety at work Act, the Client has specific duties, but none of those relate to the Building Regulations, I know a little about them as I was a member of steering group seven that compiled the Regs in association with the HSE headed by George Ventris, I was also the London Chairman of the APS and sat on the main board for eight years.
Last edited:
XH558
Established Member
My son lives in a flat where the facade is G II. Single glazed timber casements. Over the years owners wanted to upgrade to double glazed windows and the way round the issue was for the residents association to agree with planning, the style of fenestration to match the existing exterior. The units are double glazed 6/6/6mm and internally glazed. There is joinery company who do the replacements and it works perfectly. Quality job, all prefinished and they remove the old and install the new and it's all done internally. This is good news if you are on the 4th floor like my son as the scaffolding bill would be about £4k on its own.
shed9
establiSHED member
That's for legal cover, not the responsibility they have for your compliance to building regulations for your building. Indemnity covers you against legal action if your local planning authority serves a building regulation enforcement notice on you. It is meant to cover legal costs and all directly associated costs, it is not a document defining who is responsible for the building in question. Sure if you get any form of enforcement of any kind you can fall back on the policy to protect you, but you are the conduit in that enforcement, not the professional who sold you the Indemnity.
What?
Last edited:
