Abrasive council control inspector

[mordzy]

As I understand it any cladding on a building (less than 11m high) but within 1m of a boundary should achieve a Class B-s3, d2(2) or better, that's not it's fire containment from within but it's ability to resist fire on the outside. Sure, perhaps some common sense/leeway could be applied, the boundary looks pretty innocent however there's nothing ironic about it, your designer should have thought about this long ago, it's them who should be feeling the toe of your kick not BC.

Well it's not that high and it's 2.9m from the boundary. I'm no expert just the customer. but I would, if it were me, make sure all the relevant departments sign off a planning app BEFORE granting. then all BC has to do is make sure I adhere to it rather than proposing changes after the fact. It's not rocket science it's just being efficient. I don't know why I'm writing this, efficiency and public sector doesn't go together.

Out of interest should BC not inform Conservation to make sure they are happy with the recommended changes. No ones talking to anyone here.

To clarify, the previous rejected submission was a stone structure. which was resubmitted as wood due to conservations objection.

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

I thought it was less than 1m to the nearest boundary?

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

As far as I understand it, if it's over 1m from the boundary then no fire resistance is required.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/639ae7e98fa8f5069839c7d7/Approved_Document_B__fire_safety__volume_1_-_Dwellings__2019_edition_incorporating_2020_and_2022_amendments.pdf#AD%20B%20v1_text.indd%3ARelevant%20boundary%3A4120

page 90 (PDF page not the document)

 

[wessex101]

@freddiemercurystwin This is all very confusing and I don't really understand what the OP is going on about but I'll throw in my tuppence worth.

I think the building inspector has raised the issue under regulation B3 fire resistance of the structure. Because the building is timber framed with timber cladding the external walls effectively form one large unprotected area, rather like having a massive window in an elevation close to the boundary. That is why the inspector is asking for 60 minutes fire resistance.

Regulation B4 just deals with surface spread of flame which as you pointed out is only really an issue if you are closer than 1m to the boundary.

I think the OP needs to employ a good local designer who understands the building regulations to try and unravel the mess.

 

[mordzy]

BC have come back to me;

Here are my options

1. Move the structure so it is 4 meters from the boundary line and you can treat the timber with your suggested 'zero flame' product to give you 20 minutes protection (keep in mind 4 meters measure from middle of footpath to side of structure, we measured 2.9 from the wall to the side of the structure) (guidance taken from BS 187 not Approved Doc B).
2. If you leave the structure were it is the external wall facing the boundary has to be a minimum of 60 minutes so the treatment will not work so you will need to use Supalux as suggested.
3. Roof must also have provisions for fire spread if structure remains as close to the boundary as shown on the drawing (60 minutes minimum).

 

[^woody^]

I'm just confused with the mixture of building regs/British Standards, building regs/planning permission and metric and imperial.

But one constant is that there is a single set of building regulations for a garage 30m2 and 36y2

 

[mordzy]

Im confused too. Why 4m from the center of the path to the external surface, not the boundary wall.

To clarify, behind the boundary wall is a foot bath approximately 1m wide. I dont understand why my external wall has to be 4m away from the the middle of the path and not my boundary.

@^woody^ I presume this is because the garage size is just over 40m2 so the regs you mention may be different?

@wessex101 the inspector did mention things about windows on that side and if the design had some he'd be asking for fire proof glass etc. Thankfully there is none. I presume if this large unprotected area was constructed from stone (as in my original submission) then there wouldnt be a fire issue.

@freddiemercurystwin its currently 2.9m from my boundary wall.

either way im confused.

 

[noseall]

@^woody^ I presume this is because the garage size is just over 40m2 so the regs you mention may be different?

No. It's 30m and above.

 

[mordzy]

Bit of an update. Inspector has suggested a compromise whereas I can make footings between the the dry stone wall border and the proposed west elevation and build a block work wall 1m from the boarder as high has the garage (3.9m). personally I think it will look utter s**t and theres zero consideration for anything. I have suggested It would make more sense to build the rear of the garage out of block work but that would have to go back to planning for that. but I thought I would need separate planning for a wall so high anyway.

Im happy to talk to planning but does anyone know if that would then mean a resubmission or a helpful amendment based on building control recommendation?

In all honest I cant be arsed with the whole debacle so im also considering 2x 40 foot shipping containers.

 

[mordzy]

Update. Hes now suggested I can build the rear of the garage from blockwork and then clad that in the original wood that he was worried about catching fire. lost for words.

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

Have you clarified exactly which parts of the approved documents it is that he's trying to get you to comply with yet?