building regs (lintel for Replacement front door)

[chocolateteacup]

Hello,
I've fitted replacement upvc windows and doors which B.R have passed,
however the origional front door was timber frame with no lintel on
outside skin.
As opening is 1.5m I put in a concrete lintel and inspector says this is
structural work and needs a new retrospective cert issued at extra cost.
Is he correct, or just being............
Any advice appreciated,
thanks.

 

[paulf1976]

Installing a lintel is a structural alteration and covered under Part A of the regs. Combined with the fact they have seen the work as a result of inspecting the door it is unlikely they will let you off. If you're not a structural expert then you should get it checked by a pro, then get it regularised with the LA.

 

[chocolateteacup]

So, I'd be better off just sticking a plastic door in,
giving no support to the the brickwork overhead and all
would have been passed?
Looks like I'll have to swallow it.
Thanks Paulf

 

[^woody^]

Tell him it is routine repair/maintenance and not a structural alteration, and then it wont be under his remit , so no application required.

Invite him (the BCO) to take out enforcement action if he wants to, and see where it gets him

 

[paulf1976]

Very few LA's take out enforcement action but they will undoubtably reveal the unauthorised work in any local authority searches. If you're thinking of selling your house then this may (and I stress may) cause some buyers to be put off.

 

[^woody^]

But it wont be unauthorised, and I'd ensure that the council don't record it as such else risk a compensation claim if a house sale fell through

 

[paulf1976]

Would you not need an experts opinion to challenge this? Say a structural engineers report? This might cost more than regularising the work, and most solicitors would likely prefer a LA certificate over a SE report. Either way it would enable a house sale.

How would you prove this is just repair? Bear in mind if the person is not an expert, who can advise him how to challenge the decision?

Chocolateteacup - Have you asked the BCO if removing the lintel will regularise the work? Some LA's may not expect an application if there is minimal work to remove the 'alleged' unauthorised work. A regularisation app can either remove the work or make it comply, if you don't care either way go for the cheaper option.

 

[chocolateteacup]

Thank you Paul and Woody,
sorry for delay ,
I have meeting with the man later today,
I will try for routine maintainance but I won't hold my breath.
He wanted an s.e. report to see calcs for lintel (100mm x 75mm)
or he would accept 100mm X 140mm without report.
The best deal he could offer was to start from scratch and apply for permission for larger lintel, but I don't want to remove lintel
unless absolutely necessary.
I will let you know how discussion went later

 

[^woody^]

You should not need any SE involved or any calculations if the lintel used is a standard manufactured one, and installed in accordance with manufacturers guidelines with no abnormal loading above it (ie point loading) - the BCO should know the loadings and have the details in the office

Your BCO seems like a bit of a div, but you are in an awkward position of challenging him, speaking to his manager or just doing what he wants for an easy life

 

[tony1851]

From a purely structural point of view, I would say that a 100 wide x 75 deep p/c concrete lintel over a span of 1.5m is pushing it. This is because this type of lintel is usually intended for 'composite action', where the brick courses being built immediately above the beam contribute to its stiffness. This composite action will not apply when the lintel is put into an existing opening. I presume this is why the inspector has asked for a deeper lintel.

It would only be a repair if you replaced the original timber frame with an identical (in section size) timber frame as it would then be like-for-like. A concrete lintel is a different material, and the loading condition will be different.This is why the inspector is calling it a structural alteration.

Having said that, stick him out and he won't take formal proceedings.Just as it is difficult for you to prove that it complies, it would also be very difficult for them to prove that it is unsafe. The worst that will happen is that you might have a small problem if and when you sell.

 

[^woody^]

This is because this type of lintel is usually intended for 'composite action', where the brick courses being built immediately above the beam contribute to its stiffness.

RC lintels are normally pre-stressed, so retrospective ffitting/loading is not a problem

Are you thinking of steel lintels which work with the few course of masonry above?

 

[tony1851]

This is because this type of lintel is usually intended for 'composite action', where the brick courses being built immediately above the beam contribute to its stiffness.

RC lintels are normally pre-stressed, so retrospective ffitting/loading is not a problem

Are you thinking of steel lintels which work with the few course of masonry above?

Agreed about the steel, but the very shallow (one-course) p/c conc. lintels are only intended for composite use.

www.stowellconcrete.co.uk/precast_concrete_lintels.php

 

[chocolateteacup]

Thank you Woody and Tony for your time,
The 1.5 m span may seem a bit much,
but there are only 15 courses of bricks ( with wall-ties evident),
above which is a first floor window - same width and directly above door opening, then a lintel on both inside and outside skins, then roof on wall plate on inner skin.
First floor joists run parallel.
Anyway I complied with B.C. and changed lintel to 100mm X 140mm.
£19 at G&D, £300+ to local council,
(I didn't even need an Acrow.)
It looks crap ; over-engineered and ugly.
I'll now need to put a canopy over door to hide it.
He passed it today .
A couple of years ago my local council advised
a 75mm lintel when changing a window opening of same span to a door.
But they had a 'we're here to help' attitude not 'we're here to screw you'
Anyway rant over ,
another lesson learnt.
Chock.