Loft Volume Allowance

[garyo]

I'm talking rubbish and thinking of floor area enlargement percentages - ignore!

 

[^woody^]

I want to know what wine it is first. If it's Lambrusco I'm off back to the building forum.

In the meantime, that dormer looks less than 50m3.

 

[tony1851]

The hip to gable is 45m3 (gross external volume)

Really?? Get your school trig book out again

 

[tony1851]

I want to know what wine it is first. If it's Lambrusco I'm off back to the building forum.

In the meantime, that dormer looks less than 50m3.

The dormer itself may well be < 50m³ but it's the total roof enlargement that counts, and those hips converted to gables add a great deal.

 

[tony1851]

Is that how its done then? Create a massive dormer but block it off and say its not used to magically come in to < 50 cubic metre??!

That's not how it works. What matters is the volume of the roof enlargement ie the part you see externally. Blocking off internal space within the dormer itselfis irrelevant.

 

[LukeB123]

That's not how it works. What matters is the volume of the roof enlargement ie the part you see externally. Blocking off internal space within the dormer itselfis irrelevant.

I was just about to type this; Otherwise you could end up with something that was absolutely huge and just block some off inside to suit yourself.

My guess would be that whoever has drawn the plans knows it's 50m3 of space maximum and has just written "49.75m3" on the top of the plans and has left it hoping it's either not picked up or not checked.

 

[tony1851]

My guess would be that whoever has drawn the plans knows it's 50m3 of space maximum and has just written "49.75m3" on the top of the plans and has left it hoping it's either not picked up or not checked.

In which case they have taken on an absolutely huge risk! Time for them to dust off the insurance papers!

 

[^woody^]

The dormer itself may well be < 50m³ but it's the total roof enlargement that counts, and those hips converted to gables add a great deal.

Oh yes, the gables.

I had my Ray-Bans on to shield my eyes from the Crayola Kid's effort. Enjoy your wine.

 

[tony1851]

@op, in your previous thread on this, you said the roof height was 2.2m, yet now say it is 4.1m??

 

[ChloeRadshaw1]

@op, in your previous thread on this, you said the roof height was 2.2m, yet now say it is 4.1m??

Hi Its 4.1 to the top of the ridge - As you can see the roof is very steep pitched so I assumed 2.1M thinking the roof would have to be reduced in size

In any case I really do not understand how a qualified distinguished architect would deliberately lie or get things wrong. It must be a different trick because this guy is used by quite a few people and he is meant to be reassuringly expensive

 

[^woody^]

qualified distinguished architect

No way are those the drawings from an Architect -distinguished or not.

 

[wessex101]

Hi Its 4.1 to the top of the ridge - As you can see the roof is very steep pitched so I assumed 2.1M thinking the roof would have to be reduced in size

In any case I really do not understand how a qualified distinguished architect would deliberately lie or get things wrong. It must be a different trick because this guy is used by quite a few people and he is meant to be reassuringly expensive

Well that made me laugh. This has got to be wind up? The plan is rubbish, the only qualification they have is probably a cycling proficiency badge. Judging by the notes they have a very tenuous grasp of the English language. Distinguished architect......reassuringly expensive, I love it.

 

[Nakajo]

Really?? Get your school trig book out again

Yep. It really is. The computer does not lie

 

[tony1851]

Yep. It really is. The computer does not lie

Nope. It really isn't.