Abrasive council control inspector

[mordzy]

Ive had planning approved for a 2 bay oak garage a few years back and I wanted to start work this spring. So stupidly appointed a council building control inspector.

The 2 bay oak 'garage is set within my grounds approx 7 meters away from the nearest house. the other sides border fields. conservation at the council insisted on a wooden oak type structure as im in a conservation area (house it grade 2).

The inspector is insisting that I must 'wrap the external walls in something equivalent to 9mm Supalux, then clad over this. The garage should have a flat ceiling covered in 9mm Supalux to stop the spread into the roof rafters. All structural posts should be wrapped internally with 9mm Supalux.

1.Its single skin so id have to larch clad, then put supalux over that, then clad larch over the top again?
2.whats the point in spending all that money on oak beams only to cover it all up.

I have suggested a spray called zero flame and can obtaine a certificate from the company for fire compliance, and/or line the inside with fireproof plasterboard. but this was rejected out of hand.

I have asked the inspector to go speak to conservation as it would seem way more economical and sensible to change the design to stone, which I have in abundance (that matches the house) and is fire retardant. Again this was rejected.

I have also mentioned that in my initial submission I wanted the garaged move north by 7 meters away from other dwellings but this again was rejected as it needed to be within the curtilage of the house.

Im not sure where to go or what to do with this. Any advice would be greatly appreciated. banging my head on a wall!

plan attached.

 

[noseall]

Ive had planning approved for a 2 bay oak garage a few years back and I wanted to start work this spring.

How was it presented to planning i.e. material finishes etc? Surely you must follow that or be in breach of planning? And, whomever designed it - why was proximity to the boundary and fire spread, not considered (pre-planning) in the fist place?

 

[Notch7]

The inspector is insisting that I must 'wrap the external walls in something equivalent to 9mm Supalux, then clad over this

I thought that outbuildings had to be 1 metre from the boundary for a fire break -if your garage was 1 metre away would that not be ok?

has the building inspector told you what part of part B he is referring to on this matter?


will the hawthorn hedge impact foundation depth?

 

[mordzy]

Conservation insisted on a hawthorn edge to flank the rear and sides. It was not my original suggestion.

One meter away from which side? the South and West boundary is a drystone wall. The south is approx 5m away from the wall and further away to appease neighbours, and to allow light into their windows. The west is approx 2 meters away from the wall. The thin line close to the foot print in the west is the edge of a raised flower bed.

He has been very vague and not quoted any specific regs I can check.

Material details / construction attached from drawing

The information submitted by the architect to support the application is as follows. The application was granted in 2022.

"
The garage has been designed to be traditional in style and use locally sourced natural materials. The design has been chosen for its heritage appearance and traditional features.
The garage sits to the rear of No XXX and is not easily seen from XXX Road. In this regard it will not affect the street scene. The garage will be screened from the footpath to the west of the site using Hawthorne hedging.
The garage has been designed to have a hipped facing onto No XXX to ensure there is no overbearing effect. The windows to the rear of No XXX are no primary habitable windows. The ground floor windows are already screened by the drop in site levels and the existing drystone boundary wall.
The garage would be Permitted Development if not for the host building being Listed.
The garage is required for the safe storage of private motor vehicles. The garage sits within an existing car parking and turning area. There will be no overall difference in car parking potential or vehicle movements. The use of the garage will be solely domestic residential.
The overall character and siting of the adjacent Listed Buildings will not be affected by the introduction of a new detached garage. The special character of the Listed Grouping will remain. The main aspect of the grouping is the appearance from XXX Road. The garage has no impact on this view."

 

[^woody^]

Why wasn't the building designed to be 1m in from the boundary so as to avoid the fire safety requirements being applied?

Why can't it be built 1m in now?

Alternatively, get the advice of a fire engineer who is familiar with the requirements and can come up with a suitable solution and argue the point.

Bear in mind that the requirement is prevention of fire spread over the boundary and not how that is achieved. Oak does not readily burn so may be considered inherently fire resistant for this location. But above all, if a solution can be demonstrated, it should be accepted.

Any extra fire safety measures only applies to any elevation within the boundary zone, not the whole building.

Another alternative is to speak with the manager at the council's building control team. And if no joy, ask for a relaxation of the requirements or explore the merits of an appeal to the Secretary of State.

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

The design to meet BR should be properly considered in the pre-planning stage for jobs this, it's a PITA but I've had to play gooseberry more times than I care for between BC and conservation, never the twain will meet but somewhere in between there will be a compromise. It used to be a crappy thing to have to endure a decade or so back but nowadays it's a bloody nightmare. I would suppose that this would be one instance I would seriously consider a private inspector.

 

[mrrusty]

If it's more than 1m from the boundary, my understanding FWIW is that as an outbuilding it doesn't need fireproofing, but I may well be wrong. It would be worth focusing on this single issue first to get a definitive understanding of the actual law.

 

[Notch7]

He has been very vague and not quoted any specific regs I can check

The only thing I can think of is the 1 metre rule (it is in a row of houses with gardens close together, the 1 metre rule creates an effective 2 metre break between combustible outbuildings.

I can’t think of any other rule that applies.


You need to find out what the issue is before going further.

 

[Notch7]

I would suppose that this would be one instance I would seriously consider a private inspector

Is it possible the OP could cancel the council building regs process and re start with a private inspector?

(I realise the fee will be lost)

Would the council even connect them?

 

[mordzy]

Thanks for all the responses, I have a few further questions and some clarification on some of your questions.

- This 1 meter rule sounds like a minimum distance to create a fire break, as such the garage is more than 2 meters from its closest boundary anyway. Unless you are suggesting it be moved closer to the south and west boundary? that doesn't seem logical though.

- I have had advice from the joinery firm who is appointed to build the garage. They are aware of some councils requesting some sort of fire protection but not to this extreme. They have reccomended and used on other projects a retardant wood treatment (transparent) that comes with a certificate of conformity for building regs. link here. since this is invisible, it preserves the garages appearance and aesthetics. They have also suggested to protect the soft wood rafters, to install a fireproof plasterboard. However the inspector disregarded both of these out of hand and wanted everything cladding in supalux. To quote The inspector "The Fire resistant paint I’ve only ever seen used on steel not timber." Which to a lay person is not in the slightest bit helpful, it's just abrasive. The supalux has no consideration for the reasons an oak structure was permitted instead of a stone one in the first place.

-Im not sure why this was not considered during the design stage. Though the architect had done a number of similar designs and install with no issues so presumed what he'd done was ok.

-I have asked the council to appoint an inspector as I wanted to start work in spring, the inspector engaged with me before I had received a bill and is continuing to do so though I have not paid. My thoughts are to use a private one though I suspect I will have to pay for the council one since they have billed me. I just wasnt sure if swapping would cause and issue or prejudice anything.

Ive attached a cpuple of pictures. Namely the west since this is closest to the boundary. Please note the trees on my side are to be removed.



This is a view to the north next to the west boundary. The wood sleeper is the thin line on the west of the plans. the garage is perhaps half a meter further to the right. so quite a distance from the wall


This is a view to the west




View to the north west and the plot area.

 

[mordzy]

Just a quick update. The inspector visited site to measure the distance from the boundary wall to the planned rear wall of the garage. Ive no idea why he couldn't use the scale drawings? This is 2.9 meters.

He has advised that the rear will need externally cladding in supalux to meet the regs "BS 8414-1 / BS 8414-2 fire rated to 60 minutes"

I asked about the 1m fire break but he says because its bigger than the max permitted development (30m2) its different regulations !

The joinery company advised that the wood treatment should suffice 'Zeroflame Fire Retardant Treatment' however he says this doesnt allow for 60 minutes of burn time. A potential reason for this 60 mins protection is down to the potential of someone throwing something flammable at my garage from the boundary wall with the intention to burn it down.

That said, he has also suggested it would be possible to move it forward 1ft from the boundary which would then satisfy his concerns. im happy to do this. In fact my original submission had it 9m away but planning rejected it due to being not within the curtilage of the house.

Maybe if id of called it an 'outbuilding' and not a garage I wouldnt have had so many issues.

 

[Notch7]

I asked about the 1m fire break but he says because its bigger than the max permitted development (30m2) its different regulations !

I would be interested in what professionals on here think about that statement

theres no such thing a "max permitted development" as far as I know. The 30m2 is just the criteria for whether a project requires building regs or not, I dont know of any other "different regulations" that apply.

Is he referring to something in part B of the regs (fire safety)?

 

[mordzy]

I would be interested in what professionals on here think about that statement

theres no such thing a "max permitted development" as far as I know. The 30m2 is just the criteria for whether a project requires building regs or not, I dont know of any other "different regulations" that apply.

Is he referring to something in part B of the regs (fire safety)?

Perhaps that is what he meant. In that because it's over 30m2 it needs him for building regs. should it have been less it would have been built by now with no daft suggestions of cladding agains firebombs etc.

I just find it ironic that conservation insisted on larch cladding to help blend in, and he wants to use some fire cladding over the top of that. which will presumably look like some man made utilitarian block wall that will rot off in 3 years.

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

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.

 

[Mottie]

Abrasive council control inspector?

Sounds rough.