I agree with both of you. We will try to engage in dialogue with the architect, we've already draft him an email, but we will firmly stand our ground. We are not confrontational but equally we want this to be done and from your advice it looks like we can expect them to take responsibility for this mess.
Justification for steel beam on half brick wall
I agree with both of you. We will try to engage in dialogue with the architect, we've already draft him an email, but we will firmly stand our ground. We are not confrontational but equally we want this to be done and from your advice it looks like we can expect them to take responsibility for this mess.
It's pretty obvious, because you can see the half brick wall between ours and the neighbour's door. But I honestly do not think the architect would have spotted it and if he did, I still don't think the calculations would have been different. When BC asked them to justify the load they resend the same calculations but change the length of the padstones from 300mm to 600mm
Oh hang on, that puts a different spin on things.
So you now have a set of drawings and calcs showing that the loads can be safely carried by the proposed structure from a proper SE with proper qualifications, current membership of whatever the Institiute is called, professional indemnity etc etc and these drawings now show the party wall as half brick not full brick and say 'do what you were doing but with bigger padstones'?
Unless the BCO is also a qualified structural engineer (or there's something else very odd going on) then at this point he/she defers to the paid expert with all the letters after their name and leaves you get on with it.
Had similar at the House of Pain- discovered distinct lack of footings under the wall that was going to support the steel, called BCO- he came and looked and said 'I'll go with whatever the SE says'. Called SE back in, he had a look & said 'stick a 300mm deep pad under the nib & it'll be fine' (and followed it up with written confirmation). End of discussion.
Not that easy because we have a porch, see the attached, so the steel beam wouldn't have enough support. I've just noticed that the drawing has another error (!). The architect split the porch we share with the neighbor with a wall. This wall doesn't exist, and obviously the wall is half brick, not a single as indicated by the drawing.Not claiming to completely understand your situation but if the problem is supporting a steel beam going on to a party wall would it be possible to support the beam on another steel beam spanning front to back instead of taking posts down to foundationsJust a thought.
Attachments
Sorry, I am turning it into a novel, but I guess the context might be relevant. Following BCO first visit, he said he was concerned with the structure because of that half brick wall. I spoke with the architect who then resubmitted the drawings, indicating there is a half brick, he also resubmitted the calculations. The calculations looked the same as the previous ones (which maybe this is how they should look like) the only thing that changed is the length of the padstone. I don't know if by changing the thickness of the wall the calc should look different, I even asked the architect if he was confident this would address the BC's concern. He never bothered to respond.
2-3 weeks later we received a letter from BC SE saying "According to our Surveyors’ observations, one of the party walls is 100mm thick; you need to provide the justification of the wall and its existing footing under new total loadings".
Our architect said he did not know what else they want, and that he consulted another SE who also didn't know and the only solution would be to run the posts.
Yes, it is narrow, 4m. This is also what our contractor also said, yet we have this problem
The wall ends at the floor level of the loft and this is where our steel beams were inserted. We didn't have to knock any holes in the neighbour's house
Your architect is a knob. BC are going to be all over him (and your scheme) from now on because he makes things up. If Building Control have gone to the effort of passing your scheme to their pet structural engineer and his calculations give a different outcome to your architects' SE then there's a massive prepacked bitchfest all there ready to go. Not sure what the max is in Small Claims Court but I'd be doing some preparatory work right now.
As to resolving your immediate problem (getting a roof over your head), may be worth asking your BCO for contact details of their structural engineer (who they obviously trust) and asking (or the formal word instructing them) how best to proceed given where you are.
Slight aside- in small towns (I live in one) there are big advantages in using local talent (builders, architects, SEs etc)- Building Control will be familiar with them and their work, if you pick good ones BCO will largely trust their work.
As to resolving your immediate problem (getting a roof over your head), may be worth asking your BCO for contact details of their structural engineer (who they obviously trust) and asking (or the formal word instructing them) how best to proceed given where you are.
Slight aside- in small towns (I live in one) there are big advantages in using local talent (builders, architects, SEs etc)- Building Control will be familiar with them and their work, if you pick good ones BCO will largely trust their work.
I see, we don't have a steel ridge for the same reason, so the architect designed the roof with rafters
Thanks, yes I think this is the best course of action for now
Let's see... I just hope he is a qualified SE. I shall ask the architect tomorrow. What are the implications if a SE is not properly qualifierd, doesn't hold membership of the relevant institute or/and doesn't have an insurance?
I don't think so, it's a pretty standard loft, doesn't even have a dormer because it's a conservation area so these are not allowed. We have ceramic tiles on the roof. I don't know what else could be an issue and have impact
The whole deal is coloured by you not having a direct contractual relationship with the SE. You have contracted the architect to do the drawings and structural work, he has subbed the structural bit to someone. You can't sue someone because you don't have a contract with him. You can sue the architect because he has failed to perform his side of the contract. Up to the architect whether he wants to swallow the loss or sue his pet SE for lack of performance (though SE could defend saying the architect provided incorrect information).
If the architect has told you (in writing) that his pet SE is qualified, member of whatever, insured etc and that turns out not to be the case then it is game over for him- start with trading standards and work up to criminal fraud and/or misrepresentation.
@op; had you posted the plan earlier, it would have made more sense!
The steel beam is at the front of the house, right? If so, it will only be supporting part of the loft floor. In that case, a 300mm long padstone would have been OK unless the wall is made of mud bricks; 600 is overkill. Similarly, with a small additional floor load, the foundation of the wall will almost certainly not be an issue. Bear in mind also that the normal floor load allowance (30 lbs/sq foot) will be lower at the front of the loft because the headroom is so restricted.
What might be of more concern to the SE is the relative slenderness of the wall ie its 'thinness' top-to-bottom, but this is not an issue which
is solved just by putting in a bigger padstone; put simply, the more slender a wall is, the less load it can support for a given height. But in this case, the additional load on the wall is absolutely minimal and I suspect the BCO/council checking engineer are being overly conservative, and your architect and SE are probably over-reacting to get the scheme approved on paper.
The steel beam is at the front of the house, right? If so, it will only be supporting part of the loft floor. In that case, a 300mm long padstone would have been OK unless the wall is made of mud bricks; 600 is overkill. Similarly, with a small additional floor load, the foundation of the wall will almost certainly not be an issue. Bear in mind also that the normal floor load allowance (30 lbs/sq foot) will be lower at the front of the loft because the headroom is so restricted.
What might be of more concern to the SE is the relative slenderness of the wall ie its 'thinness' top-to-bottom, but this is not an issue which
is solved just by putting in a bigger padstone; put simply, the more slender a wall is, the less load it can support for a given height. But in this case, the additional load on the wall is absolutely minimal and I suspect the BCO/council checking engineer are being overly conservative, and your architect and SE are probably over-reacting to get the scheme approved on paper.
Last edited:
- Joined
- 1 May 2018
- Messages
- 1,751
- Reaction score
- 527
- Country
Of course it shouldn't, and right is definitely on the OPs side. However, just trying to inject a little pragmatism into the debate because while you may have 100% right, it doesn't help if you then get bogged down in protracted litigation that drags on. Getting the job done must have a value in itself. As I say, not ideal, but you sometimes have to pick your fights.