Meranti vs Sapele wood windows

ryder72

Furts - Are you saying that the style of wall detail is not in line with NHBC guidance or is it in violation of building regs?

NO orders placed yet. In fact atleast a few months away from this.

Furts

ryder72 wrote: »

Furts - Are you saying that the style of wall detail is not in line with NHBC guidance or is it in violation of building regs?

NO orders placed yet. In fact atleast a few months away from this.

The proviso is that I have not seen the working drawings. Based on that my reserved comments are:

The design is wholly inappropriate for UK use.

The render on board is a disaster

The window cill detail is erroneous

The five day build is flawed

The flat roof comment is concerning

You may fail to get Building regulations. This will be because of the absence of a cavity amongst other items. The degree of exposure would also have to be factored in.

Purely a general observation: Your saving grace is the 30 year guarantee, Under normal circumstances this would be a red herring. One should be working on a "right first time" basis. However your design would not be mortgageable to some eyes. Hence a 30 year guarantee, if insurance backed, would satisfy a 25 year mortgage. However, this logic would mean to hell with buyers later in life.

Building Regulations are different to NHBC requirements but, and it is a big but, (and sorry leveller2911!) Local Authority Building Warranty is a plagiarism of NHBC Technical Standards. It is the Regulations and Approved Documents that one would follow, but if one deviates from this then the design details have to stack up. By quoting, and following, NHBC it can be argued that one is following good practice. I have done this many times with Applications. From my limited knowledge of your proposals, your design and construction is questionnable and does not follow NHBC Requirements.

Almost finally!... a polite rant. Your comment about U Values is seriously flawed and misleading. Any architect, any builder and any timber frame company can easily exceed these. These U Values are the minimum standard allowable under UK Law. They are not a target, they are not good practice, and they are not intended to represent good workmanship. The onus is put on everybody to exceed these - this is the UK version of fair play! It would appear that you chose not to follow this but instead considered an Irish, or German design. This is your choice, but I do wonder what advice your professional team were giving you.

Finally, your comment about air tightness and German ability, plus implied reference to German building which to many people means a passiv haus is nonsence. I have a 1988 home built built to an appalling standard, by an appalling house builder, which I have extended with brick and block to a minimal level of wall insulation. This house matches a passiv haus for energy consumption and is so air tight that the occupants are oblivious to winds of 50+mph passing by the windows. So, if I can do it, so can anybody else. This is without the need for a Certified Passiv Haus Consultant and without the need to spend £thousands getting a piece of paper to say how wonderful a passiv haus certificate is.

Definitely finally! my home was extended and finished by UK workers to a very high standard with a build cost of around £500 per metre squared. Reflect on this when you budget your build costs!.

leveller2911

Furts wrote: »

Building Regulations are different to NHBC requirements but, and it is a big but, (and sorry leveller2911!) Local Authority Building Warranty is a plagiarism of NHBC Technical Standards. It is the Regulations and Approved Documents that one would follow, but if one deviates from this then the design details have to stack up. By quoting, and following, NHBC it can be argued that one is following good practice. I have done this many times with Applications.

No worries Furts, I'm on here to pass on my limited knowledge and learn along the way.

AFAIA the technical documents from NHBC and or Building regs will take their guidance from TRADA with regards to timber products so they all plagiarise to a certain extent. I would pay good money to meet the plonker who decided trickle vents were ever a good idea..

It doesn't stop the fact that the NHBC is far too closely associated with the construction companies. You can't have a poacher also acting as the game keeper, it should be one or the other but not both.

Furts

leveller2911 wrote: »

No worries Furts, I'm on here to pass on my limited knowledge and learn along the way.

It doesn't stop the fact that the NHBC is far too closely associated with the construction companies. You can't have a poacher also acting as the game keeper, it should be one or the other but not both.

Unfortunately consumers do not understand the role of NHBC. NHBC is a trade membership organisation, and he who pays the piper calls the tune. But the NHBC role is more complex than this. In effect NHBC are an insurance company offering an insurance backed warranty against building defects. The premium for this warranty must, in accordance with NHBC rules, be hidden in the purchase price of a new home. NHBC then minimise their exposure to financial loss by making the builder liable for the first two years. This is because this is when most of the inevitable issues come to light.

Further, all members are risk assessed and scored so those with the worst building defect history pay more in premiums. Thus, you can see why the premiums are hidden - the housing industry does not want the consumer knowing who is the worst builder.

But to complicate matters further NHBC was never set up to protect, or represent builders. What is kept quiet is that it was established to protect banks, insurance companies and building societies who were lending the money to purchase new homes. These organisations wanted to minimise their risks. For example if they offered a 100% mortgage on a house that suffered subsided after five years they would be sat on a huge financial problem.

All this is hidden from the consumer. Perhaps you can now understand my unorthodox comment that all new home owners should commission a most thorough full survey before parting with their money to purchase a new home.

In the interests of imparting knowledge I will now make the most obvious of statements. If you were to purchase a new home and on moving in discovered, for example, that the front elevation had roof tiles but the back elevation had never been done, could you make a claim under your NHBC Warranty? Of course, the answer is obvious. This would not be a valid claim under the Warranty. It may be settled on ex-gratia, or goodwill basis, but expect to be reprimanded in the process!