My garden Room Build

Seve OB

Looks fab RobAMerc

I'm going to get cracking on mine soon.... will be back to ask you a load of questions

Seve OB

So I plan to build something similar to Rob & Dodzy. Mine won't be a garden room, but more of a very well built shed so I probably won't be specking it as good as you guys, but I still want to do it right. I am going to lay a concrete foundation as opposed to a timber one like you guys have. Was thinking of putting a course of bricks around the base to sit the timber frame on like Colin Furze did with his to raise it up (extra height will be good) and avoid any damp issues. I will be building approx 3M wide * 4M and probably going to go with a pitch roof of about 2.5 meters at the back rising to about 3 meters at the front.

I will start my own thread so as not to be hijacking this one but I wanted to throw a few questions at you guys as you are clearly well informed after your projects.

What timber did you guys use for framing the walls? I was thinking about going with 75mm*35mm but I'm not sure here though if I should be using 44mm? I think 100mm might be overkill or is it? I think I'm more concerned with making sure my walls will be strong enough to hold the roof up!

Would OSB3, 11mm be the best size or would you be going thicker/thinner? Same for walls and roof?

What nails did yiz use? I reckon this is a better bet than using screws? I don't have a nail gun but will get a decent hammer. I do have an impact driver though... maybe some things should be screwed?

I was planning to use shiplap timber to clad it. Will probably be the most expensive part of the build so I might look at what you used Dodzy. How do you find it now?

Haven't thought to much about the roof, I have used Felt shingles in the past, but they are expensive. Never heard of EPDM so will look into that as an option, or is that just something you put underneath your cladding?

oinkely

Seve OB wrote: »

So I plan to build something similar to Rob & Dodzy. Mine won't be a garden room, but more of a very well built shed so I probably won't be specking it as good as you guys, but I still want to do it right. I am going to lay a concrete foundation as opposed to a timber one like you guys have. Was thinking of putting a course of bricks around the base to sit the timber frame on like Colin Furze did with his to raise it up (extra height will be good) and avoid any damp issues. I will be building approx 3M wide * 4M and probably going to go with a pitch roof of about 2.5 meters at the back rising to about 3 meters at the front.

I will start my own thread so as not to be hijacking this one but I wanted to throw a few questions at you guys as you are clearly well informed after your projects.

What timber did you guys use for framing the walls? I was thinking about going with 75mm*35mm but I'm not sure here though if I should be using 44mm? I think 100mm might be overkill or is it? I think I'm more concerned with making sure my walls will be strong enough to hold the roof up!

Would OSB3, 11mm be the best size or would you be going thicker/thinner? Same for walls and roof?

What nails did yiz use? I reckon this is a better bet than using screws? I don't have a nail gun but will get a decent hammer. I do have an impact driver though... maybe some things should be screwed?

I was planning to use shiplap timber to clad it. Will probably be the most expensive part of the build so I might look at what you used Dodzy. How do you find it now?

Haven't thought to much about the roof, I have used Felt shingles in the past, but they are expensive. Never heard of EPDM so will look into that as an option, or is that just something you put underneath your cladding?

I recently completed a small bike shed in our tiny garden. It's not very big, but very well built (if i say so myself!). For cladding i used the pvc stuff used by some of the guys above - really easy to use and looks great, and zero maintenance. I was going to for for shiplap but as far as i remember the pvc was cheaper and more permanent. For the roof i used sedum - it's a green roof and i have to say, looking out at it from the kitchen is way better than the usual steel roof shed we have in the other part of our garden. That was a standard garden shed and when the time comes to replace it i will be building my own again and putting a green roof on it also.

Walls are framed in 4*2 and roof is 5*2 with t&g OSB on top (wanted to ensure it could support the weight of the green roof). Floor is 4*2 with 18mm t&g osb on top and walls are lined internally with the same t&g osb. Roof is wrapped in heavy builders plastic to keep the moisture out, before the fleece and substrate and sedum mat were laid on top. Walls outside wrapped in breathable membrane with the pvc siding installed directly over that.

Fine Cheers

Ya can't be telling us all that and not provide any photos :rolleyes:

oinkely

Fine Cheers wrote: »

Ya can't be telling us all that and not provide any photos :rolleyes:

ill try do that tomorrow.

Lumen

Seve OB wrote: »

What timber did you guys use for framing the walls? I was thinking about going with 75mm*35mm but I'm not sure here though if I should be using 44mm? I think 100mm might be overkill or is it? I think I'm more concerned with making sure my walls will be strong enough to hold the roof up!

Suggest you start your own thread, but my 2c...

If you want to use proper framing timber, CLS (e.g. from Glennon) comes in 89x38 and 140x38, and TR26 (for roof trusses) comes in 47 x 147

I used 147x47 because:

(a) I wanted wide studs (600mm centres) and a deeper wall in case I needed to fill it with thick insulation later, and if not it would be deep enough for shelving
(b) I could use the same timbers for studs and rafters.
(c) 47 is better than 38 when you're trying to through-fix to a stud. More room for error!

You can adjust the stud width if you want to make it stronger (e.g. 400mm centres), but TBH for a single storey garden room properly sheeted with OSB you'll have difficulty under building it. A wooden frame is incredibly strong.

Remember that from a planning perspective the size is measured internally, so deep walls are no harm (although you'll use a fraction more site space).

Seve OB

Lumen wrote: »

Suggest you start your own thread, but my 2c...

If you want to use proper framing timber, CLS (e.g. from Glennon) comes in 89x38 and 140x38, and TR26 (for roof trusses) comes in 47 x 147

I used 147x47 because:

(a) I wanted wide studs (600mm centres) and a deeper wall in case I needed to fill it with thick insulation later, and if not it would be deep enough for shelving
(b) I could use the same timbers for studs and rafters.
(c) 47 is better than 38 when you're trying to through-fix to a stud. More room for error!

You can adjust the stud width if you want to make it stronger (e.g. 400mm centres), but TBH for a single storey garden room properly sheeted with OSB you'll have difficulty under building it. A wooden frame is incredibly strong.

Remember that from a planning perspective the size is measured internally, so deep walls are no harm (although you'll use a fraction more site space).

ya, will do that in the next day or so.
is CLS any better/worse cheaper/expensive than treated timber which i was going to get

Lumen

Seve OB wrote: »

ya, will do that in the next day or so.
is CLS any better/worse cheaper/expensive than treated timber which i was going to get

I paid 378/m3 + 80 haulage + VAT for clean (untreated) TR26.

That 378/m3 was based on the unplaned dimension (150x50).

That works out at 3.81 per linear metre all in. That was in Aug 2018 though, so it could be a lot more now (there's currently a construction timber crisis due to logging permit problems).

Make sure you add on at least 10% for wastage.

Where does the time go? I'll be finished the build soon, I promise.

runawaybishop

Lumen wrote: »

Remember that from a planning perspective the size is measured internally, so deep walls are no harm (although you'll use a fraction more site space).

You sure about that? I thought it was internal as well but saw a recent post in the planning forum that said its external.

Lumen

runawaybishop wrote: »

You sure about that? I thought it was internal as well but saw a recent post in the planning forum that said its external.

The law says...

For class 1 exempted development "Where the house has not been extended previously, the floor area of any such extension shall not exceed 40 square metres."

For class 3 exempted development "The total area of such structures constructed, erected or placed within the curtilage of a house shall not, taken together with any other such structures previously constructed, erected or placed within the said curtilage, exceed 25 square metres.".

I reason that class 3 is imprecise because not all structures have a floor, but where they do, the floor area is measured.

Plus random legal site:

https://www.bellassociates.ie/services/exempted-planning-guidelines/

"The floor area limitation for exempted development is 25 square metres"

runawaybishop

Lumen wrote: »

The law says...

For class 1 exempted development "Where the house has not been extended previously, the floor area of any such extension shall not exceed 40 square metres."

For class 3 exempted development "The total area of such structures constructed, erected or placed within the curtilage of a house shall not, taken together with any other such structures previously constructed, erected or placed within the said curtilage, exceed 25 square metres.".

I reason that class 3 is imprecise because not all structures have a floor, but where they do, the floor area is measured.

Plus random legal site:

https://www.bellassociates.ie/services/exempted-planning-guidelines/

"The floor area limitation for exempted development is 25 square metres"

Found the thread, think I will need to ring the local office to see what they do by, based on what's in the thread

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058186438

Lumen

runawaybishop wrote: »

Found the thread, think I will need to ring the local office to see what they do by, based on what's in the thread

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058186438

Aha! Nice one.

There are several knowledgable professionals posting in that thread. I am reassured by their lack of agreement.

runawaybishop

runawaybishop wrote: »

Found the thread, think I will need to ring the local office to see what they do by, based on what's in the thread

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058186438

In case anyone is interested its 25m externally measured, at least in Mayo anyway.

chooseusername

runawaybishop wrote: »

In case anyone is interested its 25m externally measured, at least in Mayo anyway.

Maybe they should read their own bumph;

https://www.mayo.ie/getmedia/2897a10d-a8d1-4015-a01d-6e2a4e5dfdfd/8-a-guide-to-doing-work-around-the-house.pdf

Section 5 onwards.
That's Mayo co.co by the way.

Lumen

chooseusername wrote: »

Maybe they should read their own bumph;

https://www.mayo.ie/getmedia/2897a10d-a8d1-4015-a01d-6e2a4e5dfdfd/8-a-guide-to-doing-work-around-the-house.pdf

Section 5 onwards.
That's Mayo co.co by the way.

The way I interpret the differing wording for extensions vs gardens buildings in the legislation is as follows:

- With an extension to a house, the principal concern is the relative increase in accomodation provided, so it is measured internally. We don't allow unlimited size of exempted development extensions because the trigger for planning is also the trigger to consider whether (for instance) waste water treatment capacity is sufficient or needs to be upgraded.

- With a standalone building, the principal concern is the impact on open space and visual impact, so it is measured externally.

More pragmatically, it's probably easier to measure an extension internally and a shed externally, as the extension doesn't have an accessible perimeter and sheds are usually full of dangerous junk. :pac:

Obvs Mayo have decided (in their documentation) to treat both extensions and sheds the same.

chooseusername

Lumen wrote: »

The way I interpret the differing wording for extensions vs gardens buildings in the legislation is as follows:

- With an extension to a house, the principal concern is the relative increase in accomodation provided, so it is measured internally. We don't allow unlimited size of exempted development extensions because the trigger for planning is also the trigger to consider whether (for instance) waste water treatment capacity is sufficient or needs to be upgraded.

- With a standalone building, the principal concern is the impact on open space and visual impact, so it is measured externally.

More pragmatically, it's probably easier to measure an extension internally and a shed externally, as the extension doesn't have an accessible perimeter and sheds are usually full of dangerous junk. :pac:

Obvs Mayo have decided (in their documentation) to treat both extensions and sheds the same.

You're muddying the waters now with waste water treatment(pun intended).
From section 7 of the same document;

7. Can I build a garage?
You can build a garage, store, shed,
greenhouse or similar structure as long as:
........
• the floor area of the structure, taken on
its own or in conjunction with any similar
structures does not exceed 25 square
metres;
• the area of private open space reserved
exclusively for the use of the occupants of
the house, at the side or rear of the house is
not reduced below 25 square metres; and

Lumen

chooseusername wrote: »

You're muddying the waters now with waste water treatment(pun intended).

I'm just trying to find a rational explanation as to why the legislation is differently worded around size for exempted extensions (habitable) vs exempted free-standing buildings (non-habitable), and why some councils are measuring them differently.

chooseusername

I don't get it either.
That document even contradicts itself with regards garden space.
when building an extension only space to the rear of the building counts.
Whereas in the case of a detached garage or shed space to the side counts.
Makes work for solicitors and engineers I suppose.

hesker

It would be a good idea to seek clarification via a section 5 declaration.

I emailed my local council and received the following reply

“I am aware of different interpretations of the phrase “total area”, being either external area or internal floor area. Notwithstanding the above and having considered the matter, I consider that there is a reasonable probability that the planning authority could interpret the phrase as internal floor area. However, this is my opinion alone at this time and is given without prejudice to any decision or determination that the planning authority may make in relation to this or any related matter, and does not commit the planning authority to any particular course of action, view or interpretation.



Should you require a definitive view on this issue, you may request a declaration under section 5 of the Planning and Development Act 2000, as amended (details on our website www.corkcity.ie) in relation to this matter.”

Mellor

runawaybishop wrote: »

In case anyone is interested its 25m externally measured, at least in Mayo anyway.

No it’s not.

Floor area is measured internally.
Footprint is measured externally.
The law indicates 25m2 floor area. It’s not within MayoCC’s power to change that.

Misinterpreting that is a different matter.

Lumen

Mellor wrote: »

The law indicates 25m2 floor area.

I don't what you mean by "indicate" but the law does not state floor area for class 3 exemptions.

As I posted above.

Lumen wrote: »

For class 1 exempted development "Where the house has not been extended previously, the floor area of any such extension shall not exceed 40 square metres."

For class 3 exempted development "The total area of such structures constructed, erected or placed within the curtilage of a house shall not, taken together with any other such structures previously constructed, erected or placed within the said curtilage, exceed 25 square metres.".

Seve OB

What the hell has happened to this thread???????

chooseusername

Lumen wrote: »

I don't what you mean by "indicate" but the law does not state floor area for class 3 exemptions.

As I posted above.

Originally Posted by Lumen View Post
For class 1 exempted development "Where the house has not been extended previously, the floor area of any such extension shall not exceed 40 square metres."

For class 3 exempted development "The total area of such structures constructed, erected or placed within the curtilage of a house shall not, taken together with any other such structures previously constructed, erected or placed within the said curtilage, exceed 25 square metres.".

I interpret it as ; the "floor area" singular in class 1 as one extension to an existing house..
In class3 " The total floor areas of such structures taken together ......"

Lumen

For the sake of Seve's sanity this is my last post on this matter, but clearly the floor area thing is a matter of interpretation of the law, because the law is not explicit.

runawaybishop

Mellor wrote: »

No it’s not.

Floor area is measured internally.
Footprint is measured externally.
The law indicates 25m2 floor area. It’s not within MayoCC’s power to change that.

Misinterpreting that is a different matter.

Good afternoon,

Mayo County Council’s view is that it is 25 sqm as viewed externally.

Regards,
MayoCOCO planning dept

I'm just reporting back what the planners told me.

I had planned on building myself this summer similar to rob but wanted to verify what the area limit was.

Mellor

runawaybishop wrote: »

Good afternoon,

Mayo County Council’s view is that it is 25 sqm as viewed externally.

Regards,
MayoCOCO planning dept

I'm just reporting back what the planners told me.

I had planned on building myself this summer similar to rob but wanted to verify what the area limit was.

I understand that they may take that view.
My point is that that doesn’t make it coorect.

If one county takes it internally, and another externally. One of them is clearly wrong.

hesker

Mellor wrote: »

I understand that they may take that view.
My point is that that doesn’t make it coorect.

If one county takes it internally, and another externally. One of them is clearly wrong.

Exactly. Which is why the Section 5 is a good idea. At least with that if ultimate clarity ever arises and you’re on the wrong side of it then at least you can prove that you sought clarification and acted accordingly.

jpfahy

Robamerc, where did you get the doors for this?

delly

Folks, let's leave the square footage talk for another day, it is derailing the thread.

RobAMerc

jpfahy wrote: »

Robamerc, where did you get the doors for this?

Navan windows and doors - dunno why I got it from them. It was height of lockdown and he came up with the goods for me.

Jackben75

what an amazing job by both men, well done. I too am about to start a built, however i was wondering @Robamerc - would/did you of considered pine cladding? I know cedar is all the rage but pine looks like a good choice too, i am thinking of going with Shou Sugi Ban look. Just wondering why you went Cedar?

2011

A soft wood such as pine will require a lot more maintenance. Cedar is virtually maintenance free.

Jackben75

2011 wrote: »

A soft wood such as pine will require a lot more maintenance. Cedar is virtually maintenance free.

cheers but i thought you had to oil cedar ever couple of years, treated pine not so? Shou Sugi Ban would also help the treated pine? Perhaps i got this wrong though

Cyrus

2011 wrote: »

Cedar is virtually maintenance free.

if you want it to silver.

dodzy

Cyrus wrote: »

if you want it to silver.

How anybody thinks that untreated cedar is attractive once it goes silver/grey is beyond me - it's hideous. In it's new/treated state, it's fab.

Cyrus

dodzy wrote: »

How anybody thinks that untreated cedar is attractive once it goes silver/grey is beyond me - it's hideous. In it's new/treated state, it's fab.

i agree it looks awful once it greys.

Lumen

dodzy wrote: »

How anybody thinks that untreated cedar is attractive once it goes silver/grey is beyond me - it's hideous. In it's new/treated state, it's fab.

Cyrus wrote: »

i agree it looks awful once it greys.

IMO there are two opposing views on gardens and their structures.

On the one hand you have the garden room people, who will paint/stain every bit of bare wood, put down porcelain tiles because they're neat and consider replacing the lawn with plastic grass because they can't bear unevenness and weeds and moss. For those people the garden represents a conquering of nature, and an extension of their indoor space, and thus the garden room must be as their house, with plasterboard and laminate and rubber roofs and all that jazz. The underlying philosophy is that physical degradation is synonymous with poverty.

On the other you have the shed people, who see the garden as a barely tamed slice of nature where things slowly age, rot and return to earth. These people believe that we can no more hold back these natural processes than we can become immortal ourselves, and that paint is the botoxing of nature, a futile act of denial.

Garden room people consider shed people to be disgusting troglodytes.

Shed people consider garden room people to be philistines.

It's all good, as long as you know what you're dealing with.

I am shed people, and so I tread lightly upon the sensitivities of the garden people, particularly in this thread, which is hostile territory.

(the above diatribe is not intended to be taken seriously, in case it's not obvious)

listermint

dodzy wrote: »

How anybody thinks that untreated cedar is attractive once it goes silver/grey is beyond me - it's hideous. In it's new/treated state, it's fab.

Meh swings and roundabouts. I think my porch looks great. There's an element of fakary trying to yellow the timber every year to maintain a fake state. I love the fact it ages. This timber here was recycled from an office block so has been up on the side of a building for around 8 years.


Hideous is well... An exaggeration

Cyrus

listermint wrote: »

Meh swings and roundabouts. I think my porch looks great. There's an element of fakary trying to yellow the timber every year to maintain a fake state. I love the fact it ages. This timber here was recycled from an office block so has been up on the side of a building for around 8 years.


Hideous is well... An exaggeration

in fairness that does look well.

listermint

Cyrus wrote: »

in fairness that does look well.

Probably out doors ten years now including mine. It's quite a resilient wood in certain conditions.

I don't think it reacts well to cityscape though i.e pollution and dirt.

RobAMerc

Jackben75 wrote: »

what an amazing job by both men, well done. I too am about to start a built, however i was wondering @Robamerc - would/did you of considered pine cladding? I know cedar is all the rage but pine looks like a good choice too, i am thinking of going with Shou Sugi Ban look. Just wondering why you went Cedar?

I'll take this as a huge compliment. This is pine ( or some white softwood ) which I stained to preserve and look like cedar. If I remember correctly it is however treated so it will last a bit longer.

I was very tempted to Shou Sugi Ban the lot too, but at the time I had really run out of steam and was very busy with work so needed to get it finished.

iwillhtfu

listermint wrote: »

Meh swings and roundabouts. I think my porch looks great. There's an element of fakary trying to yellow the timber every year to maintain a fake state. I love the fact it ages. This timber here was recycled from an office block so has been up on the side of a building for around 8 years.


Hideous is well... An exaggeration

I like the look of the aged cedar but I can see why some would rather the warmer more modern clean finish. The uniform joins there though would have me using the back door more often :P

dodzy

listermint wrote: »

Meh swings and roundabouts. I think my porch looks great. There's an element of fakary trying to yellow the timber every year to maintain a fake state. I love the fact it ages. This timber here was recycled from an office block so has been up on the side of a building for around 8 years.


Hideous is well... An exaggeration

Yours looks really well Listermint. Compliments the build and door colour very well. I’d wonder though is it a bit sheltered from the harsh elements? Some of the cedar I’ve seen particularly on larger builds such as apartment complexes did not fare nearly as well as yours, with any hints of the original cedar colour long since gone whereas yours has retained well. Great job by the way.

Jackben75

RobAMerc wrote: »

I'll take this as a huge compliment. This is pine ( or some white softwood ) which I stained to preserve and look like cedar. If I remember correctly it is however treated so it will last a bit longer.

I was very tempted to Shou Sugi Ban the lot too, but at the time I had really run out of steam and was very busy with work so needed to get it finished.

well this (pine approach) is very interesting, not to mention quite cost effective for me great job

listermint

dodzy wrote: »

Yours looks really well Listermint. Compliments the build and door colour very well. I’d wonder though is it a bit sheltered from the harsh elements? Some of the cedar I’ve seen particularly on larger builds such as apartment complexes did not fare nearly as well as yours, with any hints of the original cedar colour long since gone whereas yours has retained well. Great job by the way.

Could argue it has some over hang and east facing. The worst timber cladding I've seen is an apartment complex on the longmile road ballfe road junction. Just crap. Unsure if it's ceder but I'd assume it is it wouldn't have been as expensive at the time. I do believe environment conditions can harm it

Lumen

listermint wrote: »

Could argue it has some over hang and east facing. The worst timber cladding I've seen is an apartment complex on the longmile road ballfe road junction. Just crap. Unsure if it's ceder but I'd assume it is it wouldn't have been as expensive at the time. I do believe environment conditions can harm it

https://maps.app.goo.gl/ycDtVoju2Z9yi42u6

Looks like cedar to me. In this case it's not helped by what look like cheap white PVC windows and guttering, and that horrendous brick. But the architecture is all wrong for timber cladding.

Good architecture balances form and detail and draws the eye to specific elements.

Timber cladding adds an incredible amount of detail, at several scales (the boards, the fixings, the weathering, grain). So cladding looks good when you simplify the overall form, hide or tone down other details, and draw the eye to what remains.

In this case you have all that going on with the cladding, plus a mess of other details around the balconies, the brick ground floor, the weird non matching cills, the bright white windows. The brain skips around confused, unable to settle.



Compare to ..

chooseusername

Emptying the piss-pots out the windows didn't help!
And what's the crack with alternate joins all lined up?
Can't be difficult to get full length planks, what are they, 5mtrs?
The bottom two look good, in fairness.

Lumen

chooseusername wrote: »

Emptying the piss-pots out the windows didn't help!
And what's the crack with alternate joins all lined up?
Can't be difficult to get full length planks, what are they, 5mtrs?
The bottom two look good, in fairness.

Those vertical spans are about 7m. I don't know if it's possible to get cedar that long, but I've never seen it in Ireland.

The hitler moustache section on the top balcony is funny too.

Mellor

I’d probably be in the

dodzy wrote: »

Yours looks really well Listermint. Compliments the build and door colour very well. I’d wonder though is it a bit sheltered from the harsh elements? Some of the cedar I’ve seen particularly on larger builds such as apartment complexes did not fare nearly as well as yours, with any hints of the original cedar colour long since gone whereas yours has retained well. Great job by the way.

You’ve kind of touched on the issue.
Cedar cladding is suppose to age and go silver. To do this and look well it needs to be detailed correctly to age uniformly and avoid a patchy look.
Exposed or shelter is less important that uniform exposure.

I like it aged well. I like the original maintained.
But I hate when it’s just stuck on it a haphazard way. Which covers most applications tbh.

Lumen

Posted some pics of my work in progress larch cladding if anyone is interested.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=117395671&postcount=295