Browse Forums General Discussion 1 Feb 10, 2016 3:56 pm Long story short... Not really.. But here it goes... Site was excavated this week after waiting for 7 trucks of fill that no one said we would need (only told we needed this when they came to excavate). Anyway got to the block... No cut at the front as was apparently required (590mm of cut to 420mm of fill as per plans) and massive drop off the back of the house pad which was supposed to only be 20-30cm. I think I've found the issue but the builder is saying it isn't wrong. Original Plans- Tender Letter 1 First set of plans included the house on a single level slab but due to the fall of the land, there were drop edge beams required, as well as a large 'drop' off the back of the alfresco with future steps required. Like ⋅ Add a comment ⋅ Pin to Ideaboard ⋅ Given the cost of the drop edge beam, and the fact we didn't want a large drop off the alfresco, we worked with the builder to 'split the slab', providing a 360mm internal step down. We think this is where it has started to go pear shaped in hindsight. The drop edge beam was correctly removed from Tender Letter 2, and instead we correctly had the costs included to split the slab. However what we didn't notice, was that on the contour survey that was provided with Tender Letter 2, while the front pad and slab levels did not change from TL1 to TL2 (Pad at the front remained at 105.25), the back of the Pad was noted on this survey, with a 360mm step down, as being at 105.61- that is, 360mm higher than the front Pad level. I can't see how this is physically possible. We would have thought that a 360mm step down would have meant a Pad level at the back of 104.89 (105.25 - 0.36), given that the front pad level did not change from TL1 to TL2. I would have thought it was only possible to have a 360mm step down, with the rear pad level sitting at 105.61 as noted in TL2 site plan, if the height of the pad at the front had been raised when compared to TL1. Like ⋅ Add a comment ⋅ Pin to Ideaboard ⋅ We feel that the pad levels have therefore been wrong all along, since TL2 was issued. What has then happened from the Contract Plans (same numbers as TL2) to the Construction Plans, is that the front house pad levels stated in TL2 have been 'swapped' with the rear house pad levels, with no discussion, requests or explanation. See below: CONTRACT PLANS Like ⋅ Add a comment ⋅ Pin to Ideaboard ⋅ vs CONSTRUCTION PLANS (see numbers that have switched with 105.61 now being noted as the Pad level at the front): Like ⋅ Add a comment ⋅ Pin to Ideaboard ⋅ We are assuming that someone has gone 'oh you can't have a step down with a higher pad level at the back- those numbers must have been put in around the wrong way' and they have just switched them rather than realising the rear house pad level should have actually been changed to 104.89. this may account for why there seems to be no 'cut' at the front, and why so much fill was brought in when it previously wasn't noted as being required. Appreciate anyone telling me I am right or wrong!! M Y C U S T O M C O R A L B R O N T E 43 ...............Kitchen! 16 Nov 2016 https://forum.homeone.com.au/viewtopic.php?f=31&t=79581 Hi, have purchased a house with 2 single garage doors. The Centre pillar one side sits proud to the other. Can I change 2 doors into one. Please see picture. 0 6347 Hmmm, I have checked your past posts and it seems that you are in NSW, not WA as I had thought. It pays to show your State in your avatar. Retaining wall regulations… 5 7857 No one can give you a meaningful answer without looking at your building contract, what happened on site and who designed your house You should get experienced building… 1 10203 |