[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Martin L wrote: > > Without defending LANT's choice of design, a change from the=20 > > the previous style has been forced on them by the need to=20 > > raise the floor level a few feet to avoid the risk of it=20 > > being flooded out again. Simply keeping the same A-frame=20 > > shape but with higher floors would reduce the usable floor=20 > > space by too much. > I don't see why it wouldn't be possible to provide a new building of the > same general size and shape as the existing, but raised up higher. This > will mean that the base of the A-frames is wider than before, and that > the ridge height is raised by the same amount as the floor level.
I think there was some problem to do with how it was supported - otherwise that's what they would have done. Maybe there's some limitation on where the base of the A-frames can go? I don't know, but that was what the LANT chaps who I spoke to when I boated through in September seemed to be saying. Hence the idea of what was described to me as something looking fairly similar, but with supported on vertical beams rather than A-frames - however it seems that the reality is rather different! There > would also need to be some changes to the access arrangements from > ground level - but these would be needed with any raised-floor solution. > Incidentally, the "Flood Risk Statement" attached to the application > states that the floor level is to be raised from the 1 in 100 year flood > level, to above the 1 in 150 year flood level, I think it's been flooded twice in the last twenty years, so maybe they got the 100 year level wrong! but nowhere does the > application state what these levels are. The elevations drawing shows > before and after views, but the drawing is so basic that it is not very > clear where the floor levels are, but I estimate the new floor to be > about 0.75m (or 2 ft 6 in) higher than the existing. I was told 'about 3ft'. Martin
