Discovered a large hole next to the neighbor, what to do?

[oceanis]

Oh, well, then I agree with you. I didn't know about the history. Regardless, it is the responsibility of the housing association to address this damage satisfactorily. Personally, I don't know what's required when repairing an old wall. But you seem confident in your belief that ancient techniques suffice. Is it the same when you have to replace a tap water pipe? - okay with hidden joints and so on. That would really ease all renovations! I mean, when you move into a house, you have to accept the standard that was in place when it was built!

Now you're taking things a bit far and mixing things up. It's not a matter of what's best or not; naturally, one would hope that certain developments have advanced and that new materials and production methods can sometimes be better than those of the past. But with your line of reasoning, single-sealed wall constructions are better than brick walls with lime mortar from the 1600s, even though the old ones remain in the same condition while single-sealed are rotting all over Sweden.

If you choose to have hidden connections in your water systems, probably no one's stopping you, but you won't get compensation from the insurance company, so it's at your own risk.
Then I don't understand what this has to do with this thread, but if the arguments or factual knowledge run low, you have to resort to simple but poor arguments like you did

 

[PNO]

Now, it's not just the Swedish National Board of Housing, Building and Planning's regulations and its predecessors that need to be considered when it comes to fire safety in buildings. The act (2003:778) on Protection Against Accidents also requires reasonable fire protection. And what is considered reasonable today does not have to be the same as what was considered reasonable a long time ago.

A ruling in the Administrative Court of Appeal, for example, gave Uppsala Fire Department the right against a property owner who claimed that his townhouse complied with the applicable regulations from the 90s. The fire department agreed, but considered that it did not meet reasonable fire safety standards today.
http://databas.infosoc.se/rattsfall/29063/fulltext

I don't know how the reasoning goes regarding the reasonableness of improved fire safety in older multi-family homes, but talk to your fire service's prevention department if you're interested.

But as several have pointed out - a perfectly correct separation between apartments according to today's standards, EI60, cannot be achieved by changing just one wall. But you've got to start somewhere, so why not behind your kitchen cabinets.

 

[Tosse]

The reason for my sarcasm that you might have missed was that I thought you were quite harsh in your argumentation. Nothing in my post was an argument.

And you, you know very little about my knowledge and experience with one-step sealed walls.

I'm turning off my monitoring of the thread now, so I will neither give more opinions nor receive further attacks.

 

[yonna]

So interesting! I have now been browsing and reading about Landshövdingehus.

 

[Claes Sörmland]

If you choose to have hidden connections in your water systems, no one will probably stop you, but you won't receive any compensation from the insurance company, so it's at your own risk.

It's somewhat similar with personal responsibility if you only maintain old water systems. But if you rebuild your water system, a building application or building permit is required. Then it suddenly becomes an entirely new water system according to today's standards.

Back to the thread's topic - The board can choose to only let the wall be repaired according to the rules that applied when it was constructed.

That new fire protection regulations would suddenly come into effect with such a small repair is not true. The small damage has no link to new fire protection regulations. However, independently of the damage and its repair, you can bring the construction of kitchen walls to the attention of the fire department to assess whether their construction is particularly problematic according to today's fire protection legislation. If it's really bad, they will issue a mandate for action.

 

[Anna_H]

As I understand it, you get pretty good fire protection from plasterboard? Double plasterboard on the wall after replacing damaged material is a fairly simple measure?

 

[Stefan1972]

As I understand it, you get fairly good fire protection from drywall? Double drywall on the wall after replacing damaged material is quite a simple measure?

Indeed, but just double sheets behind the cabinets probably only slow down the fire for a few seconds. You either create a proper fire cell or ignore it entirely. It will likely be an improvement that's not even measurable with double sheets there if it really catches fire.

 

[Jonatan79]

Build again and be glad that it's not a larger area. The risk of fire right there or that it spreads downward is virtually non-existent and as mentioned, it makes minimal difference unless you tear down and rebuild the entire wall to the correct fire classification.

 

[Odjuret]

admittedly, but just double boards behind the cabinets might slow the fire process by a few seconds at most. Either you make a proper fire compartment or you don't do it at all. It will probably be an improvement from double boards right there that's not even measurable if it still catches fire properly.

To satisfy you, you could put double gypsum boards on the entire wall Then you would have achieved EI30... or is it even better? Though there are some tricky parts around the pipes, but nothing too major.

Regardless of whether the board has a responsibility or not... I wouldn't even bother pondering that problem. I assume you don't want to be without a functioning kitchen for a long time? Fixing the wall yourself is not especially difficult, doesn't have to be especially expensive... So really, what is the problem? Unless... you're going to put up new cabinets so you won't see the neighbor anyway.

 

[Odjuret]

That's kind of how it is with personal responsibility if you only maintain old water systems. But if you rebuild your water system, a building notification or building permit is required. Then it is suddenly a completely new water system according to today's standards.

Back to the thread's topic - the board can choose to just let the wall be repaired according to the rules that applied when it was erected.

That new fire protection regulations would suddenly come into effect with such a small repair is not true. The small damage has no link to new fire protection regulations. But of course, independently of the damage and its repair, one can alert the fire department about the construction of the kitchen walls so that they can again assess whether the construction is particularly problematic according to today's fire protection legislation. If it's really bad, they issue an enforcement notice for action.

I know that a building permit is required if you change the sewage system, but if it's required for water, I don't know. If you choose to deviate from the current rules when you redo the water system, it is not a crime. You can route the water however you want without breaking the law. BUT, you probably won't get a dime from the insurance if there is water damage. It could be classified as a hidden defect the day you sell if you don't inform the buyer that you haven't followed today's rules.
It's wrong, but not a crime. So the worst that happens is you won't get a penny from the insurance on the day there is water damage... which is bad enough... It can be quite expensive...

 

[Odjuret]

Now, it's not just the Swedish National Board of Housing, Building and Planning's building regulations and its predecessors to consider when it comes to fire protection in properties. The law (2003:778) on protection against accidents also requires reasonable fire protection. And what is considered reasonable today doesn't have to be the same as what was considered reasonable a long time ago.

A court ruling in the Administrative Court of Appeal, for example, gave Uppsala Fire Brigade the right against a property owner who believed that his row house met the applicable regulations from the 1990s. The fire brigade agreed, but considered that it did not meet reasonable fire protection standards today.
[link]

I don't know how they reason regarding the reasonableness of improved fire protection in older apartment buildings, but talk to your fire service's preventive department if you're interested.

But as several have pointed out - a completely correct separation between apartments according to today's standards, EI60, cannot be achieved by changing just one wall. But somewhere you have to start, so why not behind your kitchen cabinets.

I think that particular ruling is very sensible. However, I don't think it is applicable to other constructions, fortunately. I want to interpret it as if the cost is an important part of the ruling... That it's a small cost compared to what it could cost if an entire row house burns down...
But some row houses only have chicken wire as a fire-separating wall Then the requirement really falls into place naturally... I would have done it whether someone forced me or not... If I had moved into a row house, I would have made sure there were fire-separating walls, even if it meant I had to build them myself...

 

[Claes Sörmland]

Don't want to go OT but:

Yes, Boverket states that you must make a notification if you make an installation or significant modification of a water supply system in a building or within a plot. See here:

http://www.boverket.se/sv/byggande/bygga-nytt-om-eller-till/anmalan/

Then comes the question of what significant modification means. Does, for example, a completely new routing to the same kitchen count? The municipality in practice gets to interpret for our law-abiding citizens.

 

[Odjuret]

Don't want to go off-topic but:

Yes indeed, the National Board of Housing, Building and Planning states that you must make a notification if you make an installation or substantial change to the water supply system in a building or within a property. See here:

[link]

Then the question arises, what does substantial change mean? Is, for example, a completely new routing to the same kitchen counted? The municipality, in practice, gets to interpret for our law-abiding citizens.

Well, you see! I wasn't sure! But now I am

 

[oceanis]

Don't mean to go off-topic but:

Indeed, the National Board of Housing, Building and Planning states that you need to give notice if you install or make substantial alterations to water supply systems in a building or within a property. See here:

[link]

Then the question arises as to what substantial alteration means. Does a completely new routing, yet to the same kitchen, count? The municipality practically has to interpret for our law-abiding citizens.

A substantial alteration is, for example, removing or adding a toilet or kitchen, moving a toilet or other wet area in the apartment or house, etc. But not a repair or maintenance on an existing system, so a kitchen renovation where the kitchen remains in the same place is not a substantial alteration.

 

[Peter_K]

Moved our kitchen to a different location in the house and of course asked the municipal building permit manager if a building permit was needed, and it was not. Now we already had water and drainage directly below in the basement.