Implications of building an extension without building regs
Discussion
I need to build an extension (which I've got permitted development rights to do) purely as a way of getting additional footprint on my existing house. In 2-3 years time, I will be knocking the whole thing down and starting again.
I was mulling over the idea of not building it to current building regs as this would save a fair bit of cash - the architect wants £2k to spec the drwaing for regs plus another £800 to the council for fees, also I could reuse existing doors / windows (fitted in the '90's so not up to current standards) saving another £3k.
I trust the builder I'm using as he has done work for me before.
Can the council force me to rip it down and start again if I don't get regs? Or could I keep it for 2-3 years without too many issues to knock it down when we rebuild the house?
I was mulling over the idea of not building it to current building regs as this would save a fair bit of cash - the architect wants £2k to spec the drwaing for regs plus another £800 to the council for fees, also I could reuse existing doors / windows (fitted in the '90's so not up to current standards) saving another £3k.
I trust the builder I'm using as he has done work for me before.
Can the council force me to rip it down and start again if I don't get regs? Or could I keep it for 2-3 years without too many issues to knock it down when we rebuild the house?
Architect's fees seem really high for a 'simple' domestic extenstion.
The Building Regs are just minimum building standards. Other than the saving on not buying new windows and doors there's probably only going to be a few hundred pounds saved in materials.
I would suggest that if this would mean you can't afford to do the extension then you can't afford to do it at all. What would happen if during the work you uncovered a problem that needed fixing? You couldn't afford to fix it or finish the extension.
Are you really going to knock it down in a few years time? No, you're not are you?
If the Local Authority find out about the work during construction then it's more problematic than if they found out after it was completed. Further to this when you come to sell then your buyers will use the non-compliance as a negciation tool.
The Building Regs are just minimum building standards. Other than the saving on not buying new windows and doors there's probably only going to be a few hundred pounds saved in materials.
I would suggest that if this would mean you can't afford to do the extension then you can't afford to do it at all. What would happen if during the work you uncovered a problem that needed fixing? You couldn't afford to fix it or finish the extension.
Are you really going to knock it down in a few years time? No, you're not are you?
If the Local Authority find out about the work during construction then it's more problematic than if they found out after it was completed. Further to this when you come to sell then your buyers will use the non-compliance as a negciation tool.
Thanks for the opinions of those that don't know, normally on here you get a decent view of the law / regulations.
I live in AONB and Greenbelt. In Greenbelt (for those that have posted that obviously don't know) you can only extend your house via planning permission to a maximum of 150% of the original dwelling. My house has already been extended by this amount. Permitted Development Rights (PDR) don't take the 150% rule into account hence building the extension via PDR to get extra footprint before I apply for full planning to knock the whole lot down and start again.
And yes I am going to knock it down and yes I can afford it but only a nutter (or a multi multi millionaire, which I am not) would piss at least an extra £5k up the wall for something they are going knock down if they could avoid it. If I can't avoid it then I will cough up and do this way.
If anyone can bring any real life experience to this scenario I would really appreciate it.
Thanks.
I live in AONB and Greenbelt. In Greenbelt (for those that have posted that obviously don't know) you can only extend your house via planning permission to a maximum of 150% of the original dwelling. My house has already been extended by this amount. Permitted Development Rights (PDR) don't take the 150% rule into account hence building the extension via PDR to get extra footprint before I apply for full planning to knock the whole lot down and start again.
And yes I am going to knock it down and yes I can afford it but only a nutter (or a multi multi millionaire, which I am not) would piss at least an extra £5k up the wall for something they are going knock down if they could avoid it. If I can't avoid it then I will cough up and do this way.
If anyone can bring any real life experience to this scenario I would really appreciate it.
Thanks.
mk1fan said:
Nice attitude there.
This isn't the LoungeAll I was after was some decent advice from people that have faced this kind of challenge before (which is normally forthcoming) not a questioning of my integrity.
I would have thought a Building Surveyor like yourself would have been able to give slightly less judgemental view. Nevermind.
Thanks anyway
I didn't call the guy a liar I merely questioned whether he was actually going to do something. Secondly, there seems to be some emotional interpretation of my post that isn't there.
The fact that his response contained a lot of pertinant additional information omitted from the first post suggests that the question the op actually wants answered is not 'What can Building Control do if my house isn't built to the building regs?' This question can easily be answered with a google search or indeed by looking on direct-gov.
What they want to know is 'How can I legally gain this extra floor space the cheapest and easiest way?'
I can think of one way the op could build an extension to meet the building regs but still not need to meet the 'environmental performance' regs (which appear to be the bug bear). The Architect's fees are irrelevant as the works could be done under a building notice organised by the 'trusted' builder.
Alternatively, I can think of one way that they could satisfy both Planning and Building Control and only cost them a fraction of what they're planning on spending.
However, the 'whole' story needs to be told for people to be able to comment.
But hey, what do I know?
Anyway, back to the Planning Applications I'm preparing ahead of next week. It's a pain wotking on such a beautiful day but I have Clients to satisfy. Good luck wasting money.
The fact that his response contained a lot of pertinant additional information omitted from the first post suggests that the question the op actually wants answered is not 'What can Building Control do if my house isn't built to the building regs?' This question can easily be answered with a google search or indeed by looking on direct-gov.
What they want to know is 'How can I legally gain this extra floor space the cheapest and easiest way?'
I can think of one way the op could build an extension to meet the building regs but still not need to meet the 'environmental performance' regs (which appear to be the bug bear). The Architect's fees are irrelevant as the works could be done under a building notice organised by the 'trusted' builder.
Alternatively, I can think of one way that they could satisfy both Planning and Building Control and only cost them a fraction of what they're planning on spending.
However, the 'whole' story needs to be told for people to be able to comment.
But hey, what do I know?
Anyway, back to the Planning Applications I'm preparing ahead of next week. It's a pain wotking on such a beautiful day but I have Clients to satisfy. Good luck wasting money.
Edited by mk1fan on Sunday 24th April 16:13
You could ask Taylor Wimpy, who managed to build 50 homes up here, without going to the trouble of involving an inspector (allegedly).
http://www.journallive.co.uk/north-east-news/today...
As an aside, one of our neighbours converted a terraced house into three flats without troubling either the planning department or the building control department.
Two years later and the house is now being gutted and turned back into a single dwelling and the plans have been submitted to BC. So I assume someone, somewhere had enough persuasive powers to convince the owner to make the relevant changes, including getting rid of all the tenants.
http://www.journallive.co.uk/north-east-news/today...
As an aside, one of our neighbours converted a terraced house into three flats without troubling either the planning department or the building control department.
Two years later and the house is now being gutted and turned back into a single dwelling and the plans have been submitted to BC. So I assume someone, somewhere had enough persuasive powers to convince the owner to make the relevant changes, including getting rid of all the tenants.
You know those threads:- where you read the first post and get ready to reply and share what little you do know, but as you read through the rest of the thread before posting, you get a whiff of an unpleasant attitude that makes you not want to bother trying to help?
Well this is one of those threads.
Good luck OP.
Well this is one of those threads.
Good luck OP.
flyingjase said:
In Greenbelt (for those that have posted that obviously don't know) you can only extend your house via planning permission to a maximum of 150% of the original dwelling. My house has already been extended by this amount.
You are aware, obviously, that Permitted Development Rights apply to the the original size of the house? Schedule 2, Part 1 of the Town and Country Planning General Permitted Development Order 1995 says:
A. The enlargement, improvement or other alteration of a dwellinghouse.
Development not permitted
A.1 Development is not permitted by Class A if—
(a)the cubic content of the resulting building would exceed the cubic content of the original dwellinghouse—.
(i)in the case of a terrace house or in the case of a dwellinghouse on article 1(5) land, by more than 50 cubic metres or 10%, whichever is the greater,.
(ii)in any other case, by more than 70 cubic metres or 15%, whichever is the greater,.
(iii)in any case, by more than 115 cubic metres;
...therefore is you have already extended the original house by 150%, you will have already 'used up' your Permitted Development rights and then some.
You will also appreciate, I'm sure, that the 150% ruling (which is your LPA's Local Adopted Policy not National policy, and so not an absolute) is a local policy response to PPG2 which states that:
'provided it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building, the extension or alteration of dwellings is not inappropriate in the green belt'.
Note that the word 'original' is italicized and in bold in the actual PPG itself, to stress its importance. If you're thinking in terms of a replacement dwelling, therefore, the fact that you've extended the original house by 150%-plus-illegal-Permitted-Development-extension isn't going to automatically allow you the same footprint on rebuild. Indeed, it will probably gain you a refusal under that well known planning principle of trying to take the piss (though it's usually more politely worded as the longest possible list of both valid and semi-spurious refusal reasons, to make it as difficult as possible for you to turn the decision around at appeal).
So, in summary; a 'temporary' extension won't help you as it won't confer you any additional rights and is outside the scope of Permitted Development anyway.
...oh, and to answer your original question, if you do the work without Building Regulations, ultimately they do have powers to make you demolish the whole lot and start again, though the more usual route is to issue a 'certificate of regularisation', retrospectively, provided you can prove the work is to B.Regs standards. Unfortunately this proof will usually entail exposing various parts of the construction for inspection, and of course if you have cut corners to cut costs, you'll have to uncut them before you'll get your certificate, which will cost you considerably more than doing the job right in the first place.
As others have said, not having B.Regs can cause problems if you wish to sell (the alterations can often be picked up on searches and the purchasers Solicitors will certainly ask for the aforementioned certificate of regularisation if they do, never mind the implications of the Planning not being legal). Perhaps more importantly, it can invalidate your house insurance: 'Fire caused by an electrical fault in your new extension, Mr. Flyingjase? We'll be needing your Building Regulations Completion Certificate to prove that the wiring was done in accordance with Part P before we can pay out, of course...'.
And finally... if you're planning to fund the extension by means of a mortgage extension, your mortgage company will want a B.Regs completion certificate for the work, too.
Edited by Sam_68 on Sunday 24th April 19:30
Sam_68 said:
You are aware, obviously, that Permitted Development Rights apply to the the original size of the house?
Schedule 2, Part 1 of the Town and Country Planning General Permitted Development Order 1995 says:
A. The enlargement, improvement or other alteration of a dwellinghouse.
Development not permitted
A.1 Development is not permitted by Class A if—
(a)the cubic content of the resulting building would exceed the cubic content of the original dwellinghouse—.
(i)in the case of a terrace house or in the case of a dwellinghouse on article 1(5) land, by more than 50 cubic metres or 10%, whichever is the greater,.
(ii)in any other case, by more than 70 cubic metres or 15%, whichever is the greater,.
(iii)in any case, by more than 115 cubic metres;
...therefore is you have already extended the original house by 150%, you will have already 'used up' your Permitted Development rights and then some.
You will also appreciate, I'm sure, that the 150% ruling (which is your LPA's Local Adopted Policy not National policy, and so not an absolute) is a local policy response to PPG2 which states that:
'provided it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building, the extension or alteration of dwellings is not inappropriate in the green belt'.
Note that the word 'original' is italicized and in bold in the actual PPG itself, to stress its importance. If you're thinking in terms of a replacement dwelling, therefore, the fact that you've extended the original house by 150%-plus-illegal-Permitted-Development-extension isn't going to automatically allow you the same footprint on rebuild. Indeed, it will probably gain you a refusal under that well known planning principle of trying to take the piss (though it's usually more politely worded as the longest possible list of both valid and semi-spurious refusal reasons, to make it as difficult as possible for you to turn the decision around at appeal).
So, in summary; a 'temporary' extension won't help you as it won't confer you any additional rights and is outside the scope of Permitted Development anyway.
...oh, and to answer your original question, if you do the work without Building Regulations, ultimately they do have powers to make you demolish the whole lot and start again, though the more usual route is to issue a 'certificate of regularisation', retrospectively, provided you can prove the work is to B.Regs standards. Unfortunately this proof will usually entail exposing various parts of the construction for inspection, and of course if you have cut corners to cut costs, you'll have to uncut them before you'll get your certificate, which will cost you considerably more than doing the job right in the first place.
As others have said, not having B.Regs can cause problems if you wish to sell (the alterations can often be picked up on searches and the purchasers Solicitors will certainly ask for the aforementioned certificate of regularisation if they do, never mind the implications of the Planning not being legal). Perhaps more importantly, it can invalidate your house insurance: 'Fire caused by an electrical fault in your new extension, Mr. Flyingjase? We'll be needing your Building Regulations Completion Certificate to prove that the wiring was done in accordance with Part P before we can pay out, of course...'.
And finally... if you're planning to fund the extension by means of a mortgage extension, your mortgage company will want a B.Regs completion certificate for the work, too.
Hi SamSchedule 2, Part 1 of the Town and Country Planning General Permitted Development Order 1995 says:
A. The enlargement, improvement or other alteration of a dwellinghouse.
Development not permitted
A.1 Development is not permitted by Class A if—
(a)the cubic content of the resulting building would exceed the cubic content of the original dwellinghouse—.
(i)in the case of a terrace house or in the case of a dwellinghouse on article 1(5) land, by more than 50 cubic metres or 10%, whichever is the greater,.
(ii)in any other case, by more than 70 cubic metres or 15%, whichever is the greater,.
(iii)in any case, by more than 115 cubic metres;
...therefore is you have already extended the original house by 150%, you will have already 'used up' your Permitted Development rights and then some.
You will also appreciate, I'm sure, that the 150% ruling (which is your LPA's Local Adopted Policy not National policy, and so not an absolute) is a local policy response to PPG2 which states that:
'provided it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building, the extension or alteration of dwellings is not inappropriate in the green belt'.
Note that the word 'original' is italicized and in bold in the actual PPG itself, to stress its importance. If you're thinking in terms of a replacement dwelling, therefore, the fact that you've extended the original house by 150%-plus-illegal-Permitted-Development-extension isn't going to automatically allow you the same footprint on rebuild. Indeed, it will probably gain you a refusal under that well known planning principle of trying to take the piss (though it's usually more politely worded as the longest possible list of both valid and semi-spurious refusal reasons, to make it as difficult as possible for you to turn the decision around at appeal).
So, in summary; a 'temporary' extension won't help you as it won't confer you any additional rights and is outside the scope of Permitted Development anyway.
...oh, and to answer your original question, if you do the work without Building Regulations, ultimately they do have powers to make you demolish the whole lot and start again, though the more usual route is to issue a 'certificate of regularisation', retrospectively, provided you can prove the work is to B.Regs standards. Unfortunately this proof will usually entail exposing various parts of the construction for inspection, and of course if you have cut corners to cut costs, you'll have to uncut them before you'll get your certificate, which will cost you considerably more than doing the job right in the first place.
As others have said, not having B.Regs can cause problems if you wish to sell (the alterations can often be picked up on searches and the purchasers Solicitors will certainly ask for the aforementioned certificate of regularisation if they do, never mind the implications of the Planning not being legal). Perhaps more importantly, it can invalidate your house insurance: 'Fire caused by an electrical fault in your new extension, Mr. Flyingjase? We'll be needing your Building Regulations Completion Certificate to prove that the wiring was done in accordance with Part P before we can pay out, of course...'.
And finally... if you're planning to fund the extension by means of a mortgage extension, your mortgage company will want a B.Regs completion certificate for the work, too.
Edited by Sam_68 on Sunday 24th April 19:30
I think you need to update you knowledge of PDR (which is surprising as you do 'housing design' for a living)
The rules changed in 2008, and the 150% of the orginal house is no longer applicable for PDR (only formal planning).
Also, as I'm paying cash for the extension I don't need to worry what the mortgage company think, however your point about the house insurance is very well made and one I hadn't considered. Therefore just in case something did happen in the 2-3 years before I knock it down, it's probably worth going for building regs just for that.
Thanks
flyingjase said:
Hi Sam
I think you need to update you knowledge of PDR (which is surprising as you do 'housing design' for a living)
The rules changed in 2008, and the 150% of the original house is no longer applicable for PDR (only formal planning).
Fair point. Thanks for reminding me - I haven't done anything as trivial as a house extension for a number of years, and certainly nothing that would pass as permitted development.I think you need to update you knowledge of PDR (which is surprising as you do 'housing design' for a living)
The rules changed in 2008, and the 150% of the original house is no longer applicable for PDR (only formal planning).
There never was any rule on 150% of the original house, BTW. It was 15% for dwellings other than terraced properties.
The 150% relates to your Council's interpretation of PPG2, which still applies, so would ultimately remain a material consideration for any application for a replacement dwelling.
A quick check of the current regs on the Planning Portal suggests that you're only allowed small single storey rear extensions under PD rights, though, on designated land?
Edited by Sam_68 on Sunday 24th April 21:22
You may still have scope to extend under PDRs, but you will certainly be limited by your previous extension(s):-
http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/uploads/miniguide...
But then you know all that.
Being an AONB, if anyone complains or they notice, they'll be down on you like a ton of bricks from a demolished shoddy extension.
http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/uploads/miniguide...
But then you know all that.
Being an AONB, if anyone complains or they notice, they'll be down on you like a ton of bricks from a demolished shoddy extension.
Sam_68 said:
Fair point. Thanks for reminding me - I haven't done anything as trivial as a house extension for a number of years, and certainly nothing that would pass as permitted development.
There never was any rule on 150% of the original house, BTW. It was 15% for dwellings other than terraced properties.
The 150% relates to your Council's interpretation of PPG2, which still applies, so would ultimately remain a material consideration for any application for a replacement dwelling.
A quick check of the current regs on the Planning Portal suggests that you're only allowed small single storey rear extensions under PD rights, though, on designated land?
Bang on. 4x x 7m but it all helps. Also it has a knock on effct on where you can place ancillary buildings which need to be within 20m of the house (not not original house). eg By building this, not only do I get en extra 28sqm of floorspace, it also gives me more scope to put 'other stuff' in a wider area of the garden.There never was any rule on 150% of the original house, BTW. It was 15% for dwellings other than terraced properties.
The 150% relates to your Council's interpretation of PPG2, which still applies, so would ultimately remain a material consideration for any application for a replacement dwelling.
A quick check of the current regs on the Planning Portal suggests that you're only allowed small single storey rear extensions under PD rights, though, on designated land?
Edited by Sam_68 on Sunday 24th April 21:22
Mr GrimNasty said:
You may still have scope to extend under PDRs, but you will certainly be limited by your previous extension(s):-
http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/uploads/miniguide...
But then you know all that.
Being an AONB, if anyone complains or they notice, they'll be down on you like a ton of bricks from a demolished shoddy extension.
Just to confuse you, that is talking about 150% of the land around the original dwelling, not the dwelling itself. As this is a small extension then it won't be impacted by that rule.http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/uploads/miniguide...
But then you know all that.
Being an AONB, if anyone complains or they notice, they'll be down on you like a ton of bricks from a demolished shoddy extension.
None of this is straight forward and the way it's written doesn't make it easy, hence the original question.
On reflection I think I should just bite the bullet and cough up the extra for new doors / windows / plans etc. If nothing else it keeps the building insurance valid (as highlighted earlier)
flyingjase said:
4 x 7m but it all helps.
..except that it probably doesn't.You will appreciate, I'm sure, that when you ultimately submit the application for the replacement dwelling, the Officer, if they are competent will write up the 'planning history' of the site in the committee report (ie. a list of previous approvales and the development to which they relate), which wil identify the fact that your final extension did not have explicit Planning Approval and was merely an attempt to maximise floor area for the replacement dwelling.
Like I said earlier: Reason for refusal: Taking the piss.
You'll stand just as much (if not more) chance of getting a slightly increased floor area on the replacement dwelling by not building the extension and simply justifying the need for, and insignificant impact of, the additional floor area when you come to submit the revised replacement dwelling proposal.
Sam_68 said:
..except that it probably doesn't.
You will appreciate, I'm sure, that when you ultimately submit the application for the replacement dwelling, the Officer, if they are competent will write up the 'planning history' of the site in the committee report (ie. a list of previous approvales and the development to which they relate), which wil identify the fact that your final extension did not have explicit Planning Approval and was merely an attempt to maximise floor area for the replacement dwelling.
Like I said earlier: Reason for refusal: Taking the piss.
You'll stand just as much (if not more) chance of getting a slightly increased floor area on the replacement dwelling by not building the extension and simply justifying the need for, and insignificant impact of, the additional floor area when you come to submit the revised replacement dwelling proposal.
I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one as you obviously don't understand how the latest (2008) PDR laws work.You will appreciate, I'm sure, that when you ultimately submit the application for the replacement dwelling, the Officer, if they are competent will write up the 'planning history' of the site in the committee report (ie. a list of previous approvales and the development to which they relate), which wil identify the fact that your final extension did not have explicit Planning Approval and was merely an attempt to maximise floor area for the replacement dwelling.
Like I said earlier: Reason for refusal: Taking the piss.
You'll stand just as much (if not more) chance of getting a slightly increased floor area on the replacement dwelling by not building the extension and simply justifying the need for, and insignificant impact of, the additional floor area when you come to submit the revised replacement dwelling proposal.
In Greenbelt, you can get the formal planning for the existing square footage of the house or 150% or the original dwelling whichever is the larger.
Obviously if the existing square footage doesn't have permission then they won't let you count this (unless it it is over 4 years old).
PDR is formal permission, it just works in a different way to planning.
As I have said in my earlier comments, I already have been approved for the extension via PDR dispite the fact it takes me over the 150% rule.
I have studied a number of real applications that have used this strategy to get a bigger footprint prior to applying for formal planning to knock the house down. Therefore I know it works
Gassing Station | Homes, Gardens and DIY | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff