Retrospective building regs or Indemnity Insurance?
Discussion
So have had an update and obviously I have to take the vendor at his word, but he seems fairly trustworthy, but hey, what do I know...
The main structure is supported by the walls, not the roof underneath and all the joists are over and above the size required as per building regs.
A structural engineer wasn't involved upon the advice of the architect that drew up the original plans for the terrace - This is because the bedroom out of which the balcony is accessed is an extension on top of the old double garage, and as part of that extension they had RSJs installed and large wooden joists to support the whole area. According to the architect the size of the joists and the design meant that a structural engineer assessment wasn't neccessary.
Regarding the balustrading the building regs were followed and they do not move under force in preparation for the approval, which was never followed up...
The main structure is supported by the walls, not the roof underneath and all the joists are over and above the size required as per building regs.
A structural engineer wasn't involved upon the advice of the architect that drew up the original plans for the terrace - This is because the bedroom out of which the balcony is accessed is an extension on top of the old double garage, and as part of that extension they had RSJs installed and large wooden joists to support the whole area. According to the architect the size of the joists and the design meant that a structural engineer assessment wasn't neccessary.
Regarding the balustrading the building regs were followed and they do not move under force in preparation for the approval, which was never followed up...
Joyrider1 said:
So have had an update and obviously I have to take the vendor at his word, but he seems fairly trustworthy, but hey, what do I know...
The main structure is supported by the walls, not the roof underneath and all the joists are over and above the size required as per building regs.
Appears plausible from the photos but should be checked
A structural engineer wasn't involved upon the advice of the architect that drew up the original plans for the terrace -
Ask for a copy of the original plans or at least the contact details of the architect
This is because the bedroom out of which the balcony is accessed is an extension on top of the old double garage, and as part of that extension they had RSJs installed and large wooden joists to support the whole area.
Building Control would require calcs for any structural steelwork so again, ask the vendor for a copy of the original calcs or at least the contact details of the architect
According to the architect the size of the joists and the design meant that a structural engineer assessment wasn't neccessary.
As above, Building Control would require calcs for any structural steelwork
Regarding the balustrading the building regs were followed and they do not move under force in preparation for the approval, which was never followed up...
Still need calcs though to justify ....
The main structure is supported by the walls, not the roof underneath and all the joists are over and above the size required as per building regs.
Appears plausible from the photos but should be checked
A structural engineer wasn't involved upon the advice of the architect that drew up the original plans for the terrace -
Ask for a copy of the original plans or at least the contact details of the architect
This is because the bedroom out of which the balcony is accessed is an extension on top of the old double garage, and as part of that extension they had RSJs installed and large wooden joists to support the whole area.
Building Control would require calcs for any structural steelwork so again, ask the vendor for a copy of the original calcs or at least the contact details of the architect
According to the architect the size of the joists and the design meant that a structural engineer assessment wasn't neccessary.
As above, Building Control would require calcs for any structural steelwork
Regarding the balustrading the building regs were followed and they do not move under force in preparation for the approval, which was never followed up...
Still need calcs though to justify ....
Edited by ATTAK Z on Friday 5th October 19:01
ATTAK Z said:
According to the architect the size of the joists and the design meant that a structural engineer assessment wasn't neccessary.
As above, Building Control would require calcs for any structural steelwork
if the architect has sized the joists from published joist span tables (eg trada) which it sounds like they have then they'd be no reason why Building Control would be asking for additonal calcs. Steel beams are a different situation however but there's plenty of load/span tables available for floors.As above, Building Control would require calcs for any structural steelwork
Edited by ATTAK Z on Friday 5th October 19:01
Page 54
http://www.broxbourne.gov.uk/PDF/BC_TRADA_SPAN_TAB...
Edited by smokey mow on Friday 5th October 22:09
Busa mav said:
Just get the job signed off rather than blight the property with an indemnity.
Building inspectors are mostly good guys , they will help , make the call and ask for an insoection the following day .
ps. from the pics I suspect the structure for the balustrading will be fine
I concur, whist the indemnity will help you now, you'll still be faced with the exact same problem yourself in the future when you try to sell. IMO better to get them to pay for the Regularisation application now to avoid any potential problems. Building inspectors are mostly good guys , they will help , make the call and ask for an insoection the following day .
ps. from the pics I suspect the structure for the balustrading will be fine
If you can prove the size of the joists are ok then i can see nothing in the photos that would cause you any problems with building control.
Just been having a read on the "Planning Portal" website and found the following under the "failure to comply with building regulations" page:
"If a person carrying out building work contravenes the Building Regulations, the local authority or another person may decide to take them to the magistrates' court where they could be fined up to £5000 for the contravention, and up to £50 for each day the contravention continues after conviction (section 35 of the Building Act 1984). This action will usually be taken against the builder or main contractor, and proceedings must be taken within two years from the completion of the work. Alternatively, or in addition, the local authority may serve an enforcement notice on the owner requiring them to alter or remove work which contravenes the regulations (section 36 of the 1984 Act). If the owner does not comply with the notice the local authority has the power to undertake the work itself and recover the costs of doing so from the owner.
A section 36 enforcement notice cannot be served on you after the expiration of 12 months from the date of completion of the building work, but this does not affect a local authority's (or any other person's) right to apply to the Courts for an injunction for the same purpose. A local authority also cannot take enforcement action under section 36 if the work which you have carried out is in accordance with your plans which the authority approved or failed to reject within the statutory time of five weeks (or two months with your agreement) from deposit of the plans."
So if I'm reading this correctly then as the building work was completed in 2007, there's nothing they can do anyway, right? Or have I missed something obvious?
"If a person carrying out building work contravenes the Building Regulations, the local authority or another person may decide to take them to the magistrates' court where they could be fined up to £5000 for the contravention, and up to £50 for each day the contravention continues after conviction (section 35 of the Building Act 1984). This action will usually be taken against the builder or main contractor, and proceedings must be taken within two years from the completion of the work. Alternatively, or in addition, the local authority may serve an enforcement notice on the owner requiring them to alter or remove work which contravenes the regulations (section 36 of the 1984 Act). If the owner does not comply with the notice the local authority has the power to undertake the work itself and recover the costs of doing so from the owner.
A section 36 enforcement notice cannot be served on you after the expiration of 12 months from the date of completion of the building work, but this does not affect a local authority's (or any other person's) right to apply to the Courts for an injunction for the same purpose. A local authority also cannot take enforcement action under section 36 if the work which you have carried out is in accordance with your plans which the authority approved or failed to reject within the statutory time of five weeks (or two months with your agreement) from deposit of the plans."
So if I'm reading this correctly then as the building work was completed in 2007, there's nothing they can do anyway, right? Or have I missed something obvious?
smokey mow said:
ATTAK Z said:
According to the architect the size of the joists and the design meant that a structural engineer assessment wasn't neccessary.
As above, Building Control would require calcs for any structural steelwork
if the architect has sized the joists from published joist span tables (eg trada) which it sounds like they have then they'd be no reason why Building Control would be asking for additonal calcs. Steel beams are a different situation however but there's plenty of load/span tables available for floors.As above, Building Control would require calcs for any structural steelwork
Edited by ATTAK Z on Friday 5th October 19:01
Page 54
http://www.broxbourne.gov.uk/PDF/BC_TRADA_SPAN_TAB...
Edited by smokey mow on Friday 5th October 22:09
Joyrider1 said:
So if I'm reading this correctly then as the building work was completed in 2007, there's nothing they can do anyway, right? Or have I missed something obvious?
Under section 36 of the building Act "Removal or alteraltion of offending Work" that is correct. However although unlikely that does not prevent the use of any other legislation at their disposal such as section 76 "defective premises" or 77 "dangerous building" or indeed a civil prosecution or injunction.Edited by smokey mow on Friday 5th October 22:58
Edited by smokey mow on Friday 5th October 23:03
smokey mow said:
Under section 36 of the building Act "Removal or alteraltion of offending Work" that is correct. However although unlikely that does not prevent the use of any other legislation at their disposal such as section 76 "defective premises" or 77 "dangerous building" or indeed a civil prosecution or injunction.
and he could go to jail and they will take his kids into care ........
It's a small domestic extension that hasn't been signed off .
FWIW, I had a look into these policies a couple of months ago.
You need to be aware that insurers (at least the ones we found) won't issue them if Building Control know about the issue at the time the policy gets written.
In effect, the options are 'fess up to there being something there that may or may not get signed off (and live with the consequences) or keep quiet and buy a policy (the one we needed was under £100 and issued immediately).
You need to be aware that insurers (at least the ones we found) won't issue them if Building Control know about the issue at the time the policy gets written.
In effect, the options are 'fess up to there being something there that may or may not get signed off (and live with the consequences) or keep quiet and buy a policy (the one we needed was under £100 and issued immediately).
Gassing Station | Homes, Gardens and DIY | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff