Buying a house, extension has no Building Regs

[jules_s]

TCruise said:

A structural engineer, even one trained by God, won't be able to tell you a thing with any certainty without finding out the extent of the foundations/pad/footings etc. A structural survey will be largely pointless

I once surveyed a first floor extension like the OP - the first floor inner leaf was built off the first floor when at ground floor it was just a single brick outer leaf

AV above has the correct advice here

[monkfish1]

Lets keep things in perspective. A building control certificate is no gurantee the work is any good or meets the relevant standard. It just tells you the BCO signed off. And allows the solicitor to tick a box.

I have a whole suite of certificates. Not one job to which the certificates apply meets all the regs. I suspect most were struggling with eysight!

[DaffyT4]

Just had a long chat with the vendor. Turns out he is a builder by trade and did all the work himself. He ran through everything that he did (which included checking the foundations) and lots of technical spec which meant nothing to me.

I'm certainly feeling more relaxed about the quality of the work as he was doing it knowing his family would be living in it.

He also seems happy to approach the council for retrospective certification although I'm not sure he realises this would invalidate any indemnity policy. Anybody know what happens if the council refuse to sign it off retrospectively, bearing in mind the work was 5 years ago?

[av185]

Extremely unlikely that the Council will sign off the work now.

Seems odd if he is a 'builder' why on earth he didn't comply with proper building regs procedures unless there are other obvious reasons regarding non compliant work etc. The fact he and is family have occupied the property for 5 years is obviously a plus but as builders tend to sell properties on after short time periods this cannot be taken as a true indicator of the standard of work being compliant.

Bear in mind that as you are aware buulding regs have not been complied with you will have to declare this fact if and when you sell the property in the future which will adversely impact its value saleability and mortgageability.

[Little Lofty]

DaffyT4 said:

Just had a long chat with the vendor. Turns out he is a builder by trade and did all the work himself. He ran through everything that he did (which included checking the foundations) and lots of technical spec which meant nothing to me.

I'm certainly feeling more relaxed about the quality of the work as he was doing it knowing his family would be living in it.

He also seems happy to approach the council for retrospective certification although I'm not sure he realises this would invalidate any indemnity policy. Anybody know what happens if the council refuse to sign it off retrospectively, bearing in mind the work was 5 years ago?

My first loft conversion was on my own house, I thought it was a good place to experiment Building control kept me right along the way. By the time I done the next conversion on my own house I’d probably done 50 or 60, I could do them in my sleep, I still got it signed off by building control though. I knew the work I was doing was to regs but the person buying it off me also needs to know. I have seen some truly horrendous work done by builders that they genuinely think is great, I’d still get it checked out, despite his confidence in his own ability.

[smokey mow]

DaffyT4 said:

Anybody know what happens if the council refuse to sign it off retrospectively, bearing in mind the work was 5 years ago?

As I explained above, the time limit for the council to take enforcement action has passed, so the absolute worst they can do is not issue a regularisation certificate.

If the owner/builder is confident in their work and to demonstrate to the council building control that it complies then a regularisation would be the sensible route. They would though have to provide suitable evidence to building control as to how it has been built including the parts of the construction that have now been hidden. We frequently rely on photos taken at the time of construction but if they don’t have these available then the inspections will be more invasive and require done opening up of works and trial holes.

[NMNeil]

DaffyT4 said:

Just had a long chat with the vendor. Turns out he is a builder by trade and did all the work himself. He ran through everything that he did (which included checking the foundations) and lots of technical spec which meant nothing to me.

I'm certainly feeling more relaxed about the quality of the work as he was doing it knowing his family would be living in it.

He also seems happy to approach the council for retrospective certification although I'm not sure he realises this would invalidate any indemnity policy. Anybody know what happens if the council refuse to sign it off retrospectively, bearing in mind the work was 5 years ago?

We have plenty of people who have built extensions, and only after completion have they bothered to try and get a retroactive permit.
The planning and zoning department have always refused and told them to tear it down.
The quality of the previous work didn't mean a thing.

[DaffyT4]

NMNeil said:

We have plenty of people who have built extensions, and only after completion have they bothered to try and get a retroactive permit.
The planning and zoning department have always refused and told them to tear it down.
The quality of the previous work didn't mean a thing.

He had planning but not building regs, I believe 12 months is the limit for a section 36 order to pull it down.

[Little Lofty]

DaffyT4 said:

NMNeil said:

We have plenty of people who have built extensions, and only after completion have they bothered to try and get a retroactive permit.
The planning and zoning department have always refused and told them to tear it down.
The quality of the previous work didn't mean a thing.

He had planning but not building regs, I believe 12 months is the limit for a section 36 order to pull it down.

Different country, different rules.
Planners in the UK seem to take enforcement action more often than Building control, it’s rare for building control to take any action, probably why so many flaunt the rules tbh.

[astroarcadia]

In the process of selling our house and hope to exchange next week.

We have a small sun room extension that we built and did not get building regs for.

I had photo records of all the works progressing, calcs for the roof, elec test certs, but just didn't make an application to the local authority building control.

Our buyers solicitor picked on this and refused to accept an indemnity policy.

I have just completed the process of obtaining building regs regularisation for unauthorised works.

The only opening up works needed were to dig a hole to expose the footings. One visit from the officer to inspect. The only additional information require was SAP calcs as the extension was over glazed, otherwise straightforward.

Certificate was issued three weeks after the application was made.

[av185]

A small single storey majority glazed sun room is a totally different proposition in terms of size and structure to a two storey main extension which forms an integral part of the pricipal accommodation of the house.

And that is what we are talking about here.

[smokey mow]

av185 said:

A small single storey majority glazed sun room is a totally different proposition in terms of size and structure to a two storey main extension which forms an integral part of the pricipal accommodation of the house.

And that is what we are talking about here.

In the eyes of the Building regulations they’re treated exactly the same(unless they comply with the requirements for exemption). The regulations are no different for a room used a a sun room to those for any other habitable too and do not differentiate for use. If anything those for a sun room are more onus due to the levels of glazing but with regard to part A and structure they are the same.

[av185]

smokey mow said:

av185 said:

A small single storey majority glazed sun room is a totally different proposition in terms of size and structure to a two storey main extension which forms an integral part of the pricipal accommodation of the house.

And that is what we are talking about here.

In the eyes of the Building regulations they’re treated exactly the same(unless they comply with the requirements for exemption). The regulations are no different for a room used a a sun room to those for any other habitable too and do not differentiate for use. If anything those for a sun room are more onus due to the levels of glazing but with regard to part A and structure they are the same.

But the ramifications of a single storey largely glazed sun room not complying with regs are far less significant in the grand scheme of things than non compliance of a two storey structure forming part of the main house accommodation.

[Wacky Racer]

You might not require a mortgage, but the next buyers after you probably will. Consider that.

Ask yourself why it wasn't signed off......pretty unusual.

[smokey mow]

av185 said:

smokey mow said:

av185 said:

A small single storey majority glazed sun room is a totally different proposition in terms of size and structure to a two storey main extension which forms an integral part of the pricipal accommodation of the house.

And that is what we are talking about here.

In the eyes of the Building regulations they’re treated exactly the same(unless they comply with the requirements for exemption). The regulations are no different for a room used a a sun room to those for any other habitable too and do not differentiate for use. If anything those for a sun room are more onus due to the levels of glazing but with regard to part A and structure they are the same.

But the ramifications of a single storey largely glazed sun room not complying with regs are far less significant in the grand scheme of things than non compliance of a two storey structure forming part of the main house accommodation.

That depends which regulations we’re talking about though. You focused on part-A structure and for that the regulations are the same. If you want to discuss part-B fire safety then again the regulations do not differentiate between uses of habitable rooms only the number of storeys.

I’ve been in building control for 17 years and I can assure you that the route to regularise a first floor extension as the OP is discussing would be virtually the same as that for a single storey sun room at ground floor level.

[worsy]

A builder is likely to know what suffices whereas Building Regs are tend to be in excess of a minimum safety standard. As a builder he knows the rules so unless he thought he was living there forever there is no excuse.

Do you know whether the annexe was part of the original build?

[DaffyT4]

worsy said:

Do you know whether the annexe was part of the original build?

I believe it was. It's a 1950s house, ex LA, and the chap says he dug down 2 feet to check the footings which he said were fine.

[av185]

smokey mow said:

av185 said:

smokey mow said:

av185 said:

A small single storey majority glazed sun room is a totally different proposition in terms of size and structure to a two storey main extension which forms an integral part of the pricipal accommodation of the house.

And that is what we are talking about here.

In the eyes of the Building regulations they’re treated exactly the same(unless they comply with the requirements for exemption). The regulations are no different for a room used a a sun room to those for any other habitable too and do not differentiate for use. If anything those for a sun room are more onus due to the levels of glazing but with regard to part A and structure they are the same.

But the ramifications of a single storey largely glazed sun room not complying with regs are far less significant in the grand scheme of things than non compliance of a two storey structure forming part of the main house accommodation.

That depends which regulations we’re talking about though. You focused on part-A structure and for that the regulations are the same. If you want to discuss part-B fire safety then again the regulations do not differentiate between uses of habitable rooms only the number of storeys.

I’ve been in building control for 17 years and I can assure you that the route to regularise a first floor extension as the OP is discussing would be virtually the same as that for a single storey sun room at ground floor level.

With respect you are missing the point entirely.

If the (small) sunroom is non compliant it is hardly a deal breaker as this will have minimal value to the overall property. No big deal if it were to be demolished.

Different scenario entirely if the two storey extension was non compliant as it has much greater value ££ relative to the property value as a whole.

[TwistingMyMelon]

I bought my house off a sparky

Some of the additions he added to the existing 1960s wiring is dangerous ....our shower feed almost caught fire as cable was inadequate

Some of the visible cable runs that are visible in the the garage are about the quality that my 6 year old could do

I’d be wary of what the owner says , trades peoples houses are either very good or very poor

I’ve done stuff I should have got signed off but didn’t , but minor stuff not big extensions I

[TwistingMyMelon]

DaffyT4 said:

I believe it was. It's a 1950s house, ex LA, and the chap says he dug down 2 feet to check the footings which he said were fine.

Well he’s not going to say they were a weak pile of Shiite that he built quickly to get the job done

It’s a good point above how if you decide to sell in the future as it’ll be your problem and could narrow the market