Buying a house, extension has no Building Regs

[smokey mow]

av185 said:

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.

I’m missing your point because you can’t make up your mind.

You started off arguing about structure, then in the next post changed it to fire safety and now you’re implying your original point was to do with property value. None of this is really much help to the OP who needs help to regularise an unauthorised extension which is what I’m trying to give.

[av185]

smokey mow said:

av185 said:

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.

I’m missing your point because you can’t make up your mind.

You started off arguing about structure, then in the next post changed it to fire safety and now you’re implying your original point was to do with property value. None of this is really much help to the OP who needs help to regularise an unauthorised extension which is what I’m trying to give.

Nope.

I've made up my mind already thanks whereas you are still failing to comprehend the bigger picture.

Nowhere have I mentioned fire safety???!!You are confusing me with another poster.

The sunroom example is broadly irrelevant to this case as we are talking about a two storey main building extension the ramifications of non compliance and affects on value ££ clearly being far greater.

[mcg_]

DaffyT4 said:

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.

It's probably the foundations that would worry me, but if it's been extended for a few years now and it's not moved, I guess it'll be fine.

[NMNeil]

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.

Did his check reveal how much rebar was in the footings?
Just looking at a flat concrete surface isn't enough to be able to say it's fine.

[DaffyT4]

We've decided we're not going to go down the Regularisation route. The chances of it being signed off after so long would be slim, the vendor has said he's not prepared to allow the sort of invasive testing that would be required and involving the LA removes the ability to have indemnity insurance.

The indemnity is not for us but for any future buyers who may need a mortgage.

So, the plan is to appoint a local RICS surveyor to do a full building survey, paying particular attention to the unregulated work. I'm assuming that after 5 years any issued with foundations and movement will be apparent. Also an electrical safety certification. If it gets a clean bill of health we'll go for it.

[av185]

Bear in mind if the surveyor is general practice as opposed to a building surveyor he or she will probably refer the extension in question to a structural engineer for additional inspection (obvs incurring an additional fee) to assess whether any movement is longstanding and complete in nature particularly having regard to additional possible excess loadings from the first floor section and whether or not the original single story foundations are likely to be adequate.

[mcg_]

DaffyT4 said:

We've decided we're not going to go down the Regularisation route. The chances of it being signed off after so long would be slim, the vendor has said he's not prepared to allow the sort of invasive testing that would be required and involving the LA removes the ability to have indemnity insurance.

The indemnity is not for us but for any future buyers who may need a mortgage.

So, the plan is to appoint a local RICS surveyor to do a full building survey, paying particular attention to the unregulated work. I'm assuming that after 5 years any issued with foundations and movement will be apparent. Also an electrical safety certification. If it gets a clean bill of health we'll go for it.

I'd suggest being there when the survey is done if possible, can be helpful to talk though the building with them. Something that may sound bad in a report, they may put your mind at ease in person.

When we bought our house (120 yr old), we didn't get a report, just wandered around with the surveyor and paid 1.5 hours. I found it really helpful, even the misses did. (It's a big project so I knew work needed doing)

[Little Lofty]

I don’t think the survey will tell you much if nothing can be opened up or exposed.

Edited by Little Lofty on Tuesday 30th March 18:42

[DaffyT4]

Just to bring this to a conclusion, we had a Building Survey carried out and the surveyor advised us not to proceed. He said that based on the quality of the work he could see he was concerned about the quality of what he couldn't see. The sagging roof line was a particular worry!
A real shame as the house was perfect for us and the market's hardly awash at the moment but we keep looking. Hopefully our buyers are patient.

[laterontoday]

DaffyT4 said:

Just to bring this to a conclusion, we had a Building Survey carried out and the surveyor advised us not to proceed. He said that based on the quality of the work he could see he was concerned about the quality of what he couldn't see. The sagging roof line was a particular worry!
A real shame as the house was perfect for us and the market's hardly awash at the moment but we keep looking. Hopefully our buyers are patient.

And there in lies the real issue. Anyone can be a builder. What does the term builder actually mean? You don't need any qualifications or experience to call your self a builder and build your own extension. A proper professional builder would know to get Building Regs consent for a first floor extension and wouldn't take the risk . One who wants to bodge it will ignore it, close their eyes and hope it all goes ok.

[bobtail4x4]

laterontoday said:

DaffyT4 said:

Just to bring this to a conclusion, we had a Building Survey carried out and the surveyor advised us not to proceed. He said that based on the quality of the work he could see he was concerned about the quality of what he couldn't see. The sagging roof line was a particular worry!
A real shame as the house was perfect for us and the market's hardly awash at the moment but we keep looking. Hopefully our buyers are patient.

And there in lies the real issue. Anyone can be a builder. What does the term builder actually mean? You don't need any qualifications or experience to call your self a builder and build your own extension. A proper professional builder would know to get Building Regs consent for a first floor extension and wouldn't take the risk . One who wants to bodge it will ignore it, close their eyes and hope it all goes ok.

the other side of this is everyone wants things building cheap as possible, so when bob the bodger says we wont bother getting anyone to check things as it costs money, they go along with it,

[Mr Pointy]

bobtail4x4 said:

laterontoday said:

DaffyT4 said:

Just to bring this to a conclusion, we had a Building Survey carried out and the surveyor advised us not to proceed. He said that based on the quality of the work he could see he was concerned about the quality of what he couldn't see. The sagging roof line was a particular worry!
A real shame as the house was perfect for us and the market's hardly awash at the moment but we keep looking. Hopefully our buyers are patient.

And there in lies the real issue. Anyone can be a builder. What does the term builder actually mean? You don't need any qualifications or experience to call your self a builder and build your own extension. A proper professional builder would know to get Building Regs consent for a first floor extension and wouldn't take the risk . One who wants to bodge it will ignore it, close their eyes and hope it all goes ok.

the other side of this is everyone wants things building cheap as possible, so when bob the bodger says we wont bother getting anyone to check things as it costs money, they go along with it,

Did you miss the post where it was said the vendor is the builder who did the work on his own house?

[bobtail4x4]

generally

[Teddy Lop]

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?

that's like buying a car with no MOT but the vendor says he's a mechanic and its all bob-on.