Retrospective planning on loft conversion
Wesley
which was apparently done in the early 1970's without planning permission.
It was advertised as a two bedroom property with storage space in the loft
when she bought the house. I'm assuming this was how they got around the
building regulations. In the meantime she has put in fitted wardrobes and
completely refurbished the loft room.
She now wishes to sell the property and has put it on the market as a three
bedroom house. A buyer appeared very quickly and has had a survey done.
The surveyor raised the question of the loft extension - did it have
planning permission and building regs approval?
My friend asked the local council if planning permission was ever applied
for and the answer was no. She then asked what she could do to legalise the
extension. The council advised her that, as the extension was done before
1985, building regulations would not apply. However, she was told she would
have to fill out a form to establish if planning permission was required for
the extension - which was built 40 years ago! One of the questions on this
form is - does the extension exceed 40 cubic metres or 50 cubic metres?
According to my measurements, the room is only 26 cubic metres. I'm not
sure if this measurement has any major significance or not. Also, there is
a fixed staircase built from the first to the second floor, where the
bedroom is located. In any event, this extension has lasted for 40 + years
with no apparent problems.
Assuming that the council decides that planning permission is/was required,
what are the next steps in this procedure and what are the likely outcomes?
Tim Watts
IANAL but it would be almost certainly legit after all that time... I
*think* PP (or lack of) times out after either 7 or 12 years, can't remember
which.
--
Tim Watts
Peter Crosland
news:POqdnQo6aJ-SlKrT...@brightview.co.uk...
She needs to make an application for a certificate of lawful development.
Assuming she can prove the work was done when you say then it should be
largely a formality albeit with a lot of paperwork and an application fee to
pay. If she talks to the local planners they will give her the forms and
tell her what needs to be done. She will almost certainly have to make a
statutory declaration that is a statement sworn under oath that the facts
are accurate. Nothing too difficult but it is time consuming and costs
money.
Peter Crosland
Wesley
"Peter Crosland" <g6...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:laednST8Jp0oiqrT...@brightview.co.uk...
>
Thanks for the replies.
So, a Certificate of Lawful Development will legitimise the extension but
will this be enough to satisfy a mortgage lender?
Cash
Wesley,
Also, if the the extension "does the extension exceed 40 cubic metres or 50
cubic metres" then it may well be DEEMED TO SATISFY under the building
regs/planning procedures - meaning that it will not need approval under
those procedures - and given the fact that you say that the "the room is
only 26 cubic metres", then that falls well within the Deemed to Satisfy
rules.
As it's many years since I delved into the intricacies of the Building Regs
etc [IIRC the copy I have is the 1966 version], I would advise that you have
a quiet chat with your local planning/buildin reg departments as it may
prove quite fruitful and less expensive than you thought.
Cash
Jim K
> Thanks for the replies.
>
> So, a Certificate of Lawful Development will legitimise the extension but
> will this be enough to satisfy a mortgage lender?
conversely why wouldn't it?
ISTR it's only 4years for immunity for domestic property "anomalies" and
10years for others......
Jim K
The Natural Philosopher
Be absolutely frank. They cant handle it. Understand what they tell you
and do whatever is needed.
John Rumm
Less than that... enforcement action must be taken within 4 years IIRC.
--
Cheers,
John.
/=================================================================\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\=================================================================/
John Rumm
This does not seem to be something to get worried about. Chances are
they could simply answer the purchaser's solicitor's questions with the
unadulterated truth, and you may well find that the new buyer will be
happy to accept things as they are (after all, the current owner did).
There may be a formal method of regularising the work, but its likely to
be nothing more than a form filling exercise (and a paying the council
some money exercise! (couple of hundred at a guess))
Peter Crosland
news:kaOdnYJMXo0noqrT...@brightview.co.uk...
I agree. It largely depends on how picky the buyer's solicitor is. He will
advise his client of the need for a COL to cover his liability. The buyer
will need to consider what might happen if and when he comes sell the
property when the same question will be asked again.
Peter Crosland
Lobster
> On 01/08/2011 22:08, Tim Watts wrote:
>> Wesley wrote:
>>
> >> Assuming that the council decides that planning permission is/was
>>> required, what are the next steps in this procedure and what are the
>>> likely outcomes?
>>
>> IANAL but it would be almost certainly legit after all that time... I
>> *think* PP (or lack of) times out after either 7 or 12 years, can't
>> remember
>> which.
>
> Less than that... enforcement action must be taken within 4 years IIRC.
Never quite understood that (whatever the lead time is - it does vary
according to stuff like whether there's been 'material change of use' etc...
... I mean, suppose someone does a totally awful, completely unsafe loft
conversion, under the radar - is the fact that it manages to stay
standing and that somehow the roof hasn't actually collapsed 4 years
later enough to mean that Building Control can't touch it?
David
NT
others?
NT
Tim Lamb
<w...@spamoff.com> writes
>A friend bought a house a few years ago which came with a loft conversion
>which was apparently done in the early 1970's without planning permission.
>It was advertised as a two bedroom property with storage space in the loft
>when she bought the house. I'm assuming this was how they got around the
>building regulations. In the meantime she has put in fitted wardrobes and
>completely refurbished the loft room.
>
>
>
>She now wishes to sell the property and has put it on the market as a three
>bedroom house. A buyer appeared very quickly and has had a survey done.
>The surveyor raised the question of the loft extension - did it have
>planning permission and building regs approval?
It is not clear if this would make the property 3 storey.
There may be a *gotcha* in meeting the fire regulations which, I assume,
would not be time limited.
Things like escape routes or fireproof stairwells. An expert will be
along shortly.
regards
--
Tim Lamb
The Natural Philosopher
I think so, yes.
BUT there are other avenues: Elfin Safety may declare buildings
'uninhabitable' and insurance may be refused.
There was some case where an old boy had lived in a cottage without
mains water or drainage, and eventually the farmer dammed his
stream..he wanted the council to run a pipe to upstream of the dam,. but
they declared the whole property uninhabitable instead.
> David
>
>
>
The Natural Philosopher
Planning is NOT retrospective nor is building control.
If it has existed long enough, its OK.
> regards
>
Tony Bryer
> > ISTR it's only 4years for immunity for domestic property "anomalies" and
> > 10years for others......
> >
> > Jim K
>
> others?
IIRC changes of use - e.g. house to flats - don't come under the four
year rule.
--
Tony Bryer, Greentram: 'Software to build on',
Melbourne, Australia www.greentram.com
jgharston
by calling it one thing, and then calling it another.
Any buyer would be throwing their money away if they don't get a
structural survey to assure their lender that the roof isn't
going to fall flat.
JGH
tim....
"The Natural Philosopher" <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:j18jin$utd$2...@news.albasani.net...
But elapse of time does not stop the fire brigade declaring it uninhabitable
as a bedroom for absence of safe escape routes.
Would you let your child sleep in such a room?
tim
The Natural Philosopher
No, but I would encourage some other peoples kids to do it :-)
> tim
>
>
John Rumm
Building control and planning are different things. The enforcement
window for building regs violations are even shorter than for PP
generally - usually no more than 2 years IIRC. There may be an exception
for where there is a public risk from the low quality of work. Perhaps
Hugo could clarify?
PP timing starts from when the work becomes "visible" - hence people who
build houses in barns etc and then take the barn down a few years later
can still get caught, since the clock will run from the uncovering.
John Rumm
> Hold on, is it a loft _conversion_ or a loft _extension_? You start
> by calling it one thing, and then calling it another.
Don't think I referred to it as either did I? Assuming the space is
habitable - which is sounds like it is, then its a loft conversion -
there is a change of use implied.
> Any buyer would be throwing their money away if they don't get a
> structural survey to assure their lender that the roof isn't
> going to fall flat.
I think that may be a little over cautious given the amount of time that
has passed since the work was completed. It has obviously survived a
good few hurricanes and heavy snow falls in its time. Also the age would
suggest that the original roof was probably made using traditional
joinery rather than prefab trusses. So it would generally harder to
compromise the whole structure quite as easily.
However the buyer may well use the non official nature of the conversion
to claim a reduction in price and argue that in reality they ought not
pay more than they would for the unconverted property with more
accessible storage space. The state of the market at the time of sale
will dictate how likely they are to get away with that!
Grimly Curmudgeon
drugs began to take hold. I remember "tim...."
<tims_n...@yahoo.co.uk> saying something like:
>But elapse of time does not stop the fire brigade declaring it uninhabitable
>as a bedroom for absence of safe escape routes.
>
>Would you let your child sleep in such a room?
Fuck, yeah. If the little bastard's not nimble enough to skedaddle out
of the rooflight, he deserves to fry.
J.G.Harston
> On 02/08/2011 12:32, jgharston wrote:
>> Hold on, is it a loft _conversion_ or a loft _extension_? You start
>> by calling it one thing, and then calling it another.
>
> Don't think I referred to it as either did I? Assuming the space is
> habitable - which is sounds like it is, then its a loft conversion -
> there is a change of use implied.
You didn't, the OP did:
> ...a house a few years ago which came with a loft conversion ...
> The surveyor raised the question of the loft extension
> She then asked what she could do to legalise the extension.
Sorry, GoogleGroups playing up, and Thunderbird Newsclient didn't
quote as I expected it to. Currently can't see anything earlier than
Saturday.
JGH
Wesley
"Tim Lamb" <t...@marfordfarm.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ChDnaQCD...@marfordfarm.demon.co.uk...
I'm not sure of the difference between a loft extension and a loft
conversion - if there is one. It looks similar to the one shown here except
it about half the size and is timber clad.
http://www.laceybuild.co.uk/pages/21/attic_loft_conversions/Attic_Loft_conversions
The property was built pre 1900 so traditional building methods would
probably have been used in the original construction.
Because the surveyor questioned the integrity of the loft extension, he has
valued the property by about �30K less than the amount offered by the
prospective buyers. They are still willing to press ahead with the sale as
long as the issue with the loft extension can be resolved.
I am hoping that if the seller can get a Certificate of Lawful Development
and also taking into account that extension has remained structurally sound
for the last 40 years, that the buyers (and their solicitor) will be
satisfied. Once a COLD has been issued, can it be used by any future owner
wishing to sell the property?
Jim K
news:e501c062-30c3-4019...@dp9g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
others?
commercial?
Jim K
Jim K
news:99q7ct...@mid.individual.net...
FFS, by the time the "fire brigade" get invited to declare it *anything* it
shurely would be too late.....
Jim K
Hugo Nebula
Lobster <davidlobs...@hotmail.com>, randomly hit the keyboard
and wrote:
>... I mean, suppose someone does a totally awful, completely unsafe loft
>conversion, under the radar - is the fact that it manages to stay
>standing and that somehow the roof hasn't actually collapsed 4 years
>later enough to mean that Building Control can't touch it?
There are other measures that can be taken that have no time limit
regarding dangerous buildings.
Firstly if the danger is imminent, then immediate action can be taken
to prevent a danger to people in and around the building. This can be
as simple as moving everyone out and fencing off the site.
If it's in such a condition as to be dangerous but doesn't warrant
emergency action, then the Council can apply to a Magistrate to order
the owner to either make the building safe or pull it down. Again,
fencing off the building could be said to remove the danger.
The Housing department have improvement powers if the property is
rented.
--
Hugo Nebula
"If no-one on the internet wants a piece of this,
just how far from the pack have I strayed"?
Hugo Nebula
"Wesley" <w...@spamoff.com>, randomly hit the keyboard and wrote:
> She then asked what she could do to legalise the
>extension. The council advised her that, as the extension was done before
>1985, building regulations would not apply.
Not the case. The Building Regulations in force at the time the work
was carried out applied to it but, as no such application was made, it
is unauthorised. A Regularisation Certificate can be applied for, but
only for work carried out after November 1985.
Hugo Nebula
"tim...." <tims_n...@yahoo.co.uk>, randomly hit the keyboard and
wrote:
>But elapse of time does not stop the fire brigade declaring it uninhabitable
>as a bedroom for absence of safe escape routes.
They wouldn't (have the powers to) do so for a single family
dwellinghouse. For a house in multiple occcupation or other rented
accomodation the Housing department may consult them (although I think
such obligations have been removed under the RRO). In practice,
provided there is sufficient smoke detection it would be accepted.
There are plenty of three storey Victorian houses around without
protected escape routes.
>
>Would you let your child sleep in such a room?
Different question.
The Natural Philosopher
Not for me. Since the Fire brigade here is run by the same man who drops
in for coffee when he gets bored with ploughing and spraying the fields.
And its actually never a bad idea to get them in anyway - they generally
will do that, do a fire assessment and tell you where the smoke alarms
need to be.
They have no power of enforcement though..many an old cottage is totally
unable to meet current building fire regulations. A classic would be a
bedroom up some stairs with a tiny windows in it..if the stairs are
alight, and the window is too small, its goodnight, Vienna.
The best you can do is fit a smoke alarm at the stair head, and hope
that you can get out in time.
Same goes for a loft conversion. Except you MIGHT make it out of a
skylight if its big enough, in which case it meets THAT part of the regs
anyway. Although the ladder or stair access might not.. most people who
do this on the Qt. simply state that the room is for 'storage' and is
therefore 'not a habitable space'
If a buyer then decides to make it an office, its their choice..
> Jim K
>
>
The Natural Philosopher
That sounds about right...
The Natural Philosopher
> [Default] On Mon, 1 Aug 2011 21:14:33 +0100, a certain chimpanzee,
> "Wesley" <w...@spamoff.com>, randomly hit the keyboard and wrote:
>
>> She then asked what she could do to legalise the
>> extension. The council advised her that, as the extension was done before
>> 1985, building regulations would not apply.
>
> Not the case. The Building Regulations in force at the time the work
> was carried out applied to it but, as no such application was made, it
> is unauthorised. A Regularisation Certificate can be applied for, but
> only for work carried out after November 1985.
so what is the exact case here then Hugo? It is as it is, and there's no
regularising of it because it is de facto regular anyway?
Tony Bryer
> > Not the case. The Building Regulations in force at the time the work
> > was carried out applied to it but, as no such application was made, it
> > is unauthorised. A Regularisation Certificate can be applied for, but
> > only for work carried out after November 1985.
>
> so what is the exact case here then Hugo? It is as it is, and there's no
> regularising of it because it is de facto regular anyway?
It's not "regular anyway" - it might be totally non compliant or you just
don't know (is there insulation and a vapour barrier in the dormer flat
roof?) but after the stated period the LA can do nothing in most cases.
A regularisation certificate is a belated Building Regs approval so you
have to show that the works complies with the Regs (in force at the time
the work was done? current?), which may involve opening up, structural
calcs etc. The only time I can think that you'd put yourself through this
is that you're selling and a purchasers requires it or it's leasehold
property and you are being required to produce a RC by the freeholder
(invariably your lease would say that you needed to get the freeholder's
consent and this in turn would be subject to BR approval).
Jim K
no shit?
Jim K
John Rumm
> On 2011-08-02, The Natural Philosopher<t...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> Lobster wrote:
>
>>> ... I mean, suppose someone does a totally awful, completely unsafe loft
>>> conversion, under the radar - is the fact that it manages to stay
>>> standing and that somehow the roof hasn't actually collapsed 4 years
>>> later enough to mean that Building Control can't touch it?
>>>
>>
>> I think so, yes.
>
>
> You (and many other people) are confusing Planning Permission (which
> can be obtained retrospectively) and Building Control. Which can't. This
> dodgy loft conversion may be fine for planning, but the BCO may still
> want it taken down because it cannot be inspected.
But would have no power to insist on it (save cases of outright danger
as covered in Hugo's post)
Mike Clarke
> However, she was told she would
> have to fill out a form to establish if planning permission was required for
> the extension - which was built 40 years ago! One of the questions on this
> form is - does the extension exceed 40 cubic metres or 50 cubic metres?
> According to my measurements, the room is only 26 cubic metres.
I'd expect this to refer to _extra_ volume created by the work. So if
the conversion was contained entirely within the existing roof space and
nothing like dormer windows were added then the figure would be zero.
--
Mike Clarke
Wesley
"Mike Clarke" <UCEb...@milibyte.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Oq6dnVXgJ_bt9KfT...@brightview.co.uk...
Yes, that's correct. However it was impossible to work out how much extra
space had been added compared to the original loft space. Because of the
stud walls which had been constructed, there was no way to work this out.
John Rumm
Ignore the walls etc, just look at the change to the outer envelope of
the roof. So if a dormer was added - work out the volume of the
triangular bit that projects from the roof line.
So a conversion that just added roof windows and nothing else would be
no increase in volume. A dormer or two would add a little, and a hip to
gable conversion perhaps a bit more.
Wesley
"John Rumm" <see.my.s...@nowhere.null> wrote in message
news:VqudnVEQm8nVUqfT...@brightview.co.uk...
Thanks John but it is not possible to get access to the 'outer envelope' of
the roof because of the new walls and ceiling in the extension. - Unless I
get up on the roof and try to measure it from the outside :-0.
Its easy enough to work out the volume of the dormer but not the original
loftspace.
John Rumm
You may find you can get an estimate from outside counting tiles across
and up the slope. Bit of maths will tell you the rest.
> Its easy enough to work out the volume of the dormer but not the original
> loftspace.
That is all you normally need - they are usually only interested in the
volume added.