We have had an offer accepted on a house. It is listed as 3 bedroom with a rear extension. In doing the searchs, our solicitor has discovered that the extension and loft conversion (the 3rd bedroom) which were supposedly built in 1998 have not gotten either planning permission or building regs (these were 'pending'). We are not concerned with the planning permission.

My questions is (which our solicitor hems and haws about) - can the building be legally for sale as a 3 bedroom house? Are the areas that have been built w/o building regs be considered habitable rooms (livable space)? Or would the loft conversion just be considered a fancy loft?

A room can not be cosidered a room without planning permission. This is more seen in terms of basement rooms perhaps search google on the basement advice but my opinion is no these "rooms" if bedrooms can not be cosiderd legal rooms.

Have a look here - http://www.pandmatticconversions.ie/faq.htm

Loki117 wrote:


mrsukyankee;544686 Wrote:
We have had an offer accepted on a house. It is listed as 3 bedroom
with a rear extension. In doing the searchs, our solicitor has
discovered that the extension and loft conversion (the 3rd bedroom)
which were supposedly built in 1998 have not gotten either planning
permission or building regs (these were 'pending'). We are not
concerned with the planning permission.

My questions is (which our solicitor hems and haws about) - can the
building be legally for sale as a 3 bedroom house? Are the areas
that have been built w/o building regs be considered habitable rooms
(livable space)? Or would the loft conversion just be considered a
fancy loft?

A room can not be cosidered a room without planning permission. This
is more seen in terms of basement rooms perhaps search google on the
basement advice but my opinion is no these "rooms" if bedrooms can not
be cosiderd legal rooms.

Have a look here - http://www.pandmatticconversions.ie/faq.htm

its been built for 10 years so planning consent is not a problem
Building control on the other hand may be a different kettle of fish ,
Morgage companies get very jittery about conversions that do not have
building control approval

Its possible to get retrospective approval
--

In message , at 00:45:06
on Thu, 24 Jul 2008, steve robinson
remarked:
its been built for 10 years so planning consent is not a problem
Building control on the other hand may be a different kettle of fish ,

I thought that if something had been in place for about a year then BC
didn't have any powers to make you "undo" or "improve" the works.

So it depends whether the reason for not getting BC approval was a
"technicality" or something more serious. I have an idea that a property
I once owned was fully complaint (huge beams in the roof etc etc) but
the previous owners didn't want to have a final BC inspection done
because it would have failed on door-closers on *existing* doors
elsewhere in the house.

Morgage companies get very jittery about conversions that do not have
building control approval

There is certainly an issue with loft extensions that are inherently
poorly built and clearly fail all the regulations. Although I'm not sure
how the mortgage company discovers these as they don't tend to do proper
inspections.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at
01:20:09 on Thu, 24 Jul 2008, Owain
remarked:
However, building regulations are there for a reason and particularly
in the case of a conversion from a 2- to a 3-storey building the
conversion might not comply with regulations for means of escape from
fire. Insurance is not going to protect you or your family from dying
in a house fire.

On the other hand, the reason for failing BC might be the amount of
acoustic insulation between two rooms in the attic, or the amount of
heat insulation beneath the roof tiles. My current house almost failed
BC on a loft conversion because of a potentially missing certificate
regarding a pane of glass in the (ground floor) living room door.

That's why I would advise buyers to look at fundamental issues of
structural integrity, and indeed fire precautions, first; because if
those are Ok then the BC failure might be of less concern.

But I do know that there are many very poorly done loft conversions and
would suggest that people enquire (and explore) the size of new floor
beams that have been installed, because simply boarding over the
existing rafters is *not* sufficient.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at
01:20:09 on Thu, 24 Jul 2008, Owain
remarked:
However, building regulations are there for a reason and
particularly in the case of a conversion from a 2- to a 3-storey
building the conversion might not comply with regulations for means
of escape from fire. Insurance is not going to protect you or your
family from dying in a house fire.

On the other hand, the reason for failing BC might be the amount of
acoustic insulation between two rooms in the attic, or the amount of
heat insulation beneath the roof tiles. My current house almost
failed BC on a loft conversion because of a potentially missing
certificate regarding a pane of glass in the (ground floor) living
room door.

That's why I would advise buyers to look at fundamental issues of
structural integrity, and indeed fire precautions, first; because if
those are Ok then the BC failure might be of less concern.

But I do know that there are many very poorly done loft conversions
and would suggest that people enquire (and explore) the size of new
floor beams that have been installed, because simply boarding over
the existing rafters is not sufficient.

You mean ceiling joists ,

In message , at 23:30:08
on Thu, 24 Jul 2008, steve robinson
remarked:
But I do know that there are many very poorly done loft conversions
and would suggest that people enquire (and explore) the size of new
floor beams that have been installed, because simply boarding over
the existing rafters is not sufficient.

You mean ceiling joists ,

Yes, I do. Mea Cupla.

[As it happens they also strengthened some of the joists when my loft
conversion was done, to replace the strength lost by cutting holes for
Velux windows.]
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry posted
In message , at 00:45:06
on Thu, 24 Jul 2008, steve robinson
remarked:
its been built for 10 years so planning consent is not a problem
Building control on the other hand may be a different kettle of fish ,

I thought that if something had been in place for about a year then BC
didn't have any powers to make you "undo" or "improve" the works.

That's almost correct - they can't serve a "notice" (which is the usual
and routine way of enforcing the law).

In principle, they have another enforcement route by applying for a High
Court injunction to get the faults remedied. But in practice they never
do, because the enormous cost of doing so outweighs any possible
benefit.

The only exceptions might be where a structure is clearly a major safety
risk to the general public. There was such a case about ten years ago.
Solicitors like the OP's have gleefully seized on this to boost their
conveyancing fees, using the old teeth-sucking routine ("... my God!"
[in hushed tones] "... you're surely never thinking of buying a house
without full BR approval? You need legal advice *now*!"]. But it has
never been repeated.

So it depends whether the reason for not getting BC approval was a
"technicality" or something more serious. I have an idea that a
property I once owned was fully complaint (huge beams in the roof etc
etc) but the previous owners didn't want to have a final BC inspection
done because it would have failed on door-closers on *existing* doors
elsewhere in the house.

Morgage companies get very jittery about conversions that do not have
building control approval

There is certainly an issue with loft extensions that are inherently
poorly built and clearly fail all the regulations.

Yes, but millions of houses are inherently poorly built in lots of ways,
and clearly fail all sorts of building regulations. That's because they
were built many decades ago, often before the Great War. Nobody really
cares. The BR system is only there to control the act of building, not
existing buildings.

Although I'm not sure how the mortgage company discovers these as they
don't tend to do proper inspections.

Quite. Essentially they just do a valuation based on counting the rooms.

--
Les
"God will save her, fear you not, be you the men you've been.
Get you the sons your fathers got and God will save the Queen."

In message , at 22:00:13 on Sun, 27
Jul 2008, Big Les Wade remarked:
There is certainly an issue with loft extensions that are inherently
poorly built and clearly fail all the regulations.

Yes, but millions of houses are inherently poorly built in lots of
ways, and clearly fail all sorts of building regulations. That's
because they were built many decades ago, often before the Great War.
Nobody really cares. The BR system is only there to control the act of
building, not existing buildings.

Yes, but botched loft extensions are in a whole different category.
--
Roland Perry

The only exceptions might be where a structure is clearly a major
safety risk to the general public. There was such a case about ten
years ago. Solicitors like the OP's have gleefully seized on this to
boost their conveyancing fees, using the old teeth-sucking routine
("... my God!" [in hushed tones] "... you're surely never thinking of
buying a house without full BR approval? You need legal advice
*now*!"]. But it has never been repeated.

Morgage companies get very jittery about conversions that do not
have building control approval

Although I'm not sure how the mortgage company discovers these as
they don't tend to do proper inspections.

Quite. Essentially they just do a valuation based on counting the
rooms.

If the buyer's solicitor's search show the absence of a certificate, surely
he will report that to the mortgage company? I would be nervous about buying
a property without a certificate for significant works because of the
potential effect on resale/remortgage prospects, and I certainly insisted on
one for my own extension works for the same reason.

Chris R