Hugo Nebula wrote in message . ..
On 2 Jul 2004 12:37:07 -0700, a particular chimpanzee named
(Lobster) randomly hit the keyboard and
produced:

My project (which I've asked many questions about here!) is
reinstating two small 1900's terraced houses from one (they had been
knocked together into a single house about 30-40 years ago I think).
Is that why she's talking about 'material change of use'?? It had
been my understanding, in agreement with Hugo's post above, that the
rules did not apply retrospectively and that the windows were fine as
is. Anyone got any ideas or comments?

Ah, the penny drops. Changing a building to create a greater or
_lesser_ number of dwellings than previously is a "material change of
use", and as such pretty much all of the requirements apply. This
includes the means of escape in case of fire.

Hmm, that would appear to be that then...

It sounds like you have received less than exemplary service from, I
suspect, a trainee BCO who may be unsure of the requirements herself.

I think she's the boss of her dept actually!

We've all got to learn sometime (as you are also learning about the
Regulations as you carry out the work), and maybe you've been putting
her on the spot to say whether something is right or not when she
needs to take advice. Maybe you are a bit intimidating, and she feels
she can't tell you that something needs to be done to your face. I
don't know; I'm only seeing a very small part of the picture here.

What, me intimidating?! To be honest I think we've always got on very
well; we've talked through quite a few issues and come up with
acceptable solutions, and I've been nothing other than totally
deferential to her at every meeting - I'm well aware of the Power of
the BCO so have done my utmost to stay in her good books, and have
always implemented everything I've been asked to, smiling sweetly when
inside I've been screaming '****, ****, ****'! This is the first time
she's emailed me rather than talk to me direct; presumably she's
embarrassed about having missed this issue before.

But where will all this stop? Eg, one of the properties has an
original dogleg staircase up the middle of the building, with
triangular treads where it turns the corner, and only about 1.8m
headroom at one point; both of which would be obvious non compliance
with modern standards. The BCO commented on it herself and said that
as it was an existing feature it would be OK - makes me think these
decisions are made rather arbitrarily (in which case, isn't there any
right of appeal or something?)

If she were to change her mind on the staircase next week, I honestly
don't know how we would redesign things internally to accomodate a
modern version, but it would be a huge issue impacting on every room
in the building, and involving moving loadbearing walls etc, and would
make the whole project non-viable, especially at this late stage.
Scary.

Regarding the window issue - one of the two windows in question is
actually already opens fully, inwards (I don't think she realises)
although it's a bit too low for current regs, at about 600 or 700 mm.
Rather than replacing the window having bricked up the bottom, is it
satisfactory to attach some form of barrier (a couple of steel rails
or something?) to the outside of the house to raise the effective
height? I'd like to be able to go back to my 'friend' with a possible
solution.

Ask her (in the form of a letter or e-mail) to state the applicable
requirements that your work needs to comply with, and wherever
possible, ways of meeting them. Don't however expect Building Control
to design your work for you; that's what an architect or surveyor is
for.

Are you saying I should ask her for a definitive written list of
whatever else needs doing, or just pertaining to the windows? If the
former, would that actually carry any weight if there are any more
changes of mind?!

I did actually have an architect involved at the early stages, he
submitted the planning application, and I used the same plans for the
Building Control application. As the architect had said there was no
need to apply retrospective buildings standards (which weren't shown
on the plans) I didn't feel the need to use him for building control,
as it all seemed pretty straightforward. Yeah, right. (I did the work
under a building notice though, rather than full plans submission,
although I did send in the architect's drawings along with the
submission.)

Sorry, I've gone on a bit there!

David