Does anyone know of a simple, reliable, easy-to-understand list of
building regs requirements applicable to an old house converted into
two flats? I'm hoping I can avoid reading hundreds of pages of
Building Regulations.

The original conversion was done somewhere around 1991-3, but
I need to bring one of the flats up to scratch in order to sell it
easily. I'm mostly concerned about bringing up to a standard that a
first-time-buyer's lender will deem acceptable. But in case I have to
apply for retrospective building regs approval, I'll need it to meet
the relevant standard for that too.

Thank you,

Hank

On Fri, 02 Mar 2007 14:04:37 +0000 Hank wrote :
The original conversion was done somewhere around 1991-3, but
I need to bring one of the flats up to scratch in order to sell it
easily. I'm mostly concerned about bringing up to a standard that a
first-time-buyer's lender will deem acceptable. But in case I have
to apply for retrospective building regs approval, I'll need it to
meet the relevant standard for that too.

Building Regulations are not retrospective. Most older conversions
wouldn't begin to satisfy current regulations wrt thermal and sound
insulation and fire safety. But they still get sold and bought. The
crucial thing is whether there are any defects that would get a
mortgage surveyor excited.

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk

Tony Bryer wrote:
On Fri, 02 Mar 2007 14:04:37 +0000 Hank wrote :
The original conversion was done somewhere around 1991-3, but
I need to bring one of the flats up to scratch in order to sell it
easily. I'm mostly concerned about bringing up to a standard that a
first-time-buyer's lender will deem acceptable. But in case I have
to apply for retrospective building regs approval, I'll need it to
meet the relevant standard for that too.

Building Regulations are not retrospective. Most older conversions
wouldn't begin to satisfy current regulations wrt thermal and sound
insulation and fire safety. But they still get sold and bought. The
crucial thing is whether there are any defects that would get a
mortgage surveyor excited.

Not retrospective, however IME what can and does cause a problem if is
there's a Change of Use, which is the case here, surely? That means that
modern regs will apply - obviously only insofar as it's possible in an
old property; however I suspect it will be very much down to the
interpretation of the individual BCO as to how much he will insist upon
and what he will let you get away with. Therefore pretty much
impossible to provide a checklist of what you need to do.

David

On Fri, 02 Mar 2007 16:35:18 GMT, Tony Bryer
wrote:

The
crucial thing is whether there are any defects that would get a
mortgage surveyor excited.

Defects other than non-compliance with building regs, do you mean? Can
you be more explicit?

Thanks..

Hank

On Fri, 02 Mar 2007 23:29:32 GMT, Lobster
wrote:

Not retrospective, however IME what can and does cause a problem if is
there's a Change of Use, which is the case here, surely? That means that
modern regs will apply - obviously only insofar as it's possible in an
old property; however I suspect it will be very much down to the
interpretation of the individual BCO as to how much he will insist upon
and what he will let you get away with. Therefore pretty much
impossible to provide a checklist of what you need to do.

Thanks for the input. If you are right, and if I understand the
situation correctly, then one option would be to be to apply for
retrospective building regs approval. It will certainly fail in one or
more respects, but the visiting BCO agent will give me a list of what
I must do in the way of improvements, in order to get the certificate.
Is that how it works?

Or should I forget the retrospective building regs approval idea and
just bring the place up to more-or-less 1992 fireproofing and
soundproofing regs and hope the buyer's lender's surveyor will
consider it acceptable.

I also need to insure the property against fire so the fireproofing
improvements would presumably make the place more insurable too.

Hank

Hank wrote:
On Fri, 02 Mar 2007 23:29:32 GMT, Lobster
wrote:

Not retrospective, however IME what can and does cause a problem if is
there's a Change of Use, which is the case here, surely? That means that
modern regs will apply - obviously only insofar as it's possible in an
old property; however I suspect it will be very much down to the
interpretation of the individual BCO as to how much he will insist upon
and what he will let you get away with. Therefore pretty much
impossible to provide a checklist of what you need to do.

Thanks for the input. If you are right,

Sorry just ignore me... what I was saying would be the scenario if you
were carrying out the conversion now, not 15 years ago.

Is this not one of those situations where your solicitor just tells you
to buy a 100 GBP insurance policy to cover any eventuality arising from
lack of Building Regs approval, but otherwise you do nothing? I'm sure
others can and will comment.

David

On Sat, 03 Mar 2007 11:03:26 GMT, Lobster
wrote:

Thanks for the input. If you are right,

Sorry just ignore me... what I was saying would be the scenario if you
were carrying out the conversion now, not 15 years ago.

Is this not one of those situations where your solicitor just tells you
to buy a 100 GBP insurance policy to cover any eventuality arising from
lack of Building Regs approval, but otherwise you do nothing? I'm sure
others can and will comment.

Thanks.. I have heard of these policies, and I would like to know more
- e.g., whether mortgage lenders consider them satisfactory mitigation
of building-regs non-compliance. One solicitor suggested that a flat
that doesn't comply with building regs would be considered a high risk
for lending purposes. Whether buildning-regs indemnity insurance would
mitigate that risk from the POV of a typical mortgage lender, I don't
know.

I also want the flats to be insurable. I'm wondering if non-compliance
with building regs could pose a problem in this respect. I don't know,
but I could imagine that a company insuring against fire damage to a
flat & contents might have some clause in the small print saying that
the poilcy would be void if it was found that the flat didn't meet
such-and-such building regs re fire-proofing.

Hank

"Hank" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 02 Mar 2007 16:35:18 GMT, Tony Bryer
wrote:

The
crucial thing is whether there are any defects that would get a
mortgage surveyor excited.

Defects other than non-compliance with building regs, do you mean? Can
you be more explicit?

No, defects such as a wall subsidsing.

As Tony said. The regs now focus heavily upon sound
(between flats) and thermal (to ouside) insulation.

Your flat almost certainly doesn't come close to the
new regs and the work to fit retrospectively is massive.

OTOH if you wanted to comply with a requirement to fit
self closers to doors, it is going to be do-able but no-one
other the BCO will notice if you don't (I wish that I could
remove mine!)

tim

On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 12:58:00 -0000, "tim....."
wrote:

Your flat almost certainly doesn't come close to the
new regs and the work to fit retrospectively is massive.

As the conversion was sone in 1993 (I think), I think it might only
need to be brought up to 1992 regulations, but I may be wrong.

Seems like I might be wise to take out buiding regs indemnity
insurance, so that if I am ordered to upgrade the specs by BCO, I will
be covered for the costs.

Hank

On Sat, 03 Mar 2007 13:16:52 +0000 Owain wrote :
*How was the property originally converted into flats?* Was there
planning permission for change of use from house to flats, building
regulation approval at the time, and separation of the properties
at the Land Registry?

If this was not done then the property remains, in law, one dwelling,
and you will be starting from scratch and the BCO may insist on all
work being to current standards.

The last one may never have been required: you might (as my father did
in the 1960s) convert a property into flats and let them out leaving the
title unaffected. If the planners were to take an interest, separate
Council tax bills and/or electoral roll entries would be fairly strong
evidence of a change of use.

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk

On Sat, 03 Mar 2007 15:59:37 +0000 Hank wrote :
As the conversion was sone in 1993 (I think), I think it might
only
need to be brought up to 1992 regulations, but I may be wrong.

Seems like I might be wise to take out buiding regs indemnity
insurance, so that if I am ordered to upgrade the specs by BCO,
I will be covered for the costs.

If the conversion was done then, Building Control have no power to
require anything except under related powers regarding dangerous
structures, public health issues (drainage) and the like.

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk

On Sat, 03 Mar 2007 13:16:52 +0000, Owain
wrote:

Hank wrote:
Thanks for the input. If you are right, and if I understand the
situation correctly, then one option would be to be to apply for
retrospective building regs approval. It will certainly fail in one or
more respects, but the visiting BCO agent will give me a list of what
I must do in the way of improvements, in order to get the certificate.
Is that how it works?

*How was the property originally converted into flats?* Was there
planning permission for change of use from house to flats, building
regulation approval at the time, and separation of the properties at the
Land Registry?

No, none of that. Since the council tax system, they have been sending
one bill to each flat.

If this was not done then the property remains, in law, one dwelling,
and you will be starting from scratch and the BCO may insist on all work
being to current standards.

That's interesting. I have spoken to about four different solicitors
about the prospects of selling teh flats separately and none of them
mentioned that.

Or should I forget the retrospective building regs approval idea and
just bring the place up to more-or-less 1992 fireproofing and
soundproofing regs and hope the buyer's lender's surveyor will
consider it acceptable.

But the first question the buyer's solicitor will ask is "what works
have been done on the property", and if you do anything that is
notifiable then they will need to see a Building Regs certificate from
the council.

A couple of solicitors have suggested that a building regs indemnity
policy would be a way to overcome this.

The buyer's surveyor is not going to inspect the property in detail for
a mortgage valuation.

Ok, thanks for the input.

Owain

On Sat, 03 Mar 2007 19:12:54 GMT, Tony Bryer
wrote:

As the conversion was sone in 1993 (I think), I think it might
only
need to be brought up to 1992 regulations, but I may be wrong.

Seems like I might be wise to take out buiding regs indemnity
insurance, so that if I am ordered to upgrade the specs by BCO,
I will be covered for the costs.

If the conversion was done then, Building Control have no power to
require anything except under related powers regarding dangerous
structures, public health issues (drainage) and the like.

This is the first time I've heard this, so thank you for that! None of
four solicitors has told me that before. However, I'm not sure
exactly how many aspects of my conversion job could be threatened by
the dangerous structures and public health rules. It all seems very
safe to me and has stood the test of time, but no doubt the rules are
not interested in that.

Perhaps I should quit worrying and just apply for a certificate of
lawful use from the council (on the basis of established use) and then
go ahead and sell the flats separately - perhaps taking out building
regs indemnity on the two flats, to make any prospective buyer and his
solicitor happy?

Or will applying for a certificate of lawful use put me in danger of
being ordered to undo the conversion - or the drainage that was part
of the conversion?

The only proof I have of established use is 14 years of council tax
bills (separate ones for each flat). Apart from that, the only way it
could be proved might be to get a physicist to carbon-date some of the
materials used!

Hank