Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
UK diy (uk.d-i-y) For the discussion of all topics related to diy (do-it-yourself) in the UK. All levels of experience and proficency are welcome to join in to ask questions or offer solutions. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Building Regulations Certificate ?
Hi,
I have just had an extenstion completed by a local building firm - and it now transpires that the builder never notified the Building Inspector that the works had started - so no inspections were carried out during the build. The Inspector has since come out (as the builder did notify him of completion of works) but obviously cannot inspect anything other than the decorating (his words). The extension knocked a gable wall down with the load supported on a steel beam (with some underpinning as dictated by structural engineer) and also added a dormer window upstairs. The Inspector is waiting for his boss to return next Tuesday before getting back to us as he wasn't really sure of our options. Has anyone seen this before - and if so what was the outcome .....builder forced to expose key areas of the build to satisfy Inspector ..or worse still...no certificate given unless a knock down and start again ? Many thanks in advance Nick |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Building Regulations Certificate ?
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Building Regulations Certificate ?
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Building Regulations Certificate ?
"Nick" wrote in message om... Hi, I have just had an extenstion completed by a local building firm - and it now transpires that the builder never notified the Building Inspector that the works had started - so no inspections were carried out during the build. The Inspector has since come out (as the builder did notify him of completion of works) but obviously cannot inspect anything other than the decorating (his words). The extension knocked a gable wall down with the load supported on a steel beam (with some underpinning as dictated by structural engineer) and also added a dormer window upstairs. The Inspector is waiting for his boss to return next Tuesday before getting back to us as he wasn't really sure of our options. Has anyone seen this before - and if so what was the outcome ....builder forced to expose key areas of the build to satisfy Inspector ..or worse still...no certificate given unless a knock down and start again ? Many thanks in advance Nick If you had a proper structural engineer involved and there are plan drawings from the builders design team, and the building engineer, then these will have to be submitted to the local planning authority for their approval. If the builder has failed in this, then you will be asked to take the whole thing down and start again if plan drawings have not been provided. The work will classed as a suck it and see sort of job, which is not the best way to keep building control peeps happy. The drawings are the most important part of the situation just now, as they will show how the work should have been done and to what standard. The builder will be asked to expose the most important key areas, if only to satisfy the building control people that the drawings were adhered to and the rest of the build is all to the same standard. Good Luck with it. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Building Regulations Certificate ?
"BigWallop" wrote in message ... "Nick" wrote in message om... Hi, I have just had an extenstion completed by a local building firm - and it now transpires that the builder never notified the Building Inspector that the works had started - so no inspections were carried out during the build. Nick If you had a proper structural engineer involved and there are plan drawings from the builders design team, and the building engineer, then these will have to be submitted to the local planning authority for their approval. If the builder has failed in this, then you will be asked to take the whole thing down and start again if plan drawings have not been provided. The work will classed as a suck it and see sort of job, which is not the best way to keep building control peeps happy. This is completely wrong. 1) planning and building control are two entirely separate things you seem to have confused them. 2) Whilst retrospective application for planning permission can be refused on principle, resulting in an order for the building to be demolished, a retrospective application for a building control certificate, without the prior submission of plans is a legally allowed way of doing things. The worst that will happen is that the BI will ask you to 'open up' parts that he cannot see to check that they are, in fact, done correctly. The BI will never take the principled view that the building is bound to be constructed incorrectly and ask for it to be demolished just in case. I agree that they don't like this method of approving buildings but the legislation clearly allows builders to work this way if they wish. tim The drawings are the most important part of the situation just now, as they will show how the work should have been done and to what standard. The builder will be asked to expose the most important key areas, if only to satisfy the building control people that the drawings were adhered to and the rest of the build is all to the same standard. Good Luck with it. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Building Regulations Certificate ?
"tim" wrote in message ... "BigWallop" wrote in message ... "Nick" wrote in message om... Hi, I have just had an extenstion completed by a local building firm - and it now transpires that the builder never notified the Building Inspector that the works had started - so no inspections were carried out during the build. Nick If you had a proper structural engineer involved and there are plan drawings from the builders design team, and the building engineer, then these will have to be submitted to the local planning authority for their approval. If the builder has failed in this, then you will be asked to take the whole thing down and start again if plan drawings have not been provided. The work will classed as a suck it and see sort of job, which is not the best way to keep building control peeps happy. This is completely wrong. 1) planning and building control are two entirely separate things you seem to have confused them. 2) Whilst retrospective application for planning permission can be refused on principle, resulting in an order for the building to be demolished, a retrospective application for a building control certificate, without the prior submission of plans is a legally allowed way of doing things. The worst that will happen is that the BI will ask you to 'open up' parts that he cannot see to check that they are, in fact, done correctly. The BI will never take the principled view that the building is bound to be constructed incorrectly and ask for it to be demolished just in case. I agree that they don't like this method of approving buildings but the legislation clearly allows builders to work this way if they wish. tim But Nick has said that there are under pinnings, as well as retaining wall removals, that have been undertaken during these works. The building inspector will need proof of approval from his/her local authority planning department on submitted drawings of proposal before he/she allows any structural changes of this magnatude to take place. Lives are at stake in these situations, and no local authority I know, would allow this type of work to be carried out without the proper planning proposals and structural drawings being submitted by the bulders or their agent. It is the builders fault, so he'll have to sort it. If he gives his written testimony that he's carried out the work to the approved methods, and then something goes badly wrong, then he'll be sued to the highest courts in the land by the local authority. But that could be to late for the poor family who are now left without a property or have been badly injured because of a colapse. Unless he can prove through proper inspections, that his work has/is been/being carried out to locally approved methods. Which in this case, he can't. The drawings are the most important part of the situation just now, as they will show how the work should have been done and to what standard. The builder will be asked to expose the most important key areas, if only to satisfy the building control people that the drawings were adhered to and the rest of the build is all to the same standard. Good Luck with it. --- www.basecuritysystems.no-ip.com Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.528 / Virus Database: 324 - Release Date: 16/10/03 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Building Regulations Certificate ?
2) Whilst retrospective application for planning permission can be refused on principle, resulting in an order for the building to be demolished, a retrospective application for a building control certificate, without the prior submission of plans is a legally allowed way of doing things. The worst that will happen is that the BI will ask you to 'open up' parts that he cannot see to check that they are, in fact, done correctly. The BI will never take the principled view that the building is bound to be constructed incorrectly and ask for it to be demolished just in case. I agree that they don't like this method of approving buildings but the legislation clearly allows builders to work this way if they wish. The builders across the road from me were horrified on Friday when the BI insisted on a 6 foot depth of concrete for a single storey extension. It also has to be done in two sections with his worship inspecting the first before digging out starts on the second stage. Apparently the house had been underpinned to that depth in the 80s so the rest has to match. Two very unhappy chaps. Still, the weather has been kind to them so far.... |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Building Regulations Certificate ?
"BigWallop" wrote
| But Nick has said that there are under pinnings, as well as retaining wall | removals, that have been undertaken during these works. The building | inspector will need proof of approval from his/her local authority planning | department on submitted drawings of proposal before he/she allows any | structural changes of this magnatude to take place. That is building control, not planning. | It is the builders fault, so he'll have to sort it. Ah, but is it :-) It isn't the builder's fault the owner failed to make the necessary applications, unless it's in the contract that the builder should have done so. Owain |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Building Regulations Certificate ?
"BigWallop" wrote in message ... "tim" wrote in message ... This is completely wrong. 1) planning and building control are two entirely separate things you seem to have confused them. 2) Whilst retrospective application for planning permission can be refused on principle, resulting in an order for the building to be demolished, a retrospective application for a building control certificate, without the prior submission of plans is a legally allowed way of doing things. The worst that will happen is that the BI will ask you to 'open up' parts that he cannot see to check that they are, in fact, done correctly. The BI will never take the principled view that the building is bound to be constructed incorrectly and ask for it to be demolished just in case. I agree that they don't like this method of approving buildings but the legislation clearly allows builders to work this way if they wish. tim But Nick has said that there are under pinnings, as well as retaining wall removals, that have been undertaken during these works. This may be relevent in this case but your earlier answer made no reference to it, you implied that the building would have to be demolished simply because no plans were lodged. This is completely incorrect. The building inspector will need proof of approval from his/her local authority planning department The planning department has no relevence here. There may or there may not be a planning requirement but whatever was or should have been submitted to the planning dept does not need to contain the construction details. on submitted drawings of proposal before he/she allows any structural changes of this magnatude to take place. I think that the amount of work done here is probably less than it appears to be on paper. But in any case, I fail to see how knocking down the new build can rectify the critical item which is the replacement lintel and its support. If this has been done inadequately, it won't become adequate because the extension is removed. Lives are at stake in these situations, and no local authority I know, would allow this type of work to be carried out without the proper planning proposals Once again, the planning department have no juristriction here and structural drawings being submitted by the bulders or their agent. I don't believe that they have a choice. If I wish to start work on a (planning permitted) change to my property *I* can choose whether I submit the plans to the BCO before I start work or request a BN after I have started. All the BCO can do is refuse to issue me a certificate if the work is sub-standard they cannot dictate when I do it. It is the builders fault, so he'll have to sort it. If he gives his written testimony that he's carried out the work to the approved methods, and then something goes badly wrong, then he'll be sued to the highest courts in the land by the local authority. But that could be to late for the poor family who are now left without a property or have been badly injured because of a colapse. The work has been done to the standards set by the surveyor. If it is wrong then it is his problem. Unless he can prove through proper inspections, that his work has/is been/being carried out to locally approved methods. Which in this case, he can't. But this still doesn't mean that the only solution is the removal of the new build. tim |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Building Regulations Certificate ?
"tim" wrote in message ... "BigWallop" wrote in message ... "tim" wrote in message ... This is completely wrong. 1) planning and building control are two entirely separate things you seem to have confused them. 2) Whilst retrospective application for planning permission can be refused on principle, resulting in an order for the building to be demolished, a retrospective application for a building control certificate, without the prior submission of plans is a legally allowed way of doing things. The worst that will happen is that the BI will ask you to 'open up' parts that he cannot see to check that they are, in fact, done correctly. The BI will never take the principled view that the building is bound to be constructed incorrectly and ask for it to be demolished just in case. I agree that they don't like this method of approving buildings but the legislation clearly allows builders to work this way if they wish. tim But Nick has said that there are under pinnings, as well as retaining wall removals, that have been undertaken during these works. This may be relevent in this case but your earlier answer made no reference to it, you implied that the building would have to be demolished simply because no plans were lodged. This is completely incorrect. Apologise for my previous wording. Bad composition n my part. Point taken. The building inspector will need proof of approval from his/her local authority planning department The planning department has no relevence here. There may or there may not be a planning requirement but whatever was or should have been submitted to the planning dept does not need to contain the construction details. Ground works, as in the under pinning, needs approval before commencement, there are no if's, but's or maybe's on that point. A good build is only done on good foundations. on submitted drawings of proposal before he/she allows any structural changes of this magnatude to take place. I think that the amount of work done here is probably less than it appears to be on paper. But in any case, I fail to see how knocking down the new build can rectify the critical item which is the replacement lintel and its support. If this has been done inadequately, it won't become adequate because the extension is removed. My previous wording again. :-)) It is more likely that most of the works will have to be exposed before any certification is given on this type of structural work. Lives are at stake in these situations, and no local authority I know, would allow this type of work to be carried out without the proper planning proposals Once again, the planning department have no juristriction here But they do on the ground works. and structural drawings being submitted by the bulders or their agent. I don't believe that they have a choice. If I wish to start work on a (planning permitted) change to my property *I* can choose whether I submit the plans to the BCO before I start work or request a BN after I have started. All the BCO can do is refuse to issue me a certificate if the work is sub-standard they cannot dictate when I do it. Retrospective permission is normally only granted on submission of plan drawings. It doesn't prevent or dictate when the works are started, but it does dictate when the inspection should begin. There were grounds on this job, and as I said previously, a good build is only done on good foundations, and most buildings inspectors see it that way to. It is the builders fault, so he'll have to sort it. If he gives his written testimony that he's carried out the work to the approved methods, and then something goes badly wrong, then he'll be sued to the highest courts in the land by the local authority. But that could be to late for the poor family who are now left without a property or have been badly injured because of a colapse. The work has been done to the standards set by the surveyor. If it is wrong then it is his problem. Fair enough. Unless he can prove through proper inspections, that his work has/is been/being carried out to locally approved methods. Which in this case, he can't. But this still doesn't mean that the only solution is the removal of the new build. tim Again, my choice of wording in the previous reply. :-)) --- www.basecuritysystems.no-ip.com Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.528 / Virus Database: 324 - Release Date: 16/10/03 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Building Regulations Certificate ?
On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 22:26:21 +0200, a particular chimpanzee named
"tim" randomly hit the keyboard and produced: I don't believe that they have a choice. If I wish to start work on a (planning permitted) change to my property *I* can choose whether I submit the plans to the BCO before I start work or request a BN after I have started. All the BCO can do is refuse to issue me a certificate if the work is sub-standard they cannot dictate when I do it. Not true. To commence Building Work without a valid Building Regulations application (either Full Plans, or a Building Notice where allowed) is an offence under Section 16 of the Building Act 1984, and action can be taken under Section 35 (to levy a fine) or Section 36 (to pull down or otherwise alter the offending work). The Building Regulations were changed in (IIRC) 1994 to allow the issuing of Regularisation Certificates for work which had been constructed illegally (the wording of this regulation makes it clear that it is "unauthorised") [1]. In theory, there's nothing to stop an Authority accepting a Regularisation application, but still taking prosecution under the Building Act. [1] There was (I'm sure) unkind and unfounded speculation within our office at the time as to whether John Selwyn Gummer (the minister who was in charge at the time) had an illegal extension on his house. -- Hugo Nebula "You know, I'd rather see this on TV, Tones it down" - Laurie Anderson |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Building Regulations Certificate ?
"Owain" wrote in message ... Ah, but is it :-) It isn't the builder's fault the owner failed to make the necessary applications, unless it's in the contract that the builder should have done so. Owain That is a very valid point! The information put out by my local authority makes it clear that the property owner and the builder are jointly responsible for ensuring that the building regs are complied with. Roger |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Building Regulations Certificate ?
"Hugo Nebula" Send-My-Spam-To: abuse@localhost wrote
Not true. To commence Building Work without a valid Building Regulations application (either Full Plans, or a Building Notice where allowed) is an offence under Section 16 of the Building Act 1984, and action can be taken under Section 35 (to levy a fine) or Section 36 (to pull down or otherwise alter the offending work). The Building Regulations were changed in (IIRC) 1994 to allow the issuing of Regularisation Certificates for work which had been constructed illegally (the wording of this regulation makes it clear that it is "unauthorised") [1]. In theory, there's nothing to stop an Authority accepting a Regularisation application, but still taking prosecution under the Building Act. [1] There was (I'm sure) unkind and unfounded speculation within our office at the time as to whether John Selwyn Gummer (the minister who was in charge at the time) had an illegal extension on his house. Also, AIUI it is generally the householder that the responsibility rests upon. So, even if the builder takes on the job as a whole (ie coordinating paperwork etc) then you could still be accountable. You;'d need to ensure that the contract with the builder stated that they would file any necessary paperwork and they they would indemnify (or compensate) you for any losses as a result of them failing to do so. Is this correct? -- Richard Sampson email me at richard at olifant d-ot co do-t uk |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Proposed Part P Building Regulations (Electrical Wiring) | UK diy | |||
New Electrical Regs | UK diy | |||
Overflow extended length from external wall - Building Regulations | UK diy | |||
Building Regulations | UK diy | |||
Forthcoming Building Regulations on electrical work (Part P) | UK diy |