Hello all...

I recently bought a terraced house which has a small (about 3-4 square
metres if that) porch on the back. The porch is a wooden lean-to type
affair with single glazed windows and a corrugated plastic roof, and
is in a very poor state of repair, with most of the timber badly
rotten. There is a brick wall supporting it on the boundary with my
neighbour, which if structurally sound I will leave in place, if not I
will pull it down and replace with a 6' fence panel.

As a result, I want to remove the porch, and have a set of French
doors fitted to open out onto the patio in its place. I'd get the
latter done professionally as it's likely to require a new lintel and
I don't know what I'm doing with that sort of thing.

A few questions then:-

1. My mortgage T&Cs say that I need to notify them of building work,
as I believe they generally do. Is this sort of thing likely to
require this? I expect given the state of the porch it would increase
the value of the house overall even though it would remove some
storage space - but I imagine they might think that removing a porch
would reduce value and thus argue about it?

2. Would removing the porch require building regs consent? (I'm aware
that adding the French doors would require either that or a FENSA
certificate, but as I'm going to have that done professionally that's
less of a concern).

3. Would any of the work be likely to require planning consent or any
other type of consent e.g. relating to the wall? I'm not in a
conservation area or anything like that, but the house is a bit odd in
that it's one with road access at the rear and the "primary elevation"
fronting onto a footpath - a fairly typical 1970s estate arrangement
but one that I think often requires planning consent for more things
than the usual situation of gardens backing onto gardens.

Thanks

Neil

On Apr 27, 11:07*am, Neil Williams wrote:
Hello all...

One more thing to add regarding electrical work and Part P.

The porch has a floodlight attached to it, which I would remove.
Would removing a circuit involving an outdoor light require Part P
consent, or only adding one?

Additionally, the supply to the rear garage runs through the porch.
If the part within the porch isn't suitably outdoor-safe (I haven't
checked it yet as it's behind panelling), does modifying the existing
installation to resolve this require Part P consent? If so, would
disconnecting it completely inside the house for the time being also
require consent? (I expect to be removing the porch some time before
I get chance to arrange for the building/window work, and I'd probably
get any professional electrical work done at the same time).

Neil

On 27/04/2011 11:07, Neil Williams wrote:

1. My mortgage T&Cs say that I need to notify them of building work,
as I believe they generally do. Is this sort of thing likely to
require this? I expect given the state of the porch it would increase
the value of the house overall even though it would remove some
storage space - but I imagine they might think that removing a porch
would reduce value and thus argue about it?

I doubt if they'll have any objection but don't be surprised if they
want to charge you a fee for saying so.

--
Mike Clarke

On 27/04/2011 11:07, Neil Williams wrote:
Hello all...

I recently bought a terraced house which has a small (about 3-4 square
metres if that) porch on the back. The porch is a wooden lean-to type
affair with single glazed windows and a corrugated plastic roof, and
is in a very poor state of repair, with most of the timber badly
rotten. There is a brick wall supporting it on the boundary with my
neighbour, which if structurally sound I will leave in place, if not I
will pull it down and replace with a 6' fence panel.

As a result, I want to remove the porch, and have a set of French
doors fitted to open out onto the patio in its place. I'd get the
latter done professionally as it's likely to require a new lintel and
I don't know what I'm doing with that sort of thing.

A few questions then:-

1. My mortgage T&Cs say that I need to notify them of building work,
as I believe they generally do. Is this sort of thing likely to
require this? I expect given the state of the porch it would increase
the value of the house overall even though it would remove some
storage space - but I imagine they might think that removing a porch
would reduce value and thus argue about it?

2. Would removing the porch require building regs consent? (I'm aware
that adding the French doors would require either that or a FENSA
certificate, but as I'm going to have that done professionally that's
less of a concern).

3. Would any of the work be likely to require planning consent or any
other type of consent e.g. relating to the wall? I'm not in a
conservation area or anything like that, but the house is a bit odd in
that it's one with road access at the rear and the "primary elevation"
fronting onto a footpath - a fairly typical 1970s estate arrangement
but one that I think often requires planning consent for more things
than the usual situation of gardens backing onto gardens.

Thanks

Neil

I rather doubt whether any consents would be required unless the porch
has structural elements supporting or weatherproofing the main building.

Unless the mortgage is very new I would keep quiet but that is your
decision.

I seem to recall an outside light fixed to the outside of a building
from which it is supplied is not a part P job unless it comes off a
circuit in a wet room, eg bathroom or kitchen but hopefully an expert
will be along shortly.

Was the porch originally part of the building? When selling houses many
solicitors are now picking up on cases where alterations have been
carried out without the original developers permission. It is then
necessary to pay to apply for retrospective permission or to pay for an
indemnity if the developer cannot be traced. If the porch was original
check the covenants on the building. I had to pay for changes carried
out previously on a 1960s house as did the vendor selling a 1980s house
to me.

On Apr 27, 3:54*pm, Invisible Man wrote:

I rather doubt whether any consents would be required unless the porch
has structural elements supporting or weatherproofing the main building.

No, it doesn't; it's a wooden lean-to.

Was the porch originally part of the building?

No, or at least I strongly suspect not, as none of the other houses on
the terrace has such a porch.

Neil

[Default] On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 03:07:46 -0700 (PDT), a certain
chimpanzee, Neil Williams , randomly hit the
keyboard and wrote:

I recently bought a terraced house which has a small (about 3-4 square
metres if that) porch on the back. The porch is a wooden lean-to type
affair with single glazed windows and a corrugated plastic roof, and
is in a very poor state of repair, with most of the timber badly
rotten. ...

1. My mortgage T&Cs say that I need to notify them of building work,
as I believe they generally do. Is this sort of thing likely to
require this?

When you bought the house, did you have a full survey which included
an assessment of the porch? If you only had a valuation survey how
would they even know that the porch had been there in the first place?

The mortgage co. are only concerned that their loan is secured against
something that is worth at least that. So long as the work you do will
not significantly (*) reduce the resale value of your house, then
they're happy. Of course, if you tell them you're having work done,
they'll expect you to pay for a surveyor to tell them that it's not
significantly reduced the value.

(* I suspect 'significantly' depends on the loan to value ratio.)

2. Would removing the porch require building regs consent? (I'm aware
that adding the French doors would require either that or a FENSA
certificate, but as I'm going to have that done professionally that's
less of a concern).

Removing the porch? No. Altering the lintel over? Possibly unless
replacing like-for-like. [Supplementary question - should you make an
application for it? For piddling minor work, don't bother.] If the
opening into the building requires widening then it's outside the
scope of the FENSA self-certification scheme (although I'm pretty sure
the window firm won't bother telling you that); again, should you make
an application for a minor alteration?...

Normally, I'd say be honest and upfront about building work. However,
it sounds like in your case it may be better to just get on and do it.

The way that the vast majority of unauthorised works come to light is
via neighbour complaints, and the biggest reason that neighbours
complain is that they think that major works may be about to start.
Speak to your neighbours and let them know exactly what you're doing.
--
Hugo Nebula
"If no-one on the internet wants a piece of this,
just how far from the pack have I strayed"?

Hugo Nebula wrote:
Removing the porch? No. Altering the lintel over? Possibly unless
replacing like-for-like. [Supplementary question - should you make an
application for it? For piddling minor work, don't bother.] If the

Normally a porch is permitted development unless a listed building
or in a conservation area, see http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/permission/house

JGH

On Apr 27, 9:09 pm, Hugo Nebula abuse@localhost wrote:
[Default] On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 03:07:46 -0700 (PDT), a certain
chimpanzee, Neil Williams , randomly hit the

keyboard and wrote:
I recently bought a terraced house which has a small (about 3-4 square
metres if that) porch on the back. The porch is a wooden lean-to type
affair with single glazed windows and a corrugated plastic roof, and
is in a very poor state of repair, with most of the timber badly
rotten. ...
1. My mortgage T&Cs say that I need to notify them of building work,
as I believe they generally do. Is this sort of thing likely to
require this?

When you bought the house, did you have a full survey which included
an assessment of the porch? If you only had a valuation survey how
would they even know that the porch had been there in the first place?

The mortgage co. are only concerned that their loan is secured against
something that is worth at least that. So long as the work you do will
not significantly (*) reduce the resale value of your house, then
they're happy. Of course, if you tell them you're having work done,
they'll expect you to pay for a surveyor to tell them that it's not
significantly reduced the value.

(* I suspect 'significantly' depends on the loan to value ratio.)



2. Would removing the porch require building regs consent? (I'm aware
that adding the French doors would require either that or a FENSA
certificate, but as I'm going to have that done professionally that's
less of a concern).

Removing the porch? No. Altering the lintel over? Possibly unless
replacing like-for-like. [Supplementary question - should you make an
application for it? For piddling minor work, don't bother.] If the
opening into the building requires widening then it's outside the
scope of the FENSA self-certification scheme (although I'm pretty sure
the window firm won't bother telling you that); again, should you make
an application for a minor alteration?...

Normally, I'd say be honest and upfront about building work. However,
it sounds like in your case it may be better to just get on and do it.

The way that the vast majority of unauthorised works come to light is
via neighbour complaints, and the biggest reason that neighbours
complain is that they think that major works may be about to start.
Speak to your neighbours and let them know exactly what you're doing.

good level headed response from our "favoured" BCO methinks.... ;)

Jim K

On Apr 27, 9:09*pm, Hugo Nebula abuse@localhost wrote:

When you bought the house, did you have a full survey which included
an assessment of the porch? If you only had a valuation survey how
would they even know that the porch had been there in the first place?

There was a homebuyer's report (which to be fair alerted me to a
couple of other things I had dealt with, so was worth it overall).
This does make it clear that the porch is in poor condition, though.

I suppose the question is whether they'd consider removing the porch
would reduce resale value. My personal view is that it would increase
it - I'd be adding double glazing where there is presently none (the
windows and door onto the porch are single-glazed and the kitchen gets
horribly cold in winter as a result), making the garden bigger (it's
quite small at present) and making the kitchen a nicer place to sit
and eat, offset against the loss of a bit of junk storage which I can
easily make up for by putting some decent racking in the back of the
garage.

It would seem odd if my only options were to remove and replace the
porch (which I've considered, but rejected because of cost and because
I don't really want that) or to leave it to rot further...

I suppose I could wait until the LTV improves a bit first (it'll be
quite low because it was 15% to start with and prices have dropped a
bit, though I'm not in negative equity) - but I would prefer to get
the work done during the summer so I don't have such a cold kitchen
come next winter.

Removing the porch? No. Altering the lintel over? Possibly unless
replacing like-for-like. [Supplementary question - should you make an
application for it? For piddling minor work, don't bother.] If the
opening into the building requires widening then it's outside the
scope of the FENSA self-certification scheme

It does, though none of the brickwork as it is could be load bearing
in and of itself, as it only comes up to about waist height under the
window. However, I have a feeling that the current wooden door frame
may to some extent be load-bearing, as the opening is pretty much the
full width of the house (it presently has a uPVC window on one side
which will remain, a wooden single-glazed window on the other and the
door in the middle, both of which would be removed). I suspect
replacing the door and wooden window with a pair of French doors (or
for that matter a sliding patio door) may require additional support
because of the wide opening and the fact that uPVC frames are weaker
to start with.

Neil

On Apr 27, 10:43*pm, jgharston wrote:
Hugo Nebula wrote:
Removing the porch? No. Altering the lintel over? Possibly unless
replacing like-for-like. [Supplementary question - should you make an
application for it? For piddling minor work, don't bother.] If the

Normally a porch is permitted development unless a listed building
or in a conservation area, seehttp://www.planningportal.gov.uk/permission/house

Adding one, yes.

MBQ

You need to download the document SI2006 from ODPM website.

Work is Notifiable & Non-Notifiable.

You can maintain & repair any final circuit ANYWHERE.
- You can replace an existing SWA cable crossing a garden.

You can not extend or add a new final circuit in special locations
without notifying BC.
- You can not add a new SWA cable without paying a fee.
- You can not add a new final circuit to a CU.

You can modify, remove or extend any final circuit in a porch because
it is NOT a special location. However any work you do must be a) to
BS7671 and b) performed with good materials and workmanship and c)
comply with P1 of Part P / SI2006 which mandates that it be done
safely even if temporary (so no taping up live insulated cores,
disconnect at source if removing).


Of course for some BCO it seems compliance with BS7671 is not enough,
which merely moves us closer to "prescriptive code" regulations rather
than interpretative thereby de-skilling the industry like USA
electricians have become and their pay likewise. All closed shops
eventually fail one way or another, and John Prescott's will fail like
any other.

Oh, I should add.

Many insurers specifically EXCLUDE structural building work, whose
precise definition is as per their insurance policy wording.

That means if you get someone in to do structural work then *they*
need to have appropriate insurance OR you need to arrange suitable
insurance yourself. This is often not understood and has resulted in
some pretty horrible life-wrecking consequences.

It should be noted that whilst some insurers excluding structural
building work cover by contractors, they DO cover it where the work is
done by YOU - ie, you DIY remove the lintel and it all falls down.
This notwithstanding I recommend people assume all lintels & walls are
load bearing unless proven otherwise, walls can have hidden structures
inside them despite appearing "Barratt plasterboard & lollipop
sticks".

Reading your policy document is very important.

With people switching policies and shopping around, it is very easy to
assume cover where none exists. Having seen the imbecile BCO mentioned
in another thread, I strongly advise anyone doing work to have legal
insurance cover which is often cheaper than that offered by car
insurance companies.

If workmanship appears "a bit rough", assume the wiring is too and
tread accordingly - ie, buy a Fluke Voltalert to confirm the light is
dead rather than you believe it to be because you pulled a particular
fuse or circuit breaker.

On Apr 29, 1:42*pm, "js.b1" wrote:

Many insurers specifically EXCLUDE structural building work, whose
precise definition is as per their insurance policy wording.

Interestingly, I read the mortgage T&Cs and it only requires them to
be informed about "structural alterations", not all building work.
The interesting question is whether removing an obviously-DIYed lean-
to wooden porch is structural work or not. It's clearly structural to
itself, but clearly not to the house, which is otherwise (I
believe[1]) as built.

[1] As stated elsewhere in the thread, none of the other houses on the
terrace have a rear porch, and they all have pretty much the same rear
window layout.

Neil

js.b1 wrote:
You need to download the document SI2006 from ODPM website.

Work is Notifiable & Non-Notifiable.

You can maintain & repair any final circuit ANYWHERE.
- You can replace an existing SWA cable crossing a garden.

You can not extend or add a new final circuit in special locations
without notifying BC.
- You can not add a new SWA cable without paying a fee.
- You can not add a new final circuit to a CU.

You can modify, remove or extend any final circuit in a porch because
it is NOT a special location. However any work you do must be a) to
BS7671 and b) performed with good materials and workmanship and c)
comply with P1 of Part P / SI2006 which mandates that it be done
safely even if temporary (so no taping up live insulated cores,
disconnect at source if removing).

Or you could do the work correctly and keep your gob shut. Lots of people do
that.


--
Adam

On Apr 29, 2:54*pm, "ARWadsworth"
wrote:
Or you could do the work correctly and keep your gob shut. Lots of people do
that.

Shhhh... ... although that is indeed the best solution.

Whilst beautifully installed some slip up on other factors... one just
fitted a 500W PIR and tried driving into their own driveway... it was
a case of holding ones breath to see if they noticed the gate posts
through the glare. They left the car half in the road and got the
stepladder out. Taxi driver was not happy, but they seem to never be
the happiest souls...

js.b1 wrote:
You need to download the document SI2006 from ODPM website.

Work is Notifiable & Non-Notifiable.

You can maintain & repair any final circuit ANYWHERE.
- You can replace an existing SWA cable crossing a garden.

You can not extend or add a new final circuit in special locations
without notifying BC.
- You can not add a new SWA cable without paying a fee.
- You can not add a new final circuit to a CU.

You can modify, remove or extend any final circuit in a porch because
it is NOT a special location. However any work you do must be a) to
BS7671 and b) performed with good materials and workmanship and c)
comply with P1 of Part P / SI2006 which mandates that it be done
safely even if temporary (so no taping up live insulated cores,
disconnect at source if removing).


Of course for some BCO it seems compliance with BS7671 is not enough,
which merely moves us closer to "prescriptive code" regulations rather
than interpretative thereby de-skilling the industry like USA
electricians have become and their pay likewise. All closed shops
eventually fail one way or another, and John Prescott's will fail like
any other.

Having been away for a few days, a lot of the posts I can see at the moment
all begin with "" and appear to be follow-ups to some originals that I
can't see. This may be a fault of Outlook Express, or it may be something
else, I don't know, but it doesn't really matter.

The point is, you appear to have given a brilliant answer to _something_
but, because you haven't left anything of the original question/posting in
your reply it makes no sense and can be of no use to anyone who hasn't seen
the original. It is good nettiquette to snip excess or irrelevant info from
a reply but do please leave enough to make sense.

In article , Brian
writes

Having been away for a few days, a lot of the posts I can see at the moment
all begin with "" and appear to be follow-ups to some originals that I
can't see. This may be a fault of Outlook Express, or it may be something
else, I don't know, but it doesn't really matter.

The point is, you appear to have given a brilliant answer to _something_
but, because you haven't left anything of the original question/posting in
your reply it makes no sense and can be of no use to anyone who hasn't seen
the original. It is good nettiquette to snip excess or irrelevant info from
a reply but do please leave enough to make sense.

Perhaps not the best form but his post does contain the correct
"References:" header used to maintain threading of articles so if yours
are not displaying correctly then it suggests that your newsreader is
broken.
--
fred
FIVE TV's superbright logo - not the DOG's, it's ********

fred wrote:
In article , Brian
writes

Having been away for a few days, a lot of the posts I can see at the
moment all begin with "" and appear to be follow-ups to some
originals that I can't see. This may be a fault of Outlook Express,
or it may be something else, I don't know, but it doesn't really
matter. The point is, you appear to have given a brilliant answer to
_something_ but, because you haven't left anything of the original
question/posting in your reply it makes no sense and can be of no
use to anyone who hasn't seen the original. It is good nettiquette
to snip excess or irrelevant info from a reply but do please leave
enough to make sense.
Perhaps not the best form but his post does contain the correct
"References:" header used to maintain threading of articles so if
yours are not displaying correctly then it suggests that your
newsreader is broken.

Never thought to look at/for the "References header" Fred; shouldn't have
to. It's not rocket science to follow a bit of netiquette and after all,
it's just commonsense to leave some of the original post in situ for context
purposes - why on earth would you _not_ do that? Just seems that if there's
an easy and correct way to do something, why would someone go out of their
way to do it the wrong way and make it difficult for others - not everyone
is tech-savvy enough to look at/for the references header and, after all,
isn't the whole idea of the group to help others?

In article , Brian
writes
fred wrote:

Perhaps not the best form but his post does contain the correct
"References:" header used to maintain threading of articles so if
yours are not displaying correctly then it suggests that your
newsreader is broken.

Never thought to look at/for the "References header" Fred; shouldn't have
to.

Which ignores my point completely, I was pointing out that if your
newsreader doesn't correctly thread an article that contains that header
it is broken.

You wouldn't have any problem gaining the context of those replies if
they were in the correct thread position.
--
fred
FIVE TV's superbright logo - not the DOG's, it's ********

fred wrote:
In article , Brian
writes
fred wrote:

Perhaps not the best form but his post does contain the correct
"References:" header used to maintain threading of articles so if
yours are not displaying correctly then it suggests that your
newsreader is broken.

Never thought to look at/for the "References header" Fred; shouldn't
have to.

Which ignores my point completely, I was pointing out that if your
newsreader doesn't correctly thread an article that contains that
header it is broken.

You wouldn't have any problem gaining the context of those replies if
they were in the correct thread position.

Which ignores my point completely - js.b1 should just learn to do things the
correct way. For whatever (unimportant and irrelevant) reason, my newsreader
did not download the original message, only js.b1's reply to something, but
because js.b1 had not left ANY of the text to which he/she was replying to
in there, his/her reply made no sense and so is rendered useless. For all I
know, there may have been a dozen messages in the thread before his/hers and
he/she could have been replying to any one of them. Without any context or
any idea of who or what he/she is replying to, what sense does it make? Why
take all that time and trouble to reply but not do it properly?

Of course, it's not a legal requirement and the world will not come to an
end because js.b1 didn't reply properly, but it's a convention and a
guideline that has been around for a long time, the purpose of which is to
make things easier for everyone - and that is more important than ever these
days because of the web interfaces to usenet that are cropping up and being
used rather than proper, dedicated usenet clients.

I just do not understand why someone would deliberately choose to use an
incorrect method that makes things awkward, when the whole purpose of the
group - and his/her reply to a post - is to help others, and for which a
correct method both exists and is easy to implement.

In article , Brian
writes
fred wrote:
In article , Brian
writes
fred wrote:

Perhaps not the best form but his post does contain the correct
"References:" header used to maintain threading of articles so if
yours are not displaying correctly then it suggests that your
newsreader is broken.

Never thought to look at/for the "References header" Fred; shouldn't
have to.

Which ignores my point completely, I was pointing out that if your
newsreader doesn't correctly thread an article that contains that
header it is broken.

You wouldn't have any problem gaining the context of those replies if
they were in the correct thread position.

I just do not understand why someone would deliberately choose to use an
incorrect method that makes things awkward, when the whole purpose of the
group - and his/her reply to a post - is to help others, and for which a
correct method both exists and is easy to implement.

Boo hoo, you can either stew in the corner about it or you can use RFC
compliant tools that minimise the impact of others behaviour on your
browsing enjoyment. I've suggested a workaround for you, it's up to you
whether you use it or not.
--
fred
FIVE TV's superbright logo - not the DOG's, it's ********

fred wrote:
In article , Brian
writes
fred wrote:
In article , Brian
writes
fred wrote:

Perhaps not the best form but his post does contain the correct
"References:" header used to maintain threading of articles so if
yours are not displaying correctly then it suggests that your
newsreader is broken.

Never thought to look at/for the "References header" Fred;
shouldn't have to.

Which ignores my point completely, I was pointing out that if your
newsreader doesn't correctly thread an article that contains that
header it is broken.

You wouldn't have any problem gaining the context of those replies
if they were in the correct thread position.

I just do not understand why someone would deliberately choose to
use an incorrect method that makes things awkward, when the whole
purpose of the group - and his/her reply to a post - is to help
others, and for which a correct method both exists and is easy to
implement.
Boo hoo, you can either stew in the corner about it or you can use RFC
compliant tools that minimise the impact of others behaviour on your
browsing enjoyment. I've suggested a workaround for you, it's up to
you whether you use it or not.

Which ignores my point completely - js.b1 should just learn to do things the
correct way. For whatever (unimportant and irrelevant) reason, my newsreader
did not download the original message, only js.b1's reply to something, but
because js.b1 had not left ANY of the text to which he/she was replying to
in there, his/her reply made no sense and so is rendered useless. For all I
know, there may have been a dozen messages in the thread before his/hers and
he/she could have been replying to any one of them. Without any context or
any idea of who or what he/she is replying to, what sense does it make? Why
take all that time and trouble to reply but not do it properly?

In article , Brian
writes
fred wrote:

Boo hoo, you can either stew in the corner about it or you can use RFC
compliant tools that minimise the impact of others behaviour on your
browsing enjoyment. I've suggested a workaround for you, it's up to
you whether you use it or not.

Which ignores my point completely - js.b1 should just learn to do things the
correct way.

Too funny, get over yourself, nitee . . . . .
--
fred
FIVE TV's superbright logo - not the DOG's, it's ********

I agree with you. It was bloody ignorant

--
Adam

ARWadsworth wrote:
I agree with you. It was bloody ignorant

:-)