Hopefully a non-contentious topic (unlike my last post on solar heating!)

Next year (according to the grand plan) we should be replacing our decrepit conservatory. Now that
the regulations on conservatories seem to have changed (no stipulations about percentage glass etc), it
would be possible to re-build with solid walls and roof. ( Of course the possible PD changes may even
make sizing a little more flexible but that's no big deal from this POV).

Clearly, this enables decent insulation values to be achieved (which is desirable in any case) and so the
structure starts to come close to being an extension, from a building regulations viewpoint, especially
as footings and floor slab will be re-built as part of the process. Of course, there are other elements to
complying with BR but I guess my point is that the distinction between the two sort of merges.

Other aspects that come to mind are that heating in a conservatory has to be controlled independently
of the main house system (but it seems that would be implemented in any modern extension), while
wiring in a conservatory should probably be 'external' (but that sort of blurs with RCDs on everything
anyway). Also, the doors into the space have to be 'external', but they are in place anyway and I
probably wouldn't change them in a hurry. (Too big to get easily as internal doors.)

I suspect that keeping it as a conservatory would allow for a more 'creative' approach in design (as not
every last BR box needs to be ticked) but then again creativity isn't always as good as boring old good
quality building. (How do those glass boxes they build on the telly get past building regulations
anyway? Maybe it's special magic glass.) And of course, it would be a bit cheaper for the same build if
there was no BCO involvement.

In the end, the real question is what are the pros and cons of having either a conservatory or an
extension, cost and hassle during construction notwithstanding? Is there an essential practical
difference (house value, danger of higher council tax etc etc) or is it simply a philosophical distinction
at that point?

GMM wrote:
Hopefully a non-contentious topic (unlike my last post on solar
heating!)

Next year (according to the grand plan) we should be replacing our
decrepit conservatory. Now that
the regulations on conservatories seem to have changed (no
stipulations about percentage glass etc), it would be possible to
re-build with solid walls and roof. ( Of course the possible PD
changes may even make sizing a little more flexible but that's no big
deal from this POV).

Clearly, this enables decent insulation values to be achieved (which
is desirable in any case) and so the structure starts to come close
to being an extension, from a building regulations viewpoint,
especially
as footings and floor slab will be re-built as part of the process.
Of course, there are other elements to complying with BR but I guess
my point is that the distinction between the two sort of merges.

Other aspects that come to mind are that heating in a conservatory
has to be controlled independently
of the main house system (but it seems that would be implemented in
any modern extension), while
wiring in a conservatory should probably be 'external' (but that sort
of blurs with RCDs on everything anyway). Also, the doors into the
space have to be 'external', but they are in place anyway and I
probably wouldn't change them in a hurry. (Too big to get easily as
internal doors.)

I suspect that keeping it as a conservatory would allow for a more
'creative' approach in design (as not every last BR box needs to be
ticked) but then again creativity isn't always as good as boring old
good quality building. (How do those glass boxes they build on the
telly get past building regulations
anyway? Maybe it's special magic glass.) And of course, it would be
a bit cheaper for the same build if there was no BCO involvement.

In the end, the real question is what are the pros and cons of having
either a conservatory or an extension, cost and hassle during
construction notwithstanding? Is there an essential practical
difference (house value, danger of higher council tax etc etc) or is
it simply a philosophical distinction at that point?


I've read this twice and still not sure what you are asking or telling us.

If you are undecided whether to have a conservatory or an extension in place
of what you have now, no one can answer that but yourself.

Do you *need* the space for a new kitchen? - bathroom/shower? - bedroom?

if not, then it's unlikely you *need* the space at all, at which point it
becomes folly, IE a conservatory / greenhouse / junkroom.

What I'm saying is, don't build something that's not needed{1}s it often
puts off potential buyers. A conservatory might be a nice *addition* but IME
vast experience, they rarely are.

I must have worked on a few thousand houses in the past decade and I've only
seen one that I liked, it was brick built with lots of windows at 4ft, with
brick panels between the windows and four or five 'velux' roof lights - lots
of natural light, but plenty of wall space inside where units, furniture etc
could be put, also radiators, making it not too hot nor cold - the major
drawback of glass boxes with polycarb rooves.


{1}
My house has a kitchen extension, but the entrance to it is where the old
kitchen was, which is now part of the living space, except it's pretty
useless space as it has a door at each 'end', so apart from having a more
spacious kitchen, the space previously occupied by said kitchen is now
pretty much wasted as there's little natural light, IE a dark corridor.

On Wednesday, September 26, 2012 2:31:21 PM UTC+1, Phil L wrote:
GMM wrote:

Hopefully a non-contentious topic (unlike my last post on solar

heating!)



Next year (according to the grand plan) we should be replacing our

decrepit conservatory. Now that

the regulations on conservatories seem to have changed (no

stipulations about percentage glass etc), it would be possible to

re-build with solid walls and roof. ( Of course the possible PD

changes may even make sizing a little more flexible but that's no big

deal from this POV).



Clearly, this enables decent insulation values to be achieved (which

is desirable in any case) and so the structure starts to come close

to being an extension, from a building regulations viewpoint,

especially

as footings and floor slab will be re-built as part of the process.

Of course, there are other elements to complying with BR but I guess

my point is that the distinction between the two sort of merges.



Other aspects that come to mind are that heating in a conservatory

has to be controlled independently

of the main house system (but it seems that would be implemented in

any modern extension), while

wiring in a conservatory should probably be 'external' (but that sort

of blurs with RCDs on everything anyway). Also, the doors into the

space have to be 'external', but they are in place anyway and I

probably wouldn't change them in a hurry. (Too big to get easily as

internal doors.)



I suspect that keeping it as a conservatory would allow for a more

'creative' approach in design (as not every last BR box needs to be

ticked) but then again creativity isn't always as good as boring old

good quality building. (How do those glass boxes they build on the

telly get past building regulations

anyway? Maybe it's special magic glass.) And of course, it would be

a bit cheaper for the same build if there was no BCO involvement.



In the end, the real question is what are the pros and cons of having

either a conservatory or an extension, cost and hassle during

construction notwithstanding? Is there an essential practical

difference (house value, danger of higher council tax etc etc) or is

it simply a philosophical distinction at that point?





I've read this twice and still not sure what you are asking or telling us.



If you are undecided whether to have a conservatory or an extension in place

of what you have now, no one can answer that but yourself.



Do you *need* the space for a new kitchen? - bathroom/shower? - bedroom?



if not, then it's unlikely you *need* the space at all, at which point it

becomes folly, IE a conservatory / greenhouse / junkroom.



What I'm saying is, don't build something that's not needed{1}s it often

puts off potential buyers. A conservatory might be a nice *addition* but IME

vast experience, they rarely are.



I must have worked on a few thousand houses in the past decade and I've only

seen one that I liked, it was brick built with lots of windows at 4ft, with

brick panels between the windows and four or five 'velux' roof lights - lots

of natural light, but plenty of wall space inside where units, furniture etc

could be put, also radiators, making it not too hot nor cold - the major

drawback of glass boxes with polycarb rooves.





{1}

My house has a kitchen extension, but the entrance to it is where the old

kitchen was, which is now part of the living space, except it's pretty

useless space as it has a door at each 'end', so apart from having a more

spacious kitchen, the space previously occupied by said kitchen is now

pretty much wasted as there's little natural light, IE a dark corridor.

Sorry, I thought I had been clear but obviously not (!)

I already have a conservatory, which is getting to the end of its life (moved in last year and knew this).
I'm going to rebuild it because it's a good thing to have in that location and useful to us (even at
present when it leaks etc etc).

Now that the rules have changed on what makes a conservatory (i.e. no need for 75% glass on the roof and 50% on the walls any more) I have been planning to replace with something a bit like what you
describe.

If built at the right standard, that could then comply with building regs and become an extension
(so long as it is approved by the BCO). The aim would be to re-build at modern standards of insulation
etc anyway, but BR approval adds to the complexity of the process a bit.

So the question was, what are the pros and cons of having it classed as one or the other or doesn't it
really matter which it is?

On 26/09/2012 10:17, GMM wrote:

Hopefully a non-contentious topic (unlike my last post on solar heating!)

now dribble is back, who knows? ;-))

Next year (according to the grand plan) we should be replacing our decrepit conservatory. Now that
the regulations on conservatories seem to have changed (no stipulations about percentage glass etc), it
would be possible to re-build with solid walls and roof. ( Of course the possible PD changes may even
make sizing a little more flexible but that's no big deal from this POV).

Clearly, this enables decent insulation values to be achieved (which is desirable in any case) and so the
structure starts to come close to being an extension, from a building regulations viewpoint, especially
as footings and floor slab will be re-built as part of the process. Of course, there are other elements to
complying with BR but I guess my point is that the distinction between the two sort of merges.

Other aspects that come to mind are that heating in a conservatory has to be controlled independently
of the main house system (but it seems that would be implemented in any modern extension), while
wiring in a conservatory should probably be 'external' (but that sort of blurs with RCDs on everything
anyway). Also, the doors into the space have to be 'external', but they are in place anyway and I
probably wouldn't change them in a hurry. (Too big to get easily as internal doors.)

I suspect that keeping it as a conservatory would allow for a more 'creative' approach in design (as not
every last BR box needs to be ticked) but then again creativity isn't always as good as boring old good
quality building. (How do those glass boxes they build on the telly get past building regulations
anyway? Maybe it's special magic glass.)

Probably by taking a "whole house" assessment approach where you can
offset some real energy inefficiency in one area with some gain in
another (or more likely with some decorative token gesture in another
like solar panels for your hot water heating! ;-)

And of course, it would be a bit cheaper for the same build if
there was no BCO involvement.

In the grand scheme of things its not going to make that much difference.

In the end, the real question is what are the pros and cons of having either a conservatory or an
extension, cost and hassle during construction notwithstanding? Is there an essential practical
difference (house value, danger of higher council tax etc etc) or is it simply a philosophical distinction
at that point?

I expect a proper extension adds more value and benefit, although it
does to an extent depend on what space you already have. If the
downstairs layout is already spacious and has all the rooms one is
likely to need, then a conservatory to overlook a nice garden etc might
be preferable.

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 26/09/2012 15:01, GMM wrote:

So the question was, what are the pros and cons of having it classed as one or the other or doesn't it
really matter which it is?

Should have added in my last post - the council tax thing only really
matters if you are close to the upper limit of your assessment band
anyway. When I converted the loft at the previous house it caused it to
be reassessed, but it stayed in the same band.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On Friday, September 28, 2012 1:29:20 AM UTC+1, John Rumm wrote:
On 26/09/2012 15:01, GMM wrote:



So the question was, what are the pros and cons of having it classed as one or the other or doesn't it

really matter which it is?



Should have added in my last post - the council tax thing only really

matters if you are close to the upper limit of your assessment band

anyway. When I converted the loft at the previous house it caused it to

be reassessed, but it stayed in the same band.





--

Cheers,



John.



/================================================== ===============\

| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |

|-----------------------------------------------------------------|

| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |

\================================================= ================/

So (as I suspected) it's swings and roundabouts, with no compelling reason to make it one or the other?

The structure itself would probably be pretty much the same regardless of classification: Although
there are attractions to the 'light and airy' classical conservatory, the south facing location makes the
existing glass one uncomfortably hot in summer (even this year!), so a shadier design would be better
and this would allow a decent level of insulation (i.e. building regs standard) which, in turn, will effectively insulate the house walls adjacent to it. This would also extend the useful 'season' for it to
year-round.

Whether the hazard of tax rebanding would be offset by increased resale value is something I'll have to
look into: I have a sneaking suspicion we are already in the top band and, although I'm here for the
long haul, it's bound to be sold one day.

I'm sort of tempted to take the view that we're doing it for our own purposes and so make it as simple
as possible and call it a conservatory, which would allow more flexibility in design, materials etc.. I'm
mindful however, of the fact that BR approval isn't a simple thing to do retrospectively ( a friend of mine had the BCO drilling cores in his kitchen extension to verify the construction because
his builder hadn't followed the inspection timetable!) so the decision between the two classifications is
best made early.

The greatest practical issue is really whether the permitted development changes proposed a few
weeks ago actually go through. Although I have no aspirations to a huge increase in size (currently
based on replacement at around 4m deep by 6 wide) these changes may allow a bit of flexibility
without going for the dreaded PP (of which I have a few applications on the go at present, for the front,
so planning could easily get bored with seeing my name!).

Cheers
G

On Friday, September 28, 2012 10:51:12 AM UTC+1, Owain wrote:
On Sep 26, 10:17*am, GMM wrote:

In the end, the real question is what are the pros and cons of having either a conservatory or an

extension, cost and hassle during construction notwithstanding? *Is there an essential practical

difference (house value, danger of higher council tax etc etc) or is it simply a philosophical distinction

at that point?



A conservatory is *just* a conservatory.



An extra room is an extra room, can be advertised as such, and is more

likely to add value to the house as it is extra space.



As Mr Rumm says, there are situations where a house has all the space

it needs and a conservatory is nice. But if it's a single storey

extension you may be able to make a roof terrace on top.



Owain

Well, that's sort of the way I was thinking (though I doubt the roof terrace would work!), except that
with the current regulations (no longer any minimum amount of glazing needed for a conservatory),
the two structures can be identical and the distinction seems to be whether BR approval is gained.
Given that most of most houses is not compliant with current BR, it seems a pretty vague difference to
me (depending on the design of the structure).

Having said that, my next door neighbour (of the adjoining semi) has coincidentally just submitted PP
to build almost exactly what I had in mind, so there may be a benefit in coordinating with him to
some extent and he will be getting BR approval as an extension, so the question may answer itself!

GMM wrote:

On Friday, September 28, 2012 10:51:12 AM UTC+1, Owain wrote:
On Sep 26, 10:17 am, GMM wrote:

In the end, the real question is what are the pros and cons of having
either a conservatory or an

extension, cost and hassle during construction notwithstanding? Is
there an essential practical

difference (house value, danger of higher council tax etc etc) or is it
simply a philosophical distinction

at that point?



A conservatory is *just* a conservatory.



An extra room is an extra room, can be advertised as such, and is more

likely to add value to the house as it is extra space.



As Mr Rumm says, there are situations where a house has all the space

it needs and a conservatory is nice. But if it's a single storey

extension you may be able to make a roof terrace on top.



Owain

Well, that's sort of the way I was thinking (though I doubt the roof
terrace would work!), except that with the current regulations (no longer
any minimum amount of glazing needed for a conservatory),

When I checked teh other day, the glazing requirement had been removed from
the planning side, but not the building regs side.


--
Tim Watts
Personal Blog: http://www.dionic.net/tim/

"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject."

On Monday, October 1, 2012 12:55:52 PM UTC+1, Tim Watts wrote:
GMM wrote:



On Friday, September 28, 2012 10:51:12 AM UTC+1, Owain wrote:

On Sep 26, 10:17 am, GMM wrote:



In the end, the real question is what are the pros and cons of having

either a conservatory or an



extension, cost and hassle during construction notwithstanding? Is

there an essential practical



difference (house value, danger of higher council tax etc etc) or is it

simply a philosophical distinction



at that point?







A conservatory is *just* a conservatory.







An extra room is an extra room, can be advertised as such, and is more



likely to add value to the house as it is extra space.







As Mr Rumm says, there are situations where a house has all the space



it needs and a conservatory is nice. But if it's a single storey



extension you may be able to make a roof terrace on top.







Owain



Well, that's sort of the way I was thinking (though I doubt the roof

terrace would work!), except that with the current regulations (no longer

any minimum amount of glazing needed for a conservatory),



When I checked teh other day, the glazing requirement had been removed from

the planning side, but not the building regs side.





--

Tim Watts

Personal Blog: http://www.dionic.net/tim/



"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject."

Sorry Tim, that's what I meant originally (probably lost in translation though): The nature of the structure can be the same (i.e. no glazing requirements), although you still have to have external doors into the space, separate heating controls etc. But meeting those specs would;t disqualify the structure from BR approval for an extension, as far as I can see.