Compliance here may be a grey area.
The building regulations affected may include Parts A, B, C, D, F, K and L.
I'm not certain where the line is drawn when undertaking attic conversions for storage purposes only.
The increased floor loading suggests you should upgrade the timber bearers to safely transmit the extra loads.
Flooring out means your 300mm insulation will be compressed to the depth of the floor joists.
You can argue the toss that the stored goods represent additional "insulation" but there is no guarantee that these will all be insulators.
Also unless you have wall to wall boxes of paper any additional "insulation" will be hit and miss.
This suggests you should go the whole hog and insulate between and under the roof rafters to the required depth, taking care to preserve the required level of interstitial ventilation and to address any cold bridging at the wall plate.
IN addition, while the attic may not be a habitable room, it is a storage space, like a garage, and a huge amount of flammable materials may end up stored there.
If you have downlighters at first floor level, these will become enclosed by the flooring out regardless and you should consider installing FR30 fire hoods to the lights and automatic shut down transformers which react to heat build up.
If there is a stairs access, as opposed to a Staighre, the definition is blurred still further - whatever about the planning definition, it then becomes a place children will have easy access to.
This in turn needs the stairs design to be addressed to comply with Part K, including establishing the minimum rise and going is installed.
Also if winder steps are used, the minimum width at the narrow end of 75mm should be installed, because not to do so at either end will tend to lead to falls, possibly resulting on concussion or broken bones.
This is not an exaggeration - I know of one person who has suffered a fall in just this way and was injured.
Because of all these issues, I think it is advisable to detail the rest of the house with such an attic space AS IF it were a "full" conversion.
This includes upgrading the Fire Detection and Alarm System, protecting the fire escape route and and/or providing alternative escape via dormer or velux windows properly sized and positioned.
Ceiling Height is an advisory matter, not a mandatory matter.
A Fire Escape Route requires a minimum head height of 2M clear, into which a door frame may intrude a certain amount.
However, the DOE advisory leaflet on attic conversions shows a 1.9M head height over an attic stair access suggesting that even this may not be set in stone, perhaps based on the limited usage and/or the customary use of this space as children's' bedroom accommodation.
So, in summary, a bit of a grey area, but the measures to keep it as safe as possible are known and I would certainly look for them to be installed if I was inspecting.
FWIW
ONQ.
[broken link removed]
Regarding the original certification [even were this limited to visual inspection only] if you can see now from visual inspection that the work is non-compliant, then the original cert may have been issued improperly for the purposes of giving comfort to the purchaser to allow a sale to proceed. ONQ.
Quite, but as I haven't inspected I am not in a position to state this definitively. What I am aiming to do is just point out a few items of concern to the Op and bring some common sense to my replies. Its all too easy to end up finger pointing to no end - see my comments on legal action belowComfort the purchaser? False certification is fraud.
Any house commenced after the 1st day of June 1992 requires to be built in compliance with the Building Regulations 1991 as amended.Any house build after july 1992 must have a Certificate of Compliance with Building Control.
I doubt it, which is why I played down the whole legal thing so as not to excite the OP - if the house is built and improperly certified more than six years I think you'll find the Statute of Limitations probably applies. Even if its within the six years, what will legal action gain the OP? A bigger house? The works redone free of charge? Unlikely.The Certificates should be with the Deeds of the property. If someone falsely "issue" a Certificate of Compliance then you will have an excellent legal case against them.
Works completed prior to the 13th December 1989 are deemed to have Bye-Law Approval, whether or not they were built in compliance with the Building Bye Laws or not, unless enforcement action had already issued.If the house was build before 1992 then the attic conversion may well be "Exemppted Development".
While the building professionals you mention are competent enough within their own fields, the OP's best bet is probably to retain an architect who knows his way around the various Acts and Regulations.Retain the services of an experienced Arch Technician, Building Surveyor or Engineer for advise based on a visual inspection of your attic.
if the house is built and improperly certified more than six years I think you'll find the Statute of Limitations probably applies. Even if its within the six years, what will legal action gain the OP? A bigger house? The works redone free of charge? Unlikely.
Anyone operating without P.I cover is IMO a cowboy. Certificates of Compliance are required from the Seller. A Building Survey is not a Certificate of Compliance. The Surveyor may spot non-compliant issues and report same but a Survey primarily deals with structural integrity. IMO all Solicitors have required a copy of P.I insurance for over a decade. The Law Society can confirm this.Many small offices or one man bands operate without P.I. cover and may be a man-of-straw or an unqualified individual. The court may expect to see that the purchaser was aware of the caveat emptor rule and made sure themselves that the property was compliant by having it surveyed by a competent building professional.
If you suffer a loss due to fraud etc you are entitled to compensation. The Courts are very busy with such cases.Either way, only someone very brave or very foolhardy contemplates legal action in such cases.
I wish you were correct but alast you are not. IMO The Statute of Limitations will not apply to a false certification because it can be proved that the Architect knew it didn't comply but certified that it did comply - simple fraud.
But as ONQ says, it is worth the bother of going to court?
For example I have a 'lean to' extension on a house I bought. I have both a Certificate of Compliance and Survey saying it is sound/meets requirements etc. However, it has a 10 degree roof pitch and standard concrete tiles which require at least 25 degrees. No to mention the slight dip in the middle from the weight of the tiles. As you can guess it leaks like a sieve in driving rain and the felt has now rotted. All builders/roofers who have seen it say the fault is basic and obvious.
So do I:
A, Sue the architect and his company who issued the Certificate of Compliance. AFAIK, the surveys are not worth the paper they are written on.
B, Curse the two different architects under my breath and fork out 3.5-4.0k from my pocket for replacing the roof.
<snip>
ONQ I would prefer to call this an "interesting debate" and I do hope there will be many more - in a friendly, respectful and courtious atmosphere.
RKQ
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?