Conservatory or extension -Building regs?

diamond_dave wrote: »

Thanks for your input, Doozergirl. I really wanted someone to clarify the situation with BR's as I've checked many websites and spoken to people in the know and I can get NO definitive answer.I take issue with you on 2 points: I have tried to get and pay for professional advice but many surveyors don't want to know. I have arranged a homebuyers survey for next week -but I'm not sure whether they they will be able to tell me anything concrete. Secondly, to say that the reason that the installation company did not go for regs was to make it cheaper than a proper extension is proper nonsense, if you don't mind me saying. I don't really understand your snide comments on the roof construction.The extension has been built, it is very well built by a reputable company - with a 10 year warranty. I doubt that your Master Builders Award winning company would offer such a warranty/guarantee. I was merely asking for your advice on the building regs situation which you seem unable/unwilling to give.Many Thanks

I suspect the reason that you don't have a definitive reason is that you aren't hearing what you want to hear.

You should not be running your heating system into a conservatory. The point I make is that if it is connected up then the whole thing has to be classed as an extension. An extension is very much different to a conservatory. The chances of enforcement are slim, but the cheapest solution is to remove the radiator because it puts the building back to an exempt status - there are no expectations of it. It's not worth purchasing an indemnity policy for because the cost of removing the rad is potentially zero.

Many companies market that their 'buildings' are exempt from planning and building control. It is central to their marketing, along with the fact that they are cheaper than a correctly built, conforming extension. If they weren't cheaper than buildings which conform to building control then they would be blatantly ripping people off!

Guardian roofs themselves are designed to 'upgrade' conservatories at a high cost, when you are ultimately left with a building that is still not thermally efficient or compliant with regs, just 'exempt'. It might be better than polycarb, but the u-values achieved are insufficient for an extension. It is nonsensical to me to upgrade something at great cost for it to not conform or add value to a house. It is pure marketing.

Nothing snide about it. The owner of your home has essentially cheated in trying to create an extension. If their intention was to use it as a proper room with an insulated roof and heating connected to the boiler then it should be built to building regulations and have a completion certificate.

I am able offer a 10 year insurance backed guarantee on any work we carry out. My company will never offer a service that does not conform to building regulations. There's no nonsense there at all. Straight forward, high quality with a certificate at the end to say it has all been inspected and is compliant with the high levels expected in this country. No smoke and mirrors, no questions.

The very fact that this subject has a thread is because it is a problem. If your vendors has built a proper extension with a completion certificate? No thread. You're wanting this to be something it isn't. But it isn't even your house yet.

diamond_dave wrote: »

Hi Comicgeek I missed your post which seems to answer my questions. You appear to have nailed it regards the heating but I guess that as the structure is in place with a rad fed from the main heating system her only options are 1) Buy property as is and enjoy it 2) get indemnity insurance, buy property and enjoy it. She cannot get BR's now so no point worrying about it. As said before I don't understand why the vendors/installers didn't check with LABC before going ahead but He,Ho onwards and upwards.

Personally I wouldn't both getting indemnity insurance, it's such a minor issue that it's a waste of money. If it gets expensive heating the conservatory with a radiator, then your daughter can always turn it off with the TRV. The compliant alternative would have been to fit an electric heater in the conservatory, which would have cost much more to run, so actually you should be thankful that the vendor hasn't done this in a compliant way!

The vendor wouldn't have been able to get Bldg Regs at the time so no point checking with LABC then - the conservatory is exempt and the radiator is non compliant. If they wanted a sun room with connected radiators then they would have needed to pay for a more expensive extension rather than a conservatory.

The latest versions of Bldg Regs omitted the requirement for conservatories to have glazed roofs, so the fact that it has a solid roof still means it's a conservatory.

I agree.

Because of the idea of exemption, the BCO isn't invited to look anyway.

If they were there for other reasons I can only imagine that the worst they would do is request removal as a bartering tool against a completion certificate elsewhere.

I can't work out why it's okay to have a separate heater out there at all when most conservatories will haemorrhage the heat.