Buying An Old House With An Attic Conversion.

Monkeynutz_3

Hilfe Hilfe!
We're in the advanced stages of buying a 100+ year old property that has at some stage had the attic converted. The house was built in 1870ish and converted into 2 semi detached houses in 1920ish. We have a couple of photographs of the house in 1955 that clearly shows the attic window, but we don't know exactly when this was done.
Researching on t'net, I found that we could apply for a regularisation if the work was done after 1983, but there seems to be very little info on what we can do if it was before then. The house is being sold/valued as a 3 bedroom property, with the 3rd bedroom being the attic conversion. Obviously it's grossly over valued if the attic cannot be classed as a bedroom and our mortgage lenders will freeze our mortgage because of this (plus we'll lose money when we sell).
So, what's the crack here? The conversion was done before building regs applied and the planning is lost/in some dusty council dungeon somewhere/never applied for. This can't be that unusual surely?
We're having a structural report done anyway, which we think should be ok due to there not being any obvious signs of the ceiling moving under the weight of the attic being used for storage/living space etc, which we thought you would expect after 50+ years had they not replaced the ceiling joists with sturdier ones at the point of converting it.
Anyone work in the trade or been in a similar situation themselves?
The house is a real cracker and we don't want to walk, but we reallise that we may have to.

Doozergirl

Are you sure the loft isn't original? Some house do have rooms in the eaves. I'd be surprised if loft conversions were invented pre-1950s, LOL!

Your structural survey will give you a definitive answer on whether it is safe. If it is structurally sound, there is no issue at all.

I have no idea what a 'regularisation' is, it's not necessary whatever it is though. Whatever was carried out pre-building regs does not need building regs at all. Most people panic about extensions and loft conversions on older houses, when the fact is that the house probably never had planning permission or building regs. So mortgage lenders are happy eith buildings pre-building regs but cautious after.

Monkeynutz_3

Doozergirl wrote: »

Are you sure the loft isn't original? Some house do have rooms in the eaves. I'd be surprised if loft conversions were invented pre-1950s, LOL!

!!!!!1 That's it! (Maybe). The eaves are extremely high compared to the other houses in the street without attic rooms, so maybe you've got it there. I've relayed it to our solicitors and they'll look into it a bit. I guess a structural engineer could have a stab at dating it too.

Richard_Webster

Doozergirl wrote: »

Are you sure the loft isn't original? Some house do have rooms in the eaves. I'd be surprised if loft conversions were invented pre-1950s, LOL!

Your structural survey will give you a definitive answer on whether it is safe. If it is structurally sound, there is no issue at all.

I have no idea what a 'regularisation' is, it's not necessary whatever it is though. Whatever was carried out pre-building regs does not need building regs at all. Most people panic about extensions and loft conversions on older houses, when the fact is that the house probably never had planning permission or building regs. So mortgage lenders are happy eith buildings pre-building regs but cautious after.

As often is the case, I agree generally with Doozergirl's common sense approach.

I can't think why your solicitors should be wasting time on an issue like this. As far as everybody is concerned the work was done aeons ago before building regs were relevant - and frankly the Council is not going to expend vast amounts of staff time trying to prove the contrary -it hasn't got the resources for that and the local press would make it look silly if it did.

The fact that there are so many attic rooms etc and other features in older houses that would not be acceptable if built now, puts the whole business of checking building reg compliance into context. Solicitors have to do it because clients and lenders expect us to, but I can't understand a client who gets neurotic about say, the safety of some modern work which might not comply, and yet ignores completely the safety issues that could apply to work done many years ago.

As a conveyancing solicitor I believe the information given in the post to be useful but I accept no liability except to fee-paying clients

Monkeynutz_3

Thanks both! Really helpful info. Cheers.

fimonkey

But you MUST get a decent survey done to know for sure that the roof is OK! Just had a very similar problem myself, paid for a full structural survey seeing as there was nothing in the searches, and found that the roof is structurally unsafe and the purlings? (is that how it's spelt) need replacing!

Doozergirl

They're purlins. I thought it was my builder's common way of talking too. LOL!