Clarification of Building Regulations for a porch?

silvercar

wookie6 wrote: »

So what happens in this scenario? You go to buy a house, find the porch doesn't meet building regs for what ever reason... what happens then?

Doozergirl wrote: »

You'd just apply for building control approval if you'd conformed to regs. Have approval for the 'extension'.

As Doozer says, you apply for approval if you'd conformed. If not, you take out an indemnity policy to cover the council taking any action (which they can't do if the porch has existed for over a year and are very unlikely to do in any case). Costs £40-£100.

Furts

silvercar wrote: »

As Doozer says, you apply for approval if you'd conformed. If not, you take out an indemnity policy to cover the council taking any action (which they can't do if the porch has existed for over a year and are very unlikely to do in any case). Costs £40-£100.

Many times on mse forum somebody says take out an idemnity policy. One should stand back and analyse what this really means. This reality is a consumer is breaking the Law with regards Building Regulations. This is a conscious action. Even if ignorance is professed then ignorance is no excuse in law. So whether conscious, or unconscious, this behaviour it is still illegal behaviour.


Instead of having morals, ethics, and values the consumer then pays an insurance company to protect them from prosecution. This concept is no different to gangland mob ethics.

All this is also outright selfish behaviour. Why? Because the Buildings Regualtions exist for the well being of everybody - visitors, third parties, future owners, future tenants, disabled, young old and so on. The consumer does not have the jurisdiction to decide what actions suit their selfish considerations.

Genuine people follow genuine rules and do the genuine, decent thing. It amazes me that the concept of idemnity insuarance keeps getting touted around this Forum

Doozergirl

Furts wrote: »

Genuine people follow genuine rules and do the genuine, decent thing. It amazes me that the concept of idemnity insuarance keeps getting touted around this Forum

It doesn't surprise me. Lenders want their risk covered and it's a large minority of houses that have these issues. You can't even double check whether approval is in place if it doesn't show up on the searches as it would invalidate any potential policy. I know that our house has more permissions than can be seen on the searches as I had the full planning history sent to me a few years go.

Solicitors knowledge of what does and doesn't need permission is patchy at best. I dread to think how many utterly un-necessary policies are purchased or sales fall through, even, where solicitors make mistakes. We all know they're useless pieces of paper anyway.

What is deeply ironic is that lenders effectively demand these policies for relatively minor works, when compared to the fact that most houses are Period houses and built on virtually nonexistent foundations for a start.

The real issue isn't the indemnity policy. There's no guarantees that the house is in the same condition that it was when even BCA was saught; no guarantee that there hasn't been subsequent work, no guarantee that new BCA with a vague title (which they all have) doesn't end up coverage previous non-compliant work. (eg. "New Windows" - how many and where? You only see the headline)

It's fine to recommend indemnity policies. What it should go hand in hand with, without fail, is that you purchase the indemnity policy only if you and your surveyor/structural engineer are satisfied that the work carried out is safe. We do know that houses will stand up even when work falls short of Building Regulations, because the houses themselves almost always aren't built to the same standards. The fireproofing around the RSJ we put in here isn't going to help much when the rest of the house has burnt down and given way.

I think that people in the past were happy to bypass the regulations. I think that the requirement that mortgage lenders put in place is helping to tidy building work up and get people to follow proper procedures when they have work carried out. Most of the time when this crops up on the forum, the work is pretty old. I think that's a sign of improving standards and expectations.

In the case of a porch that doesn't meet regs, I'd be putting the door on it, not buying a policy.

wookie6

Doozergirl - You seem very knowledgeable on this subject. If replacing an existing external door with a new external door (this door is now inside the property), does the replacement external door need to have a lock? (as the previous external door would have done prior to the porch being built) or can you just have a normal open / close handle on the replacement external door?

Doozergirl

It's the door that is important to retain heat in the house, not the lock. As long as it shuts, it's fine.

wookie6

Thanks again, much appreciated!