Re-roof Conservatory - Building Regs

kazza61

Hi,
I recently bought a new house where the previous owner has had a lightweight roofing system installed in place of the original glazed roof. It is very nice and makes the room much more usable. Both the vendor and the installer advise that adding this roof did not require building regs quoting (some) of the standards for a reg free conservatory. Having now investigated further, and spoken to the city council, it is clear that to be free of building regs, a conservatory (among other things) must have a roof that is at least 75% translucent. Indeed, I am advised, that among other things, they would want to check weight loading and that the base of the conservatory foundations are deep enough to support this type of roof.
So yesterday, I rang a number of these installers all of whom told me no regs were needed either because their roofs 'met the standard' 'had a guarantee' or quoted me (incorrectly) the conservatory building rules.
This seems like a major issue. I see lots of these about and I cannot understand how all this is going unchecked. Does anyone have more insight into this than I have?

Doozergirl

I'm in the construction industry and it's a very good question you're asking!

Conservatory and these roofing salespeople push and push at the boundaries of what requires building regulations without complying and frankly, they are well over the line now.

System

Conservatory companies are unregulated, they will tell you what you want to hear, take your money, throw something up, then when you try to claim something against them, they go bust and set up a new company...
I'm currently trying to get a conservatory through building regs where the company said that it all didn't need building regs (including opening it to the adjacent room) and it really doesn't comply with much! The company have gone bust but the same directors have a new company with the same number selling conservatories, but are unwilling to help our client with any of it

onomatopoeia99

kazza61 wrote: »

Hi,
. Having now investigated further, and spoken to the city council, it is clear that to be free of building regs, a conservatory (among other things) must have a roof that is at least 75% translucent.

Building regulations were changed in 2010 to remove the minimum glazing percentage for conservatories and porches to achieve BR exemption. There is "guidance" in other documents suggesting that the walls and roof should be "susbstantially glazed", with no percentage stated.

Me, rather than replace the polycarbonate roof I'm going to demolish the ramshackle wood glass lean-to on the side of my house that the previous owners left as it's just dreadful. Though very good for drying clothes in the summer as the internal temperature reaches 50C some days. If I want more space, I'll build an extension.

teneighty

The 75% roof glazing requirement was omitted from the regulations a few years ago (in England). Whether this was a deliberate policy or an error is questionable but it has left widespread confusion and different local Councils applying their own interpretation. Some still use the 75% rule but there is no legal basis to enforce this, some allow a conservatory with no glazing in the roof. I would not be surprised if in the next amendment of the regulations they reintroduce the glazing area requirement.

As for roof load there is little difference between a glazed roof and these lightweight plastic panels. In any roof the biggest load is the "live" load which is a theoretical covering of 3 feet of snow.

If I were you I would not draw attention to your conservatory and just enjoy the more comfortable conservatory/extension.

ComicGeek

LABC have a useful guide on this, which explains their opinion and approach for those who fancy a read http://www.labc.co.uk/sites/default/files/Solid-roof-conservatories-guide-labc_0.pdf - this is what local Councils generally refer back to for their definition.

I would agree that it's likely that the old definition of a conservatory will be slipped back into the Bldg Regs updates next year - it was clearly a mistake omitting it.

AndyMc.....

What “standards” do they claim to meet?

kazza61

They claim they meet the standards detailed for a conservatory not to require building regs certificates. They are either wrong or misleading.

ytfcmad

kazza61 wrote: »

They claim they meet the standards detailed for a conservatory not to require building regs certificates. They are either wrong or misleading.

So what? You didn't pay for it and it came with a house i presume you had a survey done on before you bought it?

Doozergirl

ytfcmad wrote: »

So what? You didn't pay for it and it came with a house i presume you had a survey done on before you bought it?

Misleading, I guess, as there are no standards for a conservatory, because they are classed as outbuildings.

But conservatories are straight into extension territory when people expect to use them year-round. Conservatories are cheap for a reason. Lightweight roofs are expensive for the reason that people think their cheap conservatories with inadequate foundations should behave more like extensions. The marketing people for lightweight roofs have an answer. Lots of their bumf says it meets BR. BR for what, I don't know, but it isn't the required uValue for a roof.

Davesnave

kazza61 wrote: »

This seems like a major issue. I see lots of these about and I cannot understand how all this is going unchecked.

It goes unchecked because most people don't understand the issue and/or they collude with the installers.

Like other council departments, Building Control are strapped for resources, so they're probably not viewing this as a 'major issue' and focusing their attention elsewhere.