Do new building regs apply on an old loft?

Andrew1981

Hi, 

I hope someone in the know can help

I own a very old (500 years) house which has had a 2nd floor bedroom in (there are 2 more on the first floor). It's had 3 floors for 100+ years. 23 years ago the house was fully renovated, all plans showed the top floor being a bedroom and large ensuite and it conformed to all regs, and I've used it as a bedroom for the last 8 years that I've lived there with no issues. The house is a listed building. 

Fast forward to now, and I'm sadly selling. The buyers surveyors have deemed the top floor bedroom not fit for habitation, citing that it doesn't have means of escape, they can't check that the ceiling/floor below has been 'double boarded', and that the house doesn't have fire doors throughout.

The staircase is sufficiently wide, and there are hardwired smoke alarms.

Does this make the top floor uninhabitable, and only suitable for light storage? The surveyor says it's only a 2 bed house now, which seems crazy to me! 

I'm wondering how if the regs keep improving, how do new loft conversions keep compliant in years to come!

Many thanks in advance! 

rob7475

I'm no expert on this but that sounds like a load of rubbish to me. Every time regs change, you don't need to update any alterations to meet the current regs.

Speak to your estate agent and get their opinion on it.

Doozergirl

No, your elderly loft rooms
do not need to conform to building regs! 

The surveyors haven't checked the age of it.  If it pre-dates the Building Act of 1986 then it is effectively exempt.  

The surveyor isn't asking for building control completion on the actual house are they, because it clearly predates the regs!  Same stands for the loft.  It is not a conversion.  

They're incredibly wrong.   It's a good thing to have those things but is it a legal requirement? No.  

Is the house listed?  That's a while other game where building work and even new loft conversions don't need to meet exactly the same standards if it affects the history of the house.  

Andrew1981

Hi, thanks for your advice.

The 2nd floor has been a bedroom / office for many years (100+), but the most recent major work was done in 1998 which is when the building plans clearly show it was a bedroom and was it would have complied with all building regs as of 1998. So it's after 1984 regs. 

It is listed (and in a conservation area), although the internal doors aren't historic and so could be converted if necessary.

Thanks again, 

Andrew 

bengalknights

Surveyors based things on current rules, but they should use some common sense and add text to the report such as 'x room does not comply with current legislation but we assume was built /refurbsihed around xxxx and was in line with compliance at the time, although not required we suggest updating'.

Certainly on reports ive seen such text has existed

Section62

Andrew1981 said:

It is listed (and in a conservation area), although the internal doors aren't historic and so could be converted if necessary.

Any changes would still need to be discussed with the conservation officer and/or LB consent obtained - they don't need to be 'historic' to be protected and of value.

To a degree this helps - as if there was a disagreement regarding building regs, the conservation officer will (in many cases) encourage others to take a more pragmatic view.

The best way of thinking about building regs is that they apply at the point you are doing the work - when you do work it has to be in compliance.  If you've done work which doesn't comply then there is a limited time window when the authorities can take enforcement action.

With a historic building there will be features that wouldn't comply with the current regulations, but generally that's Ok because the 'work' was done at a time where the features either complied with the then regulations, or there were no regulations to comply with.

Grenfell has had a significant effect on the way the building industry approaches issues such as fire safety and compliance with regulations.  Assuming your property was extended over three floors at a time where that was permitted in the way it has been done, it shouldn't be a huge surprise that a surveyor today indicates that the setup wouldn't be compliant with the regulations now.  They need to do that, of face the consequences if someone dies a horrible death in a house fire they were unable to escape from because the building doesn't conform to the 'new' standards.  What the resident/prospective buyer chooses to do with that information is up to them.

FreeBear

Section62 said: With a historic building there will be features that wouldn't comply with the current regulations, but generally that's Ok because the 'work' was done at a time where the features either complied with the then regulations, or there were no regulations to comply with.

With a listed building, the opinions of the Conservation Officer will often overrule Building Regulations. For example, you want to replace a window. BR compliance requires double (or even triple) glazing to meet thermal performance. CO says "No. Single glazed with wibbly hand made glass".

stuart45

I was doing a flat conversion where an extra vent was needed in the external wall at the back. Building was Grade 2 and the CO refused it. The BCO initially wanted a separate vent for the bathroom and kitchen so it was a stalemate, until the BCO relented and allowed them to join.

Doozergirl

Andrew1981 said:

Hi, thanks for your advice.

The 2nd floor has been a bedroom / office for many years (100+), but the most recent major work was done in 1998 which is when the building plans clearly show it was a bedroom and was it would have complied with all building regs as of 1998. So it's after 1984 regs. 

It is listed (and in a conservation area), although the internal doors aren't historic and so could be converted if necessary.

Thanks again, 

Andrew 

What work was done? 

If it was always a room then it's almost irrelevant.       If it was a room, then it is not a conversion.   The only rule is that you don't make anything worse - so you can add some insulation but not need to meet full regs, change the stairs for better stairs but not meet full regs. 

If windows were added then that glazing would require approval, but it's the windows themselves, not the principle of it being a habitable room or not.  

So what was done? 

Andrew1981

That's really helpful, thank you, especially with the subtleties around what supercedes between building control and listed building control. Eg means of escape. 

Rewind 100 years ago and the the house was a 3 story building, with the top floor being a room (assumed bedroom) I know that in 1970 the top floor was an office, and below it was a shop. The building fell into significant disrepair in the 1990s as there talk of a motorway being built, and it was on the national at risk register.

It was converted from offices/shop in 1998 with a new layout, new stairs, new rear windows, re plastered and refitted, new kitchen, wiring etc. Basically bringing it back from an at risk building to a modern 3 story building. Externally it was rerendered, roofing etc. It had plans for 3 bed, was a 3 bed according to plans and the lease. Internally it has some  interesting features such as exposed beams and old floors.

Hope that helps. 

Thanks again, 

Andrew

ComicGeek

Andrew1981 said:

That's really helpful, thank you, especially with the subtleties around what supercedes between building control and listed building control. Eg means of escape. 

Rewind 100 years ago and the the house was a 3 story building, with the top floor being a room (assumed bedroom) I know that in 1970 the top floor was an office, and below it was a shop. The building fell into significant disrepair in the 1990s as there talk of a motorway being built, and it was on the national at risk register.

It was converted from offices/shop in 1998 with a new layout, new stairs, new rear windows, re plastered and refitted, new kitchen, wiring etc. Basically bringing it back from an at risk building to a modern 3 story building. Externally it was rerendered, roofing etc. It had plans for 3 bed, was a 3 bed according to plans and the lease. Internally it has some  interesting features such as exposed beams and old floors.

Hope that helps. 

Thanks again, 

Andrew

That's completely different, in that it wasn't a 3 storey single dwelling house before the conversion in 1998. So it was very much a conversion in 1998, and should have been built in accordance with Building Regulations (applicable to conversion from non residential to residential) in 1998. 

I don't know enough about means of escape requirements in 1998 to comment, but that's a very different situation to having an existing 3 storey house.