juncopartner

As it was a conversion rather than new build, a "material change of use", only certain regulations can be applied at the time it was converted, with this type of conversion Part M does not apply, however, any alterations should not make the premises any less compliant than it was prior to the work being carried out. Without more details it is difficult to comment on the specific alterations you mention.

Personally I wouldn't just accept the elevation being reclad, I would still be of the opinion that it is not "substantially non combustible", this was also the policy of the last 3 LA's I've worked.

The building you have constructed is subject to B Regs, you have two options either to make it exempt, or apply for retrospective approval and make it comply. I'm assuming you are between 15-30sqm and the construction is not "substantially non combustible" and within 1m of the boundary. There is no legal definition of what precisely constitutes "substantially non combustible". You can either alter the building or move the building to make it exempt, it has been suggested that cladding the boundary elevation may make it exempt, however if the building is a timber supporting frame I would not accept this as being exempt. Alternatively you can apply for a Regularisation Certificate (retrospective approval), though this will mean upgrading the boundary elevation to be 30min fire resistant from both sides and any external timber will need to be treated with intumescent coating to reduce the surface spread of flame or replaced with a different material, you will also need to satisfy B Control it complies with all other applicable regs,

Your quoting regulations for headroom that were abolished in '85!!!

Its got nothing to do with B Regs I'm afraid.

Yes its guidance but you would need some justification or alternative to satisfy B Regs I'm afraid you can't just "do what you want".

The approved document guidance was changed a few years ago, mechanical fans are required to all new WC installations, regardless of whether there's a window.

Yet again this is incorrect, single storey buildings do not require fire resistance,. Two storey buildings of any type most definitely require fire resistance, and this is dependent on their use, height and whether they are sprinklered this can be 30. 60, 90 or 120 minutes. In the vast majority of domestic dwelling houses this is 30 minutes, unless a floor level is over 5m in height then one hour applies.

Either way as long as it achieves one hour.

1 hour, looks like he's correct.

What is the use of the building.

The only problem for BC is that around half the domestic apps are on building notices these days, so a plan check isn't always carried out.

I've always accepted it, as far as I know so do all the others I've worked with, and its always been accepted on all the guvvy jobs I've submitted with a similar detail.

Correct Just as a correction for Nod's reply. Single storey buildings do not require fire resistance, when dealing with elements of structure. Dealing with dwellings of more than one storey , any dwelling (regardless of how many floor levels) with a floor level below 5m requires 30 minutes fire resistance, above 5m, 1 hour fire resistance is required. There are no periods of more than 1 hour specified. Basements require 30 minutes fire resistance regardless of the height of the building. The above refers to elements of structure only however (and very briefly) there may be further requirements that may require fire resistance, ie separating walls, walls close to a boundary etc In the case of a floor over 4.5m above ground level, a protected escape is required(fire doors etc to staircase), however this approach can also be used in lieu of escape windows at lower floor levels. In reply to Nod, this was not googled, purely from memory, although I did have a quick look at my hard copy of the latest Approved Doc B just to make sure there's been no recentish changes I may not have been aware of.

"On a three story house or a house with a basement BC will look for 1 hour plus protection " Does this apply to all 3 storey houses or just to ones with a floor level 5m above external ground levels Perhaps you can quote me the reg that stipulates a fire resistance of more than one hour as well. Would the basement also require 1 hour plus fire resistance. If you don't know the regs, which you clearly don't, then I suggest you stop misleading people.

A little knowledge is most certainly dangerous, care to explain why a 2 storey house does not require fire resistance?

I personally would not insist on the floor being upgraded if it meant there was a step, I would, however, be looking for some compensatory measures ie ugrading the level in the roof or walls if practical, or even some additional measures to the existing house such as topping up the insulation in the roof.

OP is this a domestic situation? Please note you only need to achieve a specific standard of fire resistance, fire boards are not required, all plasterboard has fire resistance but you would need thicker/more boards. Fire resistance is required for a number of reasons, structural fire precautions, means of escape, fire spread between buildings, compartmentation etc. OP please ignore Nod's comments, most of which is incorrect.

Providing the excavations were inspected by B Control I don't envisage any problems with the foundations, it looks like they were backfilled at the time so there was no possibility of shrinkage/frost damage etc

Its 2 years from completion of the work for B Regs, this is unrelated to any planning permission legislation. Sect 35a Building Act 84 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/55/section/35A Depending on the breach of planning, from memory, I believe it is 4 and 10 years, for listed buildings I don't think there is a time limit, but I'm not a planner and I don't work in a Planning Dept to ask enforcement these days so don't quote me. You'll have to do a little research to check.

You're getting confused with planning.

Maybe. but its a bit pointless when the work is already statute barred from enforcement. Its little more than a con.

Its 2 years, but buying an indemnity is a waste of money if the 2 years has already expired, you're insuring for something that already cannot happen

labc

The inference in the original post is that it has been carried out illegally, if it it does indeed date back to1920 or converted in 1970 then this should have been checked before putting it on the market, although I would have thought a 1920's loft would be pretty obvious. Interesting interpretation, quite how he would defend that decision at an inquest if something went wrong would be interesting. I am a BCO and this is not something I would accept or for that matter have any of the authorities I've worked.