Building control - velux window, hight from floor

[WillAE]

I've had an extension and renovation done, all the work is now complete and building control have one final thing to approve before I get sign-off...

 

I have a double garage with a bedroom above. In the bedroom there are several velux windows on either side, however on one side of the room (due to a neighbour concerned about "overlooking" at planning stage) they are all obscured. According to the planning officers decision  "The velux windows on the drawing of the west elevation of the approved side extension shall be non-opening and permanently glazed in obscure/translucent glass." which they currently are.

 

I have since had building control come and visit and they tell me the bottom of the top-hung, exit window, is too high off the ground as per regs. (https://buildsafe.co.uk/building-regulation-for-windows-in-bedrooms/#:~:text=The minimum opening width should,step to meet this condition.) and therefore they tell me I need to build a step, or change the window to a larger/longer one. The problem is that where the current top hung exit window is, would mean putting a step in the middle of the room... therefore building control suggested that I move the top hung window to the other side of the room (where they are obscured) and put the step there - a much more suitable position.

 

I have since tried to get clarification from building control whether this would be OK from a planning perspective (given those windows are supposed to be non-opening) and I was told that "building control cannot offer advice on planning".

 

So that's what brings me here. What would you advise? Do I just go with what building control recommend in order to get sign-off, or do I need to tread carefully? Thanks

 

[Conor]

Build the step. Remove it once BC have signed off, if it annoys you. A colleague of mine had to do that on all his first floor windows as there were all slightly too high.

 

The contradiction of the planning condition will only matter of it is raised to planning. If you think the affected neighbour would notice and care, then take that in to consideration.

[Kelvin]

This comes up time and again and can be a bit of a disaster as moving rooflights after they are installed isn’t easy. It’s a bit like the other thread with the non-compliant fire door problem in an open plan space. The regs are very clear and this ought to have been picked up by someone at the design stage and certainly at the build stage but it often gets missed. Your solution to this needs to be the least intrusive and least costly fix to get you through sign off so figure out what that is and do it. This might come back to haunt you later when you come to sell of course. In all likelihood it won’t but an attentive structural survey person could check this (as it’s very commonly wrong) and raise it so keep that in mind with whatever solution you employ. 

[DevilDamo]

The main thing to note is that Planning comes before Building Regulations. So you can’t contravene any Planning requirements with the aim of satisfying Building Regulation requirements. 

[nod]

51 minutes ago, DevilDamo said:

The main thing to note is that Planning comes before Building Regulations. So you can’t contravene any Planning requirements with the aim of satisfying Building Regulation requirements. 

I think BC would argue safety over neighbors privacy 

[ETC]

5 hours ago, Conor said:

Build the step. Remove it once BC have signed off, if it annoys you. A colleague of mine had to do that on all his first floor windows as there were all slightly too high.

 

The contradiction of the planning condition will only matter of it is raised to planning. If you think the affected neighbour would notice and care, then take that in to consideration.

Not a good idea - the EEW is there for your safety - I’m surprised that BC have even allowed you to put a step in but if they are happy put it in and leave it there.

[ProDave]

11 minutes ago, ETC said:

Not a good idea - the EEW is there for your safety - I’m surprised that BC have even allowed you to put a step in but if they are happy put it in and leave it there.

It depends.  One job I worked on the window was 1" too high so BC made them install a 1" high step.  I am sure the step is no longer there, and if there was a fire, most people would cope with a window being 1" too high without a step.

[Timedout]

I had the same, not as extreme as the middle of the room. We built and installed the step, one in each of two identical rooms. Signed off. Steps removed. No one ever came back to check. Once you are signed, they lose all interest. 

[ETC]

1 hour ago, ProDave said:

It depends.  One job I worked on the window was 1" too high so BC made them install a 1" high step.  I am sure the step is no longer there, and if there was a fire, most people would cope with a window being 1" too high without a step.

Madness - putting a 25mm step is a complete waste of time. There needs to be a bit of common sense when measuring the height of an EEW. Thicker carpet would have helped!

 

59 minutes ago, Timedout said:

I had the same, not as extreme as the middle of the room. We built and installed the step, one in each of two identical rooms. Signed off. Steps removed. No one ever came back to check. Once you are signed, they lose all interest. 

It doesn’t make it right though.

[Conor]

10 hours ago, ETC said:

Madness - putting a 25mm step is a complete waste of time. There needs to be a bit of common sense when measuring the height of an EEW. Thicker carpet would have helped!

 

It doesn’t make it right though.

It's not right, I agree. But when we're talking mms, either BCO needs to turn a blind eye or you need a pragmatic solution that doesn't take the piss. All of our upstairs windows are about 25-35mm lower than the min height (due to needing thicker screed). Thankfully all involved saw that ripping out and replacing half a dozen windows was not the solution. I think these these are a bit more analogue than digital.

[Kelvin]

My local BCO is very pragmatic about this. He did advise me about it before we put the rooflights in to make sure I was aware of it.  Either BC stick to the limits or they allow some leeway. The problem is where is the +- cutoff. 

[joe90]

8 minutes ago, Kelvin said:

The problem is where is the +- cutoff. 

Another example of non consistency with BC.

[Big Jimbo]

Just wait till all the new builders start getting into Part O. Opening can't be lower than 1100mm or will need guarding. Can't be above 1100mm or wont comply as an escape route. Oh, the fun that is going to be had with Building control officers.

[ETC]

1 hour ago, Conor said:

It's not right, I agree. But when we're talking mms, either BCO needs to turn a blind eye or you need a pragmatic solution that doesn't take the piss. All of our upstairs windows are about 25-35mm lower than the min height (due to needing thicker screed). Thankfully all involved saw that ripping out and replacing half a dozen windows was not the solution. I think these these are a bit more analogue than digital.

Conor - where the windows are LOWER than the required 800mm above FFL a restrictor stay to an EEW (or any window for that matter) is acceptable as long as it complies with BS8213-1:2004. The requirement here is for guarding - would your BCO have failed your windows if they had been taken to FFL? where there is no requirement for the lower edge (of a EEW) to be not less than 800mm above FFL.

[ETC]

1 hour ago, Kelvin said:

My local BCO is very pragmatic about this. He did advise me about it before we put the rooflights in to make sure I was aware of it.  Either BC stick to the limits or they allow some leeway. The problem is where is the +- cutoff. 

Roof lights can go down to 600mm above FFL.

[ETC]

1 hour ago, joe90 said:

Another example of non consistency with BC.

I agree - the Guidance is Guidance but there still needs to be a bit more consistency between BCOs.

[ETC]

1 hour ago, Big Jimbo said:

Just wait till all the new builders start getting into Part O. Opening can't be lower than 1100mm or will need guarding. Can't be above 1100mm or wont comply as an escape route. Oh, the fun that is going to be had with Building control officers.

Can you post the requirement for window openings to be not lower than 1100?

 

Thanks.

[Kelvin]

3 minutes ago, ETC said:

Roof lights can go down to 600mm above FFL.

That’s not what my BC told me. Scottish regs. 

[Big Jimbo]

@ETC They can be lower than 1100mm, but will require guarding

[joe90]

33 minutes ago, Big Jimbo said:

@ETC They can be lower than 1100mm, but will require guarding

So how can a guarded window be used as a method of escape window 🤷‍♂️

[ETC]

47 minutes ago, joe90 said:

So how can a guarded window be used as a method of escape window 🤷‍♂️

Very easily Joe - use a restrictor stay.

[ETC]

[Temp]

21 hours ago, WillAE said:

therefore building control suggested that I move the top hung window to the other side of the room (where they are obscured) and put the step there - a much more suitable position.

 

I have since tried to get clarification from building control whether this would be OK from a planning perspective (given those windows are supposed to be non-opening) and I was told that "building control cannot offer advice on planning".

 

Its quite possible for planning and building control to insist on opposite things. Legally they aren't required to agree with each other so in extreme if it can't be resolved you can't have your windows and your room can't be a habitable room. 

 

What I would do...

 

Would the neighbours complain if they saw you change it to an opening window? If not I would do that to keep the BCO happy. Heck make them all opening but keep those on your neighbours side shut for 10 years. Just open the other side. Planning are very unlikely to notice the breech unless the neighbour complains. After 10 years file an application for lawful development on the grounds that planning cannot initiate enforcement for a breech of planning condition after 10 years. 

 

If planning did get a complaint you could offer to fit restrictions, screw them shut (that woukd be a breech of Buikding Control but again they are very unlikely to do anything) or file an appeal. The appeal inspector might decide any overlooking issue is minimal and allow the appeal.

 

Edited August 22, 2023 by Temp

[joe90]

17 minutes ago, Temp said:

quite possible for planning and building control to insist on opposite things.

 
+1, I have come across this before, perhaps tell your neighbours that building control want them as escape windows so must be openable, still ‘obscured but will only be opened in an emergency. Just depends on your neighbours being nice 🤷‍♂️

Edited August 22, 2023 by joe90

[Blooda]

@WillAE    

 

Don't suppose you have fire rated doors  on the landing / hallway to creating a "protected Stairway" ?   Thus eliminating the need for escape windows.