Jump to content

Building regulations and build changes


Sjk

Recommended Posts

If my build evolves as I go along, I can’t be the only one, does any one know what happens to the initial approval? Do I need to do the whole thing again etc? 

 

is this something that is easy to do?

 

thanks in advance 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, PeterW said:

You get plans approval ( in England and Wales) based on the regulations in force at the time of the submission for building control approval. 

 

What if you change your mind about the construction method etc? In Scotland as @Christine Walker says we have to apply for a building warrant amendment (you still only have to meet the regs from the original date of the warrant). So if we decide to change insulation thickness, boiler type or whatever. What do you have to do in England to note such changes and ensure that what’s built is in line with the regs applicable? 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Sjk said:

 

I read that as, some people don’t bother?

 

Depends on what your building inspector wants.  Some changes can just be inspected and checked on the fly, others will require new plans and structural details to be submitted. Every build will have some variations from the plans, and even a full plans submission doesn't include every detail.  For example, I changed the way the Part M access requirements were met, but didn't need to send in any new drawings, as the inspector just looked at what I'd done and said it was OK.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You will get some who actively help too. I had one where the rafters had to be deeper to fit a wider gap after a steel was raised - he went away and came back and suggested how to do it without increasing ridge height. 

 

The flip side being I had another one who basically said that I needed to come up with the solution and fit it, and he’d sign it off if he found it acceptable ........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Building Control inspectors are focused on whether the finished property is structurally sound and safe.

 

The planning department enforce matters pertaining to look, position and access. I reckon Building Control might approved changes that subsequently the planning office will object to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, epsilonGreedy said:

Building Control inspectors are focused on whether the finished property is structurally sound and safe.

 

The planning department enforce matters pertaining to look, position and access. I reckon Building Control might approved changes that subsequently the planning office will object to.

 

Unless you are making alterations to a listed building, then planning are only interested in external appearances. They don’t care about anything structural or internal, and this is where the major changes can cause issues. 

 

For example, moving a wall to make a room bigger may exceed the span of a joist - BCO would be concerned by this but if shown that 400c rather than 600c ensures structural integrity then may pass it without a change in plan submission. Planning wouldn’t care as the external building is identical. 

 

There is also the misconception that BCOs are interested in building a structurally sound building ... it is possible to build a structure that appears to meet building regs yet is not sound - look at the number of new houses that have mortar issues or the missing wall ties in Scotland etc. All of these passed building control instpections yet are not structurally sound.

 

The big issue being you cannot sue a BCO ......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, PeterW said:

Unless you are making alterations to a listed building, then planning are only interested in external appearances.

 

Out of interest, and at the risk of going off topic, I wonder if after planning an extra bedroom were added (by, for example, converting another room or moving a wall), but without changing the external appearance at all, would planning be concerned as some of their decisions seem to be guided by occupancy levels, such as the extent of car parking provision?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its a real grey area - I know of a house built with 5 reception rooms downstairs and one with a shower room off it ... blatantly a downstairs bedroom but marked as a reception on plans. 

 

The trick is to build so you can add the walls at a later date - not expensive and easily done with some foresight. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Dreadnaught said:

Out of interest, and at the risk of going off topic, I wonder if after planning an extra bedroom were added (by, for example, converting another room or moving a wall), but without changing the external appearance at all, would planning be concerned as some of their decisions seem to be guided by occupancy levels, such as the extent of car parking provision?

 

My house has an upstairs room designed like that. We didn't need 5 bedrooms so the house only has 4 with an upstairs sitting area instead of bed 5. It was designed so that a simple addition of a stud wall and door would make the 5th bedroom if needed. The electrics, UFH zone etc were all designed with this in mind so it really is just a case of adding a stud wall. Doubt anyone would let BC know that they'd done that at a later date. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, PeterW said:

 

Unless you are making alterations to a listed building, then planning are only interested in external appearances. They don’t care about anything structural or internal, and this is where the major changes can cause issues. 

 

For example, moving a wall to make a room bigger may exceed the span of a joist - BCO would be concerned by this but if shown that 400c rather than 600c ensures structural integrity then may pass it without a change in plan submission. Planning wouldn’t care as the external building is identical. 

 

There is also the misconception that BCOs are interested in building a structurally sound building ... it is possible to build a structure that appears to meet building regs yet is not sound - look at the number of new houses that have mortar issues or the missing wall ties in Scotland etc. All of these passed building control instpections yet are not structurally sound.

 

The big issue being you cannot sue a BCO ......

 

Can you sue a Private BCO?

 

*innocent face*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Dreadnaught said:

 

Out of interest, and at the risk of going off topic, I wonder if after planning an extra bedroom were added (by, for example, converting another room or moving a wall), but without changing the external appearance at all, would planning be concerned as some of their decisions seem to be guided by occupancy levels, such as the extent of car parking provision?

 

I think @PeterW has it .. it is all grey.

 

Another example is on habitable vs non-habitable rooms and overlooking. A bathroom or a utility is not habitable, and may therefore be OK closer to next door than the distance required by facing habitable rooms. SO if you install a large utility facing next door's kitchen and turn it into a habitable room later then that may be a technical breach of planning.

 

A similar thing may be if you install obscured glazing to an overlooking roof window, which happens to be a stick-on film that you can peel off later then you peel it off. Technical breach.

 

Both difficult to enforce on as relatively minor, and it can be changed back in a morning.

 

WHich is why someone may insist on real obscured glass.

 

iirc that is why in Scotland they insist on permanent and solidly built wheelchair ramps, as an attempt to prevent them being taken away later.

 

Ferdinand

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Dreadnaught said:

 

Out of interest, and at the risk of going off topic, I wonder if after planning an extra bedroom were added (by, for example, converting another room or moving a wall), but without changing the external appearance at all, would planning be concerned as some of their decisions seem to be guided by occupancy levels, such as the extent of car parking provision?

 

Our bc have stated that a fire escape window be fitted to our downstairs office, when I asked why he said it could very easily be changed to an extra bedroom, so it ensured that any work being done without planning would still meet building regs. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would be useful if the OP provided some specifics about the "evolutionary changes" to his build because we are all guessing what this might entail and then posting advice based on our guesses.

 

If he adds a new window then the BCO might be happy with the lintel, drip tray and safety glass but the planning office could object much later on the basis of privacy intrusion.

 

If a self builder moves a driveway entrance 10m down the road will the BCO object? From a planning perspective highways could object if the new position creates a dangerous blind corner.

 

Would a BCO notice if a self builder shuffles the position of the foundations by 2m to achieve some benefit? Planning would get upperty if a neighbour complains.

 

13 hours ago, PeterW said:

Unless you are making alterations to a listed building, then planning are only interested in external appearances. They don’t care about anything structural or internal, and this is where the major changes can cause issues. 

 

 

As I said though it is more than appearance, their remit covers community considerations such as usage, position, access and drainage.

 

13 hours ago, PeterW said:

There is also the misconception that BCOs are interested in building a structurally sound building ...

 

 

I think what you are saying is BCOs do not warrant that a building is structurally sound. They are certainly focused on structural soundness and safety, as I said.

 

13 hours ago, PeterW said:

it is possible to build a structure that appears to meet building regs yet is not sound - look at the number of new houses that have mortar issues or the missing wall ties in Scotland etc. All of these passed building control inspections yet are not structurally sound.

 

 

It is not economic for the BC process to count wall ties but examples of transgressions of basic building standards do not prove your assertion that BCOs are not interested in structural soundness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, AliMcLeod said:

 

I'm sure that's never happened on here before :D

 

Unknown unknowns ?.

 

The OP can't post all the stuff that they do not know yet ?.

 

Therefore it is incumbent upon us to go off topic to explore such  ?.

 

F

Edited by Ferdinand
Link to comment
Share on other sites

:D

 

I want to try and to as much of this process myself as with any changes the professional fees are already eye watering.

 

Possible changes, WC relocation, building wider, possible loft conversion an changes to the windows (maybe add another one). 

 

So not much!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...