Building regs advice

AppyAddick

I saw the current thread on equity release and thought i would see if there is any advice offered here on a potential problem i am going to have when selling my house to downsize and move to a smaller property.

4 year ago or so we had a small flat roof extension added to the property, i got a surveyor to come out and look at the job and give us the requirements for the steels, foundations and general building work. The builder while they were doing the work followed all of this advice and took extensive photos along the way. However i did not involve building regs, not really sure why i think at the time we thought well we are never going to move so why delay the process?

We are now thinking of selling, i believe you can get retrospective planning that will involve opening up the works to inspect the works.

Anyone have experience of this and any other options?

Yep i know i should of had it done at the time....

MrOneLung

I would just forget about it unless asked by the buyer when actually purchasing

eaststandmike

My son is just through a similar thing with alterations he made to an existing summer house. He wasn’t sure what to do however his solicitor sent him some selling forms that needed completing and the problem is covered on there. He has been honest as he wants a quick sale and is waiting to hear back however the solicitor has confirmed it’s a simple process to overcome 

HardyAddick

Ignore. You don’t need retrospective planning. If something crops up during legal work by the solicitors, you can always get a cheap indemnity insurance policy. Solicitors do this all the time as a lot of people don’t get building regs signed off.

Todds_right_hook

HardyAddick said:

Ignore. You don’t need retrospective planning. If something crops up during legal work by the solicitors, you can always get a cheap indemnity insurance policy. Solicitors do this all the time as a lot of people don’t get building regs signed off.

Not true, you can make retrospective planning applications. The risk of building without planning is a lot greater than not gaining bc sign off. 

I agree with the indemnity comment. The risk of retro bc is that the regs change and the bc officer may want 2023 compliance even thought the build complied to regulations at the time

HardyAddick

Todds_right_hook said:

HardyAddick said:

Ignore. You don’t need retrospective planning. If something crops up during legal work by the solicitors, you can always get a cheap indemnity insurance policy. Solicitors do this all the time as a lot of people don’t get building regs signed off.

Not true, you can make retrospective planning applications. The risk of building without planning is a lot greater than not gaining bc sign off. 

I agree with the indemnity comment. The risk of retro bc is that the regs change and the bc officer may want 2023 compliance even thought the build complied to regulations at the time

I agree you can make retrospective planning applications. The small extension may though be a permitted development. Could ask an architect for confirmation if worried it might not be.

AppyAddick

HardyAddick said:

Todds_right_hook said:

HardyAddick said:

Ignore. You don’t need retrospective planning. If something crops up during legal work by the solicitors, you can always get a cheap indemnity insurance policy. Solicitors do this all the time as a lot of people don’t get building regs signed off.

Not true, you can make retrospective planning applications. The risk of building without planning is a lot greater than not gaining bc sign off. 

I agree with the indemnity comment. The risk of retro bc is that the regs change and the bc officer may want 2023 compliance even thought the build complied to regulations at the time

I agree you can make retrospective planning applications. The small extension may though be a permitted development. Could ask an architect for confirmation if worried it might not be.

We had to take down an exterior wall, strengthen the foundations and take down an interior load bearing wall.

As advised by the surveyor we used the used the steels and the specifications recommended and took a shed load of pictures. But i'm not sure this would be classed as permitted development. Do you guys know does the indemnity insurance normally offer enough comfort for the buyers solicitor? I know, you don't have a crystal ball of course...

razil

its building regs which I believe isnt the same as planning permission, or rather both but they are separate issues
building regs show it is compliant and structurally so
planning means you were allowed to do it

refer to your conveyancing solicitor since I assume you are paying one as part of the sale

AppyAddick

razil said:

its building regs which I believe isnt the same as planning permission

Planning defiantly not required that was well within limits

HardyAddick

Building Regs is usually the thing that Indemnify Insurance is taken out for in my experience. Solicitors are usually comfortable with this. It’s the buyer that sometimes isn’t but if they really want the house, they come round to accepting indemnity insurance. 

As said before, leave it to your solicitor. 

Rob7Lee

Due to the extent of the work you may find an indemnity policy very expensive and it may also put off a number of buyers.

you can get retrospective BC sign off, but again due to the extent of the work it won’t be easy, for instance they’ll want to check the foundation work and steels. Did you get any electrical work signed off?

you may also be questioned about planning. It may well be permitted development but without knowing the size, previous extensions, distance to boundary, local authority etc impossible to say on here. Many councils have an article 4 direction effectively removing permitted development rights.

it also sounds as if you have underpinned, again that will put off a lot of buyers (me included) unless I was sure it was carried out correctly.

speak to your solicitor to understand the extent of the problem.

AppyAddick

Thanks all

Pelling1993

AppyAddick said:

razil said:

its building regs which I believe isnt the same as planning permission

Planning defiantly not required that was well within limits

When we do projects for permitted development we often get our client's a Certificate of Lawful Development. Just stops any issues with the sale, can get one of these retrospectively.

I personally would also try get retrospectively Building Regs sign off for peace of mind. If your building took enough photos and documented the specification during the build you may get approval. I would be happy to give you some 'U' Value calculations if you know the constructions of the floors, walls, roof etc.

AppyAddick

Pelling1993 said:

AppyAddick said:

razil said:

its building regs which I believe isnt the same as planning permission

Planning defiantly not required that was well within limits

When we do projects for permitted development we often get our client's a Certificate of Lawful Development. Just stops any issues with the sale, can get one of these retrospectively.

I personally would also try get retrospectively Building Regs sign off for peace of mind. If your building took enough photos and documented the specification during the build you may get approval. I would be happy to give you some 'U' Value calculations if you know the constructions of the floors, walls, roof etc.

Thanks a lot, i may be in contact

golfaddick

Rob7Lee said:

Due to the extent of the work you may find an indemnity policy very expensive and it may also put off a number of buyers.

you can get retrospective BC sign off, but again due to the extent of the work it won’t be easy, for instance they’ll want to check the foundation work and steels. Did you get any electrical work signed off?

you may also be questioned about planning. It may well be permitted development but without knowing the size, previous extensions, distance to boundary, local authority etc impossible to say on here. Many councils have an article 4 direction effectively removing permitted development rights.

it also sounds as if you have underpinned, again that will put off a lot of buyers (me included) unless I was sure it was carried out correctly.

speak to your solicitor to understand the extent of the problem.

This in spades.

Just because you're happy with it doesn't mean any potential buyer will be. I'd ask why wouldn't you want to get building regs sign off ??  Once a buyer finds out that you haven't they're start wondering what else you could be "covering up". Then its a slippery slope of buyers puling out or reducing their offer. Just not worth it. You've now realised that you didn't get sign off....so just get it done. 

Pelling1993

Out of interest does the extension have a lot of glazing? The total amount of all external doors, windows, and roof windows, as a proportion of the internal floor area of the extension, should not be more than 25% (plus the area of any openings that were covered by the extension). If yes you would need a compliance calculation to demonstrate how you have offset the over-glazing. Again just pop me a DM if needed!