Loft storage vs Habitable space

[tony1851]

1. insulating between the roof timbers?; you might inadvertantly make the roof's ventilation system worse and thereby encourage rot and impare the strength of the timber; so that could well need an application.

2.strengthening and boarding the floor;? boarding the floor technically adds weight, so how do you know you've strengthened it sufficiently? May need an application to check!

3. adding velux?; a structural alteration to the rafters (unless you get a very narrow one). Also, you might be altering the thermal characteristics of the property - an application here!

Just playing devil's advocate, but you get the gist. As you will have learned by now, there is a fine dividing line in these matters.
Just ensure you are sensible in what you store up there, and definitely not the kids.

 

[Idrisdraig]

I don't think we have any objections to getting a buildings inspector to agree to what we're doing. We just can't justify trebling the expense by making it a "habitable space" considering we just want a dry, tidy storage space and don't want to get in trouble with the council.
It is not going to be used as a bedroom! We have 3. We only need 2. We just have a load of stuff to store and don't want to be fighting through cobwebs and squirrel sh*t, only to find it's got damp and covered in crud.

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

I don't why you are all making such a fuss including the OP. Staple a breathable membrane to the underside of the rafters, that cures any dust/muck issues getting in from outside. Stick some cross battens on top of the existing joists and board on top with some insulation under. Be sensible about what you store up thee and where it is placed. Job done!

 

[geraldthehamster]

I'd still be interested in a answer to my question, if pedantician is still about:

So if a local authority became aware of such a loft, would it:

a) Demand the householder build a staircase, fit fire doors, etc.

b) Demand the householder remove all the work done, or

c) Note the non-compliant work so it would come up in a search when the house was sold?

Or does the answer depend on whether the work was discovered within two years of the work being completed (if "completed" could be determined)?

Cheers
Richard

 

[jeds]

It would be C. Building control departments have NO money whatsoever to be chasing householders who might or might not have inadvertently created what might or might not be a habitable space.

PS. They might well write and say you must do A or B, but if you ignore them they are only left with C.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

It would be C. Building control departments have NO money whatsoever to be chasing householders who might or might not have inadvertently created what might or might not be a habitable space

Do they have any money to defend a claim for compensation brought by someone who suffers a loss through them erroneously recording non-compliant work?

 

[jeds]

It would be C. Building control departments have NO money whatsoever to be chasing householders who might or might not have inadvertently created what might or might not be a habitable space

Do they have any money to defend a claim for compensation brought by someone who suffers a loss through them erroneously recording non-compliant work?

Very little. But they do sometimes pay compensation.

 

[geraldthehamster]

It would be C. Building control departments have NO money whatsoever to be chasing householders who might or might not have inadvertently created what might or might not be a habitable space.

PS. They might well write and say you must do A or B, but if you ignore them they are only left with C.

If it's within the enforcement period, can't they issue a notice requiring removal of the work, and fine you if you don't remove it? I wondered how that could ever be applied to improvements to a loft.

Cheers
Richard

 

[jeds]

Yes they could, and often do write such letters. But to take any real action, and secure a fine, they would have to take action in the courts. To do that they would first of all need to establish 100% that they are correct. You can't just go into court on the say-so of a building inspector. They would have to be able to prove it. And there lies the problem. It's such a grey area unless they discovered beds and furniture in place I don't believe they would even try. I've advised dozens of clients on this over the years and I can say 100% that BC have never pursued it. Although please bear in mind I am talking about rooms used purely for storage. I wouldn't condone dodgy sleeping arrangements under any circumstances.

 

[pedantician]

I'd still be interested in a answer to my question, if pedantician is still about:

So if a local authority became aware of such a loft, would it:

a) Demand the householder build a staircase, fit fire doors, etc.

b) Demand the householder remove all the work done, or

c) Note the non-compliant work so it would come up in a search when the house was sold?

Or does the answer depend on whether the work was discovered within two years of the work being completed (if "completed" could be determined)?

Cheers
Richard

It's not as clear cut as that. Cliched I know, but it really is each case on its merits (or lack of!)

The standard enforcement time is 12 months from the date the contravention occurred (not discovered), so this tends to rule out a lot of cases. If caught in time, owners will usually be instructed to put the work right - how they do this is up to them, whether it is alter it to make it comply or remove it. A reasonable time would usually be allowed for this, keeping in mind the time limits. If resolution is unlikely proceedings will often be taken (but admit not always).

I don't think the LA can record "non-compliant" work, only outstanding Notices, but it's been a while so memory a little fuzzy on that one!

 

[pedantician]

Yes they could, and often do write such letters. But to take any real action, and secure a fine, they would have to take action in the courts. To do that they would first of all need to establish 100% that they are correct. You can't just go into court on the say-so of a building inspector. They would have to be able to prove it. And there lies the problem. It's such a grey area unless they discovered beds and furniture in place I don't believe they would even try. I've advised dozens of clients on this over the years and I can say 100% that BC have never pursued it. Although please bear in mind I am talking about rooms used purely for storage. I wouldn't condone dodgy sleeping arrangements under any circumstances.

The LA can "go into court" on the "say-so" of a building inspector. They are the experts in building regulations, so who else would (could) make that decision. Their legal team would of course be consulted as part of the process, but it is building control officers who make a professional judgement as to whether there is a contravention.

The enforcement procedure for getting work put right isn't a court based process, to start with. It is dealt with by way of a Notice served on the owner. It would only get to court if the owner failed to comply with the Notice.

Prosecution of the person who carried out the work (not usually the owner) is directly through the courts and is done when possible, although the time limit is only 6 months from the date of the offence (set by the Magistrates Court Act) so these cases are less frequent.