Building Regs Classification of a Conservatory

[geraldthehamster]

It's a porch.

It isn't a porch. You've quoted the criteria that make a porch an exempt porch. But it can't claim exemption if it isn't a porch in the first place.

http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/permission/commonprojects/porch/

tells you when a porch is exempt. It doesn't attempt to tell you what a porch *is*. I think it assumes you already know that

Cheers
Richard

 

[jeds]

There is no such thing as a non-exempt porch. The poster's extension is exempt by virtue of Class 7 of the Act under the sub-class "porch" and by the approved document. The rest is semantics.

 

[geraldthehamster]

There is no such thing as a non-exempt porch.

Course there is. If you put a radiator in a porch, it's still a porch. But it's no longer an exempt porch under Regulation 21(1).

As the OP has discovered, this isn't just semantics.

Cheers
Richard

 

[jeds]

It is just semantics. The only thing that matters is does it comply with the criteria for exemption? Yes it does. What you call it is irrelevant. The AD describes porches that are not exempt, it then goes on to describe what is basically an extension. So it's really saying if it's not exempt it's an extension and must comply with all the parts of an extension.

 

[geraldthehamster]

This one will run and run.

The only thing that matters is how BC interpret the Building Regulations, and whether you can afford to take them to court and hope a judge shares your differing opinion.

Cheers
Richard

 

[aledzack]

Thanks John and Richard, useful discussion once again.

To clarify, yes, my question is what defines it as a "Conservatory" Only then as Richard has outlined can I assess if it's an exempt conservatory.

I've literally just asked this question of another local BCO. I said his colleague had advised that a 50% roof (in terms of glass) would suffice. He disagreed. They are still working to the old 2006 definition of a what a conservatory is as "guidance" plus that issued by the LABC. For the removal of doubt my local authority class a conservatory as

- Greater than 75% transparent roof.
- Greater than 50% glass walls.

Based on our amended design we have 70% glass in the walls, but only 50% in the roof. His advice was that this did not meet our local authority's definition of a conservatory. A total of 60% glass would be a "significant proportion" in anyone's books would it not?

He did say I could just carry on and say I believed it to be exempt, in which case they wouldn't have cause to doubt otherwise. However, he did say if we wrote in asking for confirmation that it met exempt criteria that they wouldn't provide it, in this existing design. He also warned on the implications of this for future house sale etc etc...

On the subject of porches he warned me that I could call it porch, although a rear porch may be subject to planning? I haven't researched this enough to know otherwise.

Attempting to have the work regularised under BC's appears a no go due to time and cost. Even though it would be more "useable" with the heating system run in there and a totally solid roof.

 

[jeds]

Thanks John and Richard, useful discussion once again.

To clarify, yes, my question is what defines it as a "Conservatory" Only then as Richard has outlined can I assess if it's an exempt conservatory.

I've literally just asked this question of another local BCO. I said his colleague had advised that a 50% roof (in terms of glass) would suffice. He disagreed. They are still working to the old 2006 definition of a what a conservatory is as "guidance" plus that issued by the LABC. For the removal of doubt my local authority class a conservatory as

- Greater than 75% transparent roof.
- Greater than 50% glass walls.

Based on our amended design we have 70% glass in the walls, but only 50% in the roof. His advice was that this did not meet our local authority's definition of a conservatory. A total of 60% glass would be a "significant proportion" in anyone's books would it not?

He did say I could just carry on and say I believed it to be exempt, in which case they wouldn't have cause to doubt otherwise. However, he did say if we wrote in asking for confirmation that it met exempt criteria that they wouldn't provide it, in this existing design. He also warned on the implications of this for future house sale etc etc...

On the subject of porches he warned me that I could call it porch, although a rear porch may be subject to planning? I haven't researched this enough to know otherwise.

Attempting to have the work regularised under BC's appears a no go due to time and cost. Even though it would be more "useable" with the heating system run in there and a totally solid roof.

They've got it wrong again. Percentage glazing equations are a thing of the past and there is no mention of it in the 2010 statutory instrument. The AD of 2010 issued new criteria which BCOs should now be using. The reason it endured was because a lot of BCOs thought is was a mistake so carried on with the old criteria. But that was knocked on the head when the new criteria was reinforced by the 2014 AD so there is no excuse now they should all be using the new criteria. A structure is either exempt - under the same criteria as a porch - or it's not, in which case it needs to comply.

 

[aledzack]

They've got it wrong again. Percentage glazing equations are a thing of the past and there is no mention of it in the 2010 statutory instrument. The AD of 2010 issued new criteria which BCOs should now be using. The reason it endured was because a lot of BCOs thought is was a mistake so carried on with the old criteria. But that was knocked on the head when the new criteria was reinforced by the 2014 AD so there is no excuse now they should all be using the new criteria. A structure is either exempt - under the same criteria as a porch - or it's not, in which case it needs to comply.

John, I explained this and the BCO agreed.

However, for the purposes of the regulations we still need to define what a conservatory is before we can rule if it's exempt of not.

My local authority are still using the 2006 definition and the LABC guidance as the basis for their decision as to whether it's a conservatory or not. The criteria in the 2010 regs still apply one we have defined what one actually is.

It's a bit chicken and egg.

I suppose one option I have is to just state it's exempt and move on. It's not as if BC have the resource to go around checking all structures. My only concern comes for potential future sale of the property. If I state it's exempt and carry on, will the status of the conservatory be subject to future checks when coming to sell the property??

 

[geraldthehamster]

This is how the Department for Communities and Local Government views it:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/conservatories-and-porches

He did say I could just carry on and say I believed it to be exempt, in which case they wouldn't have cause to doubt otherwise

Does this refer to your amended plan? Maybe just go with that then, and stick some potted plants in there if they come round again


Cheers
Richard

 

[geraldthehamster]

will the status of the conservatory be subject to future checks when coming to sell the property??

That's a slightly different question. There could be no comeback from BC at that stage. You *might* find an over-zealous buyer's legal executive asking if it had BR approval. The usual way to satisfy that is to take out a useless indemnity policy, which isn't expensive.

cheers
Richard

 

[aledzack]

This is how the Department for Communities and Local Government views it:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/conservatories-and-porches

He did say I could just carry on and say I believed it to be exempt, in which case they wouldn't have cause to doubt otherwise

Does this refer to your amended plan? Maybe just go with that then, and stick some potted plants in there if they come round again

Cheers
Richard

Yeah I've seen the circular and even refered the BCO to it.

Again, it doesn't help as for one: it just repeats the wording from the regs; for two it explicitly states:

The decision on whether a conservatory or porch extension is exempt is a matter for building control bodies on a case by case basis taking account of the conditions above and the amount of glazing that makes up the new walls and roof.

So I'm no better off as it suggests decisions can be made by the local authority

At this stage I'm actually minded to just go with the amended plan and say I'm doing so based off their advice (which isn't untrue as two seperare officers have provided contradictory advice).

 

[geraldthehamster]

At this stage I'm actually minded to just go with the amended plan and say I'm doing so based off their advice (which isn't untrue as two seperare officers have provided contradictory advice).

I'd be tempted to do the same. Don't take that as qualified advice though.

Out of interest, what would be the issues in making the while thing comply with building regs? Depth of footings? Composition of floor slab?

Cheers
Richard

 

[aledzack]

At this stage I'm actually minded to just go with the amended plan and say I'm doing so based off their advice (which isn't untrue as two seperare officers have provided contradictory advice).

I'd be tempted to do the same. Don't take that as qualified advice though.

Out of interest, what would be the issues in making the while thing comply with building regs? Depth of footings? Composition of floor slab?

Cheers
Richard

Cheers Richard

Issues that need resolving for BR's:

- Depth of footings (seems to be the main issue)
- Depth of concrete slab (it's been laid to 100mm but they want evidence of such)
- Drains: We had to reroute a private sewer during the build, they want this to be pressure tested etc. This is practically impossible as it just replaces some clay pipe and then joins on to exisiting. It would take re-exposing the whole works to be able to satisfy this.
- Structural calculations: to show the construction can take the roof.

Etc etc.

 

[jeds]

You really have nothing to worry about. Circulars are not legal, the only things you need to be concerned with are the statutory instrument and the AD. If you follow both you cannot go wrong. The AD specifically says if you follow it, it will be presumed you have complied. The old rule was complicated and there were grey areas. It was changed under the 2010 AD and 2010 stat instrument specifically to simplify it. Under the new criteria it is either a conservatory or a porch. The rules are exactly the same for each so it doesn't matter what you call it. If it is neither it must comply with all regs. What you are building sounds more like a porch than a conservatory - but it really doesn't matter either way.

And you are right. BC have no resources or interest in pursuing you or your porch/conservatory. And even if they did they would not pursue somebody who could clearly demonstrate they followed the current official guidance whilst they were still on outdated 9 year old guidance.

 

[aledzack]

You really have nothing to worry about. Circulars are not legal, the only things you need to be concerned with are the statutory instrument and the AD. If you follow both you cannot go wrong. The AD specifically says if you follow it, it will be presumed you have complied. The old rule was complicated and there were grey areas. It was changed under the 2010 AD and 2010 stat instrument specifically to simplify it. Under the new criteria it is either a conservatory or a porch. The rules are exactly the same for each so it doesn't matter what you call it. If it is neither it must comply with all regs. What you are building sounds more like a porch than a conservatory - but it really doesn't matter either way.

And you are right. BC have no resources or interest in pursuing you or your porch/conservatory. And even if they did they would not pursue somebody who could clearly demonstrate they followed the current official guidance whilst they were still on outdated 9 year old guidance.

John, I understand where you are coming from but I still think you're missing the key point here: whether what you're building is defined as a conservatory or a porch by law.

For the purposes of any regulations (I enforce unrelated regulations for ref) you need to be clear on this definition in order to determine if they apply to your situation or not. Only then can you determine if you're in compliance with the regs themselves.

Unfortunately there does not seem to be an accepted definition of what constitutes a conservatory for the purposes of the 2010 or 2014 Building reg amendments. So the only way to truly test this would be with case law.

It appears for general advice on what defines a conservatory for the purposes of the regs it comes back to to individual LA building control, as described in the circular "case by case basis". In my case they are deferring to the 2006 regs definition and LABC as "guidance" for this decision, whether it's strictly legal or not.