Kitchen extension

[shonty]

In Jan 05 we decided we wanted to build an extension on the back of our 3 bed semi and but a kitchen in it. we liked the idea of having a conservatory style roof to it, to make it nice and light. to cut a long story short, we had a number of builders/conservatory companys quote us & eventually we went with a conservatory company. what we have now is a lean-too with full brick walls either side, french doors at the end and a polycarbonate roof. we got confirmation from planning that it did not require planning permission which we have in writing.
We told the con' company that we wanted the conservatory to merge with our existing dining room making a nice kitchen diner i.e on doors, they said no problem (there was no mention of Building Regs)
The kitchen was profesionally installed by the high street chain Magnet, the gas was run in correctly and the drainage was done properly.
Now then......We are thinking about moving house and have started to worry about how legal the kitchen is, and are we going to have problems with prospective buyers solicitors.

Would we need to fit outside doors to make it legal, eventhough anyone who see's the kitchen would agree it would look ridiculous.

Any idea anyone??

Steve

 

[^woody^]

There is an identical post further down this forum - " Conservatory Kitchen, building regulations" which should answer this

 

[Richard C]

I’m afraid you are right to be concerned ; what’s been done does not comply with BR’s & even fitting an external door between the kitchen/cons & the rest of the property will not make it compliant.

Here’s a link to the “other” topic Woody refers to;
//www.diynot.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=180552

 

[inspector01]

In order to sell your house you will need to make what is called a "regularisation application" to the Local Council. This will allow you to gain retrospective Building Regs.
Be aware that you will be required to expose certain elements of the work i.e foundations, damp proof course etc before the Local Authority would be in a position of signing it off. Also bear in mind that if the work was done after April 2006 you will also need to justify the areas of glazing and heat loss by thermal calculations.

 

[Shytalkz]

...you will also need to justify the areas of glazing and heat loss by thermal calculations.

That's him stuffed then?!

 

[^woody^]

In order to sell your house you will need to make what is called a "regularisation application" to the Local Council.

Thats not correct is it

There is no requirement at all for regularisation, as a house sale is a private agreement between buyer and seller.

If the buyer don't like it, then they can do one. If they are being a bit numpty, then the seller can offer indemnity insutance. Otherwise, it's just a case of negotiation.

 

[Richard C]

In order to sell your house you will need to make what is called a "regularisation application" to the Local Council. This will allow you to gain retrospective Building Regs.
Be aware that you will be required to expose certain elements of the work i.e foundations, damp proof course etc before the Local Authority would be in a position of signing it off. Also bear in mind that if the work was done after April 2006 you will also need to justify the areas of glazing and heat loss by thermal calculations.

That will not work; fine if it’s a hooky extension but it’s highly unlikely you will get regularization & retrospective compliance with Building Regs. on a cons. A cons. is BR exempt so chances are it won’t comply in several areas. Removing the connecting (external) doors, connecting it to the main central heating system, fitting it out as a kitchen or turning it into a habitable room means it’s no longer exempt & must comply with current BR’s. I doubt any cons is capable of complying with BR’s on heat loss (conservation) alone without sticking a tiled & insulated roof on it; it then becomes an extension. Chances are there will be other non compliant “shortcuts” also.

There is no requirement at all for regularisation, as a house sale is a private agreement between buyer and seller.

This is true, if you have the cash you can do as you like but, as we’ve already seen, the lender will in all probability not advance the cash.

If the buyer don't like it, then they can do one. If they are being a bit numpty, then the seller can offer indemnity insutance. Otherwise, it's just a case of negotiation.

That may have worked in the past but, I’ll SAY IT AGAIN, indemnity insurance is no longer an option & won’t be worth the paper it’s printed on. Unless you tell blatant lies, (which still won’t work) what insurance company is going to indemnify against unauthorised building works when it’s known from the outset that the works can never be compliant; it breaches the terms of any policy I know & your indemnity insurance will be declared null & void.

 

[inspector01]

Not a must just an option....

 

[Richard C]

Not a must just an option....