Making loft meet fire regs

[mick1970]

Hi

We're currently selling our house which we bought 18 years ago.
The house has a loft conversion, and when we bought it the survey highlighted that it didn't meet current fire regs since it is open to the stairwell , i.e. stairs go to first floor, and then curl round and go up into the middle of the loft. Consequently the room could not be classified as a habitable room.

Also, it didn't get building control sign off at the time. However, we did consult with the council who confirmed it had been inspected, and met regulations in place **at the time** (late 80s) so it could be considered habitable.

Knowing that selling the house as a 3 bedroom would probably cause issues with current surveys, we have marketed as a 2 bedroom with a 'bonus room', and we have had an offer. However, the buyer's lenders have done a "desktop survey" (ie they look at the floor plan) and because of the loft not meeting fire code, *they won't lend the money* so buyer has withdrawn.

We're not sure if this is an overly conservative surveyor, or whether this is a new standard, but we are clearly worried that now to sell the house we are going to have to pay to get it "up to regs" even if buyers are willing to take it in the current state (as we did years ago) because of the lenders' requirements.

So, if we did have to change it to pass muster, any idea what we would need to do to get it up to code? I am assuming at a minimum a fire door sealing off the loft - we could just about fit one but it would be awkward. Surely we don't have to retrospectively get the whole conversion up to spec? This would be very unfair on anyone who bought a house previously with legacy conversions. I understand however it is because of Grenfell etc that the lenders are taking safety into account.

Any insights appreciated.

 

[tony1851]

As it was done in the late eighties, it would not need to comply with current regs, eg particularly on thermal insulation. However, the Inspector who said it would have complied with the regs when built may be wrong, as three-storey houses have always needed protected routes.

If you need to upgrade it, you would have to comply with the regs at the time, and most inspectors won't be aware of them. As a minimum and to get a Certificate, you'd need to show acceptable means of escape and warning, and also that the floor joists are adequate, and maybe some insulation of there isn't any at present.

Note that the council won't entertain a retrospective application if it was converted before November 1985.

 

[^woody^]

You need to find out the regulations that applied at the time.

Probably a fire door sealing the loft from the rest of the house, a protected route down the stairs and to the front door - with self closing fire doors on all habitable rooms off the landing and hallway, and an escape window in the loft. Upgraded first floor celling for fire protection, and maybe interlinked fire detection.

 

[mick1970]

Thanks for the replies.
re: escape window - there is a dormer window that opens onto the rear of the property, although it's not something you could climb through. If that was changed to a sash window or something you could get out, would that suffice? I recall that when we looked at this when we bought the property the steer was the escape window had to be a Velux that no more than a couple of feet (??) from the floor but someone told me recently this was no longer the case.

 

[^woody^]

You need to look at the dimensions for an escape window - this includes the actual clear opening size as well as the cill height from the floor. And the location should be from where a rescue could be made with a fireman's ladder

 

[mrrusty]

Put a lift-up hatch on it. Call it loft storage, leave it off the plans as a room, and sell it.

 

[^woody^]

Put a lift-up hatch on it. Call it loft storage, leave it off the plans as a room, and sell it.

Don't forget to take the stairs out

 

[mrrusty]

However, we did consult with the council who confirmed it had been inspected, and met regulations in place **at the time** (late 80s) so it could be considered habitable.

Why take stairs out? council not interested. This is just a sales issue not BC, and houses sell all the time with non-compliant structures.

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

Why take stairs out? council not interested. This is just a sales issue not BC, and houses sell all the time with non-compliant structures.

Yet here we are.

 

[mrrusty]

Yet here we are.

Yes, marketing as a "bonus room" wasn't a great move as it drew attention to it and suggested it would be used inappropriately.

 

[^woody^]

Why take stairs out? council not interested. This is just a sales issue not BC, and houses sell all the time with non-compliant structures.

Because a surveyor would pick it up, and give the OP deja-vu.

 

[cw018666]

AFAIK .. linked detection didn’t appear in the building regs until 1991.. building control will know this as flats which don’t meet this standard can be classed as HMOs under the S.257 Housing act (and therefore can be dealt with by private sector housing)

 

[mick1970]

Thanks for the insights. We expected the survey to call out that the room shouldn't be considered habitable but then it's down to the buyer to make their own choice (e.g. I know people who put fire doors on their lofts to get certified and then took them off again - their call), and we had a buyer who was OK with that. The difference now is that the lender won't lend. Our agent had said the 'bonus room' description had worked before; we had another agent last year who was all for marketing it as a third bedroom but I think that would be going too far. I guess the question is whether it is the lack of official certification that is an issue - it may be now that they have to tick a box as to whether everything is 'proper' - or whether, even with that, they would have issue with not being up to current spec. We'll have to try to get chapter and verse on that.

 

[bernardgreen]

Isn't the safety of people using the room/space the prime concern ?

 

[cdbe]

Also, it didn't get building control sign off at the time. However, we did consult with the council who confirmed it had been inspected, and met regulations in place **at the time** (late 80s) so it could be considered habitable

I don't really understand this bit, but unless you live in Burnley, surely the additional value of a 3rd bedroom far outweighs the cost of compliance - fire doors start at sixty quid, an escape window in the hundreds (it may just need new hinges on the existing dormer window), under boarding and skimming a few ceilings, mains powered radio interlinked alarms aren't that expensive these days and may allow a relaxation in other areas.

I think you need to submit (if within the time constraints) a "regularisation application" to the council who will tell you what you need to do to make it compliant. My council charged about £600 a good few years ago. I was doing the work to sell the house and my buyers valuer said "250k with the certificate or 220k without".