moving bathroom

[bint]

Hi all,
we have a downstairs bathroom and are looking into moving it upstairs the drainage is simple enough as the bathroom will be moved into the bedroom directly above it what i need to know is if i have to have planning permission to fit a soil pipe externally and are there any other permissions or reg's i need
thanks bint

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

Planning Permission is irrelevant unless you're house is listed. Building regulations will require you to retain a downstairs toilet.

 

[Paul_C]

Which part of the building regulations is that requirement found in? It can't be Part M, since that's not applicable to an existing dwelling.

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

You again! Building Regs Part M 2004 http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/uploads/br/BR_PDF_ADM_2004.pdf page 12

Untitled

• freddiemercurystwin
• 14 Mar 2011
• 2

/sighs

 

[hotrod]

You crease me up Freddy.

 

[Paul_C]

You again! Building Regs Part M 2004 http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/uploads/br/BR_PDF_ADM_2004.pdf page 12

Untitled

• freddiemercurystwin
• 14 Mar 2011
• 2

/sighs

That is a quote from the Approved Document, which is clearly in contradiction with what the actual legislation says. If you're claiming Part M as being the only reason, then the argument for not removing a downstairs W.C. because it's against the building regs. is clearly as incorrect as the similar argument applied to socket & switch heights, as here:

//www.diynot.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=224396

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

Yep good luck trying to get that old cobblers past your BCO!

 

[bint]

This is my first question on this forum and already a disagreement, i dont't suppose it will be the last.
would it be worth me getting BCO to visit and point me in the direction or will this just tie me up in red tape.
As you can probably tell this is going to be my first major diy job and any advise is most welcome.
Bint

 

[Paul_C]

This is my first question on this forum and already a disagreement, i dont't suppose it will be the last.

Not on this forum. I've yet to understand why some people seem to side with local authorities which insist that you must do this or musn't do that, when if you read the actual legislation it says no such thing. Unless those who do that actually work in those government circles themselves, and so have a vested interest in trying to support their own made-up rules.

Yep good luck trying to get that old cobblers past your BCO!

Which part do you dispute then?

“material alteration” has the meaning given in regulation 3(2)

{.....}

(2) An alteration is material for the purposes of these Regulations if the work, or any part of it, would at any stage result—

(a) in a building or controlled service or fitting not complying with a relevant requirement where previously it did; or

(b) in a building or controlled service or fitting which before the work commenced did not comply with a relevant requirement, being more unsatisfactory in relation to such a requirement.

(3) In paragraph (2) “relevant requirement” means any of the following applicable requirements of Schedule 1, namely—

Part A (structure)
paragraph B1 (means of warning and escape)
paragraph B3 (internal fire spread—structure)
paragraph B4 (external fire spread)
paragraph B5 (access and facilities for the fire service)
Part M (access to and use of buildings).

That's taken directly from the building regulations. Do you agree that the proposed removal of the downstairs W.C. would therefore be classed as a material alteration, as defined above?

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

The OP asked a question which has been answered by me. There is no disagreement.

Paul-C just hates any state interference so tries to find ways to evade this and that by his miss-interpretation of the blurb and seems to find it convenient to ignore the obvious.

Paul-C, you do seem to have a bit of a chip on your shoulder?

 

[Paul_C]

I make no secret of the fact that as far as I'm concerned the state interferes far too much in matters which are none of its business and that we have far too many pieces of legislation which violate our rights to freedom of choice.

But as far as interpreting the legislation is concerned, I'm just reading what is written. On occasions I've argued that the regulations impose a stricter requirement than everybody else is suggesting, even though I don't agree with any of those requirements being there in the first place. So it's not a case of trying to "misinterpret" anything.

Now, how about answering the question? Do you think that the proposed work constitutes a material alteration, as defined by regulation 3(2) of the building regulations?

 

[simonjay]

An interesting one, since many people take the approved documents to "be" the building regs. If you could show from the actual regs that something did not apply in some sort of appeal (with legal persons interpreting the rules), they would have to back down.
But of course, "precedent" may have some sway.

Anyway, I had plans approved to move a downstairs toilet, which failed on lack of drainage details (I have not finalised the position etc).
I submitted a revision where I removed the toilet completely, and the plans were passed ! I think they cocked up on that one.

In the end, I built a toilet anyway - I did get the BCO to check the extra drainage.

Simon.

 

[Paul_C]

An interesting one, since many people take the approved documents to "be" the building regs. If you could show from the actual regs that something did not apply in some sort of appeal (with legal persons interpreting the rules), they would have to back down.

That would be the section for Part M in Schedule 1 of The Building Regulations which states quite clearly:

The requirements of this part do not apply to -

(a) an extension of or a material alteration of a dwelling

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2010/2214/made

Regulation 3 defines what "material alteration" means for the purposes of the building regulations, as quoted above.

The example from the Approved Document above even starts by acknowledging that the proposed change constitutes a material alteration. For some bizarre reason, it then completely ignores the fact that the regulations say that as far as Part M is concerned, "the requirements of this part do not apply to {....} a material alteration of a dwelling."

In fact it's even more bizarre, because if you read section 0.4 on page 11, it does acknowledge that:

Under the General Limitations on Application of Part M, the requirements of that part do not apply to an extension of or a material alteration of a dwelling. This means that the extension or alteration work itself need not comply with Part M.

But it then completely contradicts itself by continuing:

However, a planned alteration to a dwelling that has the potential to reduce the compliance of the dwelling as a whole with Part M must be carried out in such a way that there is no reduction in the extent of Part M compliance.

Clearly, that is not what the Building Regulations actually say at all.

Maybe it is this reliance solely on what some of the Approved Documents say which leads to people thinking that something is against the Building Regulations when those actual regulations say no such thing.

Of course, although I might be accused of "having a chip on my shoulder," it's not at all unknown for local authorities to try and insist that something must or must not be done even when the regulations and the relevant approved document clearly indicate otherwise (an exhaust fan in a bathroom "must" be a timer type, all wiring "must" be to BS7671, etc.).

 

[hotrod]

IMHO it's pretty clear to the people that do this work, day in day out Paul, that for the purposes of BRegs compliance the provision of the existing GF WC must remain.

It's pretty crystal clear to be honest. Where's mikric ?

 

[Paul_C]

I would say that "The requirements of this part do not apply to {....} a material alteration of a dwelling" is pretty much crystal clear.

Maybe we need BAS to highlight that in big red block capitals......