'Real' issues with non-compliance

sydthebeat

im about to advise a client whether or not to go with a proposed attic conversion, and im in a bit of a quandry as to what the 'real' issues are regarding non compliance building regs.

This conversion will not achieve the width of ceiling heights as suggested in the ventilation regulations. They will end up with a room approx 4 m wide but only approx 1.2 width of a 2.4 ceiling.
The conversion will reduce the head height of the existing stairs to about 1.75 m
The conversion will result in the new first floor stair having a head height of 1.75 m.
The conversion will comply with fire regulations.

I see my options as:
1. Tell them blankly, the proposal doesnt comply with regulations so dont do it.
2. If they are to go ahead, what could the practical result be on completion...?? I often advise in situations like this that the client can only sell the dwelling as a three bed with converted attic as storage.... Does it practically mean any difference to a purchaser?

any opinions would be greatly appreciated.

RKQ

Its a difficult one.
I think you should advise them fully as listed above.
They can not expect you to certy compliance if it is non-compliant.
Some regulations are relaxed for conversions to existing and attic conversions.

I believe that you can only do your best to comply as much as possible. Compliance with fire being the most important IMO.

The attic may comply as a store or games room but it will not comply as a habital bedroom.

It can be sold as a three bedroom with store but I assume most people wouldn't mind that as long as the price/value reflects this.

Supertech

I had a relation who had a sale held up on a property about 3 years ago for exactly this reason. The engineer who came to look at the property for the purchaser informed them that the attic conversion (which sounds a lot like the one you have described) did not comply with building regulations, and could not be made to comply without major alterations incurring considerable cost. I had a look and he was correct - stairs headroom too low, pitch of stairs incorrect, attic floor area about 10% short of that required to be 2.4m or over, no fire doors at first floor level, no adequate escape window from attic, etc. etc. etc.

I'd say stay well away. If you put a 'full' stairs into an attic, any prospective purchaser will assume it's a bedroom, and any auctioneer will try to flog it as such.

In addition, if your new stairs reduces the headroom of the existing stairs to 1.75 this has an impact on more than just the attic conversion, and can't be explained away in that fashion - therefore serious problem- and in any case, any stairs with headroom of less than 2 metres can't comply with Fire Regs.

If I were you I'd list the issues - ALL the issues - which would lead to non compliance to them, tell them that NO ONE will be in a position to certify it (not just you), and that this will affect any future sale and let them make a decision based on that information.

If it's that tight it won't make a great bedroom anyway, and I'd question the viability of it in terms of cost. Some attics are just not suitable for conversion.

sinnerboy

This occurs a lot . Put the client as fully in the picture as you can ( best to do so in writing ) and let them decide .

Common practice is to describe such a house as 3 bed semi with converted attic ( storage ) . Description of works in cert of compliance should state storage , not bedroom .

From a moral stand point I always ensure

• Velux to comply with MOE
• Fully integrated smoke detector installation - at all levels
• Fire door at top or bottom of stairway .
• actual stairway ( i.e. not stira )

together with best insulation possible , these are "walk away" items for me . Don't want to part of anyone perishing in a fire . It's up to them if they don't mind restricted head space in the "storage" room .

I have posted before that when asked to provide cert of comp with planning permission ( CWPP ) that I refuse to do so where fire safety measures are not complied with .

Muffler demonstrated before that technically CWPP can be certified as ABP have determined "on numerous occasions" that attic conversions are exempt ( I wish they had not done this , but fact is they have) .

My fear which I hope is never realised is that we will experience a freak "spike" in fire-in-converted-attic tragedies which will in Joe Duffy fashion change perceptions about the issue . May it never come to pass .

sydthebeat

thanks guys, valuable advice there.

I must state firstly that planning will be applied for (if they go with it) as our LA dont consider attic conversions exempt from permission. The inclusion of the rooflights definitely do, according to them.

Best thing to do is to put all issues in writing.

Ill deal with the certification when this arises.

Thank you again, and if anyone else wants to input anything please feel free.

Poor Uncle Tom

Syd, if you are going for planning anyway, why not incorporate a partial roof lift in the form of a blank dormer or full roof lift so the conversion/extension complies.

muffler

Applying for an exemption from parts of the building regs is an option that you could look into.

If it was me I would advise the clients, in writing, that there will be non compliance and theres nothing you can do about it. You could also advise that while you will be in a position to issue a cert. of compliance it will be qualified by including details of the points that dont comply. After that its up to them to decide what they want to do and should they proceed then they need to talk to their solicitor in relation the implications of a qualified cert. compliance.

sinnerboy

Poor Uncle Tom wrote: »

Syd, if you are going for planning anyway, why not incorporate a partial roof lift in the form of a blank dormer or full roof lift so the conversion/extension complies.

This in most cases will raise the ridge line - maybe ok in rural setting - rarely in urban

sydthebeat

Poor Uncle Tom wrote: »

Syd, if you are going for planning anyway, why not incorporate a partial roof lift in the form of a blank dormer or full roof lift so the conversion/extension complies.

not an option unfortunately, due to
1. cost
2. this is and end of 4 unit terrace in a development

Poor Uncle Tom

I see, Muffler has given some very good advice, echoes what I would do.

topcatcbr

If you have a head hight problem with the stairs you might try an alternating thread stairs. these comply as long as it only serves one room which is used on an ocasssional basis.

Garroldy

The 1991 Regs required a 2.4m height as a minimum floor to ceiling height. No question, set in stone.

The wording in the 1997 regs was changed to a suggested minimum height from floor to ceiling of 2.4m. 'The suggested dimensions in Diagram 5 are consistent with good room design, the use of standard materials and good building practice.' This means that in essence the ceiling height isssue is open to interpretation on good the room design. If the height is under 2.4m it still complies.

The other issues mentioned in the OP are again set in stone items ie fire, stairs. If you don't comply you don't comply.

I am looking at a new project which will comply in every way except for this ( as I see it ) open to interpretation issue of ceiling height.

Am I really wrong in this interpretation of the regulations ?.

RKQ

In a word - No.
I agree with the ceiling height - suggested height of 2.4m.

Stairs and fire is black and white. You do or you don't comply.

It is possible to apply for an exemption, as stated above.

Garroldy

Theres a big gap in my knowledge here. I have never applied for an exemption. Can you elaborate on this ?

Poor Uncle Tom

You can make an application to the Building Control section of the LA if you want to deviate slightly from the given Building Regulations, (eg., ramped access to SIDE or REAR, rather than MAIN entrance,) Usually these exemptions will be granted, but if it's a direct flouting of the Regulations (eg., Retain internal room as a bedroom as per design, or, retain open string or steep stairs as designed,) I have found that these will not be allowed.

sinnerboy

Once a contractor made a boo boo with an excavated basement conversion - reduced level fine , hardcore , radon , sub floor and insulation all fine . But screed was installed 100 instead of 75 . Headroom 2375mm

After much onion peeling from contractor and client we approached Dublin CC about an an exemption . We were told - forget it .

Enter the brakers .....

Garroldy

Sinnerboy ... my opinion of the change of wording in the building regulations at the time in 1997 was that it was changed to allow for situations occurring just as you have described.

It allows some elbow room on the issue of compliance where, lets face it, 25 mm difference in floor to ceiling height has little or no impact on the quality of the build ventilation and would not consitute bad design.

I might give the guys in the Dept. a ring. Although they can be very pedantic when explaining the regs.

thanks for the info on the exemption Uncle Tom

sydthebeat

if you dont have a definite figure in the regs then its pointless, how far can you stretch it... 10mm? 50mm? 100mmm???

personally i stick religiously to 2.4 when designing, with the 1.5m / 2 plane just as paramount.

sinnerboy

Garroldy wrote: »

Sinnerboy ... my opinion of the change of wording in the building regulations at the time in 1997 was that it was changed to allow for situations occurring just as you have described.

It allows some elbow room on the issue of compliance where, lets face it, 25 mm difference in floor to ceiling height has little or no impact on the quality of the build ventilation and would not consitute bad design.

I might give the guys in the Dept. a ring. Although they can be very pedantic when explaining the regs.

thanks for the info on the exemption Uncle Tom

I should add - this was 1997 .... tend to agree with you G . And Syd . 25mm should not matter . 300mm should .

sydthebeat

sinnerboy wrote: »

And Syd . 25mm should not matter . 300mm should .

thats fair enough, but like anything, how far can you stretch it. The only figure suggested is 2.4, as a minimum.... i wouldnt like to argue any lower in a court of law.

Slig

I might be the only one but I never specify the minimum, either in bathroom sizes, room heights, door widths or stairs.
You can easily use up 50mm when walls are plastered and/or tiled or ceilings slabbed.
If you must design a layout for them but write a letter stating that it wont comply with the building regulations and why.

Garroldy

Sinnerboy I would have agreed with you if the wording of the regulations had not changed in 97.
The wording in the regulations was changed for some deliberate reason. It could have stayed as was in 1991 - 2.4m as a minimum.

sydthebeat

Slig wrote: »

I might be the only one but I never specify the minimum, either in bathroom sizes, room heights, door widths or stairs.
You can easily use up 50mm when walls are plastered and/or tiled or ceilings slabbed.
If you must design a layout for them but write a letter stating that it wont comply with the building regulations and why.

slig, this is more about certification than design, though i know what you are saying.

If you are doing construction drawings then yes, every bit of construction and finishes should be included in thicknesses. But if not, then the figure supplied to the builder should be taken as being the face to face dimension.

sinnerboy

sinnerboy wrote: »

I should add - this was 1997 .... tend to agree with you G . And Syd . 25mm should not matter . 300mm should .

Who says punctuation does not matter .

that should read "tend to agree with you and Syd " - with emphasis on "and" .

reminds me of a story , don't know if it's true .

Wild west USA - prisoner was to hang . DA dictated to telegram operator , telegram to be sent to the prison Governor.

"pardon impossible. to be hanged"

she typed

"pardon. impossible to be hanged"

He was freed .

I like to think it happened .

So Syd , I was actually agreeing with you , not challenging you .

sydthebeat

My reading of the regs show that once the dwelling has a floor more than 4.5 m above GL, the stairwell needs to be protected in 30 m fire resisting construction. thus the doors iinto this stairwell would need to be 30 min FD. The regs state all doors need to be self closing.

these doors would need self closing devices attached. is this other peoples reading of the egs?

muffler

sydthebeat wrote: »

My reading of the regs show that once the dwelling has a floor more than 4.5 m above GL, the stairwell needs to be protected in 30 m fire resisting construction. thus the doors iinto this stairwell would need to be 30 min FD. The regs state all doors need to be self closing.

these doors would need self closing devices attached. is this other peoples reading of the egs?

How would you see this effecting an attic area of a 2 storey house that will have fixed stairs and the attic to be used as an office/study/gym room?

RKQ

I agree with Garroldy.
2.4 is a recommended height, as clearly stated in TGD. IMO it comes from standard brick and block heights, 2.475 being 11 rows of blocks.

Any Council not prepared to accept 2375mm is wrong and IMO is also misinterpeting the ethos of the regulation.

British Standards also allow for tolerances, as building is not a mm exact science. Our Building Regulations are based on UK system and their BS. These standards allow for good building practice, built up over decades of research and experience of failure of materials.

To get back to the OP, I suggest you explain the whole issue to your Client and let them decide if they are converting an attic or not. Can they justify the expense for a "gamesroom" or store?
No-one can Certifiy it as habital accommodation if it is non-compliant. Discuss the overall design with local Building Control, for their feedback.