Planning permission to extend a garage ?

[Peter Crosland]

propspective

Thank you for putting the point across much better than I did ;-)

[Olias of Sunhillow]

Yes, but it's a shame I didn't check my lousy spelling/keyboarding more carefully before hitting 'send'... :-)

[Mike Harrison]

Can't see anyone backing out of a sale over an extension to a garage... I intend to do it properly in terms of construction quality, but would rather avoid the paperwork, and council involvement if possible.

[Mike Harrison]

I noticed that when looking through the forms on my council's website - there appears to be a certificate you can apply for after 10 years to make it legal - this would certainly be worth doing if I ever sell, as I could then legitimately sell as 'house with office', with permission.

[Andy Hall]

do it properly

involvement if

Exactly. Either they would want the property or they wouldn't. Assuming tha tthey do, they have the choice to accept the garage extension as is, or one could agree to demolish it.

There will always be jobsworths who love to have regulations covering everything that is done, but this only results in an actual improvement in outcome in certain instances.

The argument of a detached garage that is 29.9 sqm. in size and therefore not subject to building control vs. one that is 30.1 and therefore is, is a semantic one. The definitions have to be set somewhere, but to suggest that one is intrinsically of higher quality and construction standard than another is a nonsense. I really don't believe that a construction of 29.9 sqm is going to do one any less damage if it falls around your ears than one of 30.1.

Since it is very easy to circumvent officialdom by building just under the limits anyway, it does rather suggest that this does not give any real guide to quality and safety.

THe real point would be inspection by a surveyor.

If I were buying a property, I would be far more interested in a survey report, than I would in whether the vendor has a piece of paper from the town hall - plus my own assessment of course.

We are talking about an extension to a detached garage remote from the house here, not an add-on to the house.

.andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

[Peter Crosland]

Sic transit gloria!

[Andy Hall]

He didn't say that he wanted it for a nice van.... :-)

.andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

[Olias of Sunhillow]

there appears to be a

certainly be worth doing

with permission.

That's a "Certificate of Lawfulness of Existing Use or Development". The onus will be on you to prove 10 years of uninterrupted (unauthorised) use, and/or 4 yrs since structure erected. Won't help you show a purchaser that the building is properly constructed, though.

[Olias of Sunhillow]

x-no-archive: yes

".......mundi" ?

[Olias of Sunhillow]

intend to do it properly

and council involvement if

Yeah, but if you ain't got the Building Regs consent paper, you can't demonstrate that you did build it to *quality* standard, can you? There's always another house for a purchaser to buy, one that has all the appropriate paperwork. Bit like buying a car without full service history, perhaps. Why should a purchaser take a needless risk - might be harder to get buildings insurance etc....... Up to you my friend; at least now you know the risks.

[Olias of Sunhillow]

x-no-archive: yes

As I read them, these regulations are there to protect us. If we dont want to be protected, fine, go ahead. No wonder cowboy builders flourish.

[Andy Hall]

That isn't really my point. Yes of course they are, but one should see these things in perspective and realise that in the context of this exercise where regulations apply to a type of building above an arbitrary size and not to those below, suggest that the whole exercise is arbitrary.

THe Building Regulations are carefully crafted to cover the most important issues around a property such as foundations, constructional timber, fire protection in places of habitation, and even some that are more politically motivated.

THere are also quite strict controls around garages that are integral to a house in order to slow down the spread of fire should it occur.

If you look at the exemptions to the building regulations, they are mainly based on things being away from the house and under a certain size. If the intent were really there to provide protection to the public, then the regulations would apply to *all* external buildings rather than those above a certain size.

It is therefore somewhat misguided to believe that because a piece of paper has been issued in respect to an external garage remote from the property that it implies any form of warranty of the safety, suitability or anything else that makes it better than one that is immediately under the arbitrary limit.

It's perfectly possible to erect a small to a ginormous shed quite within the rules and for it to fall on someone's head.

Regulations don't protect against stupidity - so it really becomes an issue of the balance between common sense and over-interfence by the nanny state.

.andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

[Peter Crosland]

Silly me ;-)

[usenet]

But in reality who has explicit building regs and planning permission paperwork for all the garages/sheds and other buildings around their house? OK, my house has more than most:- A brick built triple garage with a games room over it A prefabricated concrete 2 car wide, 2 car long garage Two greenhouses Two garden sheds A small brick built stable block

I have no paperwork for any of these, they were part of what I bought when I bought the house (one of the main attractions in fact). There

*may* be some paperwork for the garage with the games room over it actually but that's all.

I would guess that just about all the houses in our village are quite similar. If you want to buy a house hereabouts and insist on seeing PP and BR paperwork for all the bits you're never ever going to buy a house.

[usenet]

As far as I'm concerned 'FSH' means very little when buying a car. The standard of 'regular servicing' even by a franchised garage is now such that it can mean nothing except that the service record has been stamped at regular intervals.

I service my motorcycles (only one at a time!) myself, I keep records of what I've done but only I know if they're true records (or not). I've never had any problem selling to genuinely interested buyers, they're much more interested in seeing the bike and talking to me about it. When I buy cars/bikes the same applies, I'm much more impressed by a 'genuine' seller who is honest (as far as my judgement can tell) about the vehicle's faults and good points then by a 'FSH'. So far I haven't bought any lemons (and I've bought a *lot* of secondhand cars and bikes over the years), OK some have maybe not been as good as others but I've never been really caught out.

Why should a purchaser take a needless risk - might be harder to

A good hard look at everything will protect you much better than a piece of paper, whatever the piece of paper says.

[Tony Bryer]

They certainly ought to factor the risk of remedial work being needed into the price. But why should an apparently properly built (without consent) extension be seen as something to walk away from whilst a Victorian pile that would fail miserably on foundations, damp-proofing, thermal insulation and probably other things too is worth ££££££

[Tony Bryer]

In theory. But they are also there in response to cries of "something must be done" whenever something goes wrong. And it's a big mistake to assume that Building Regs approved = well built. The bits that have been inspected - most probably the foundations and dpc - are almost certainly OK, but depending on staffing there may be other vital bits of work that have never been inspected.