building regs

So what happens about building regs for electrics, flues, structure, windows , footings etc on a house such as this?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/beds/bucks/herts/8487326.stm
AJH
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wibbled on Saturday 13 February 2010 08:03

I presume they've used some expired time period to lapse the ability of the planners to do anything (same approach that Fidler's Castle used) - in which case, failure-to-notify-building-regs was passed long ago...
AFAIK only if the building presented a danger then can the LABC intervene. If the owner was clever enough to pull this stunt off, they would have made sure the main regs were met (eg foundations, fire related things, ...)
Wonder how Fidler is doing - last I read, it was going up to the Lords (or is that the Supreme Court)...
--
Tim Watts

Managers, politicians and environmentalists: Nature's carbon buffer.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

he lost
tim
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wibbled on Saturday 13 February 2010 09:56

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/feb/05/robert-fidler-cowshed - mock-castle
Hasn't given up though - European Court next...
It is ironic - if it had remained, the same bloody council in 200 years would be forcing listed status on it.
I admire him - not so much for trying to be sneaky but for building something that looks externally rather better than most of the crap that goes up in Reigate & Banstead...
Interesting angle by this judge:
"...but a judge ruled this week that the building hadn't really been completed until the bales were removed..."
Sets an interesting precedent, unless it gets overturned...
--
Tim Watts

Managers, politicians and environmentalists: Nature's carbon buffer.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

On what grounds one wonders. The result is based upon a ruling that "the building work isn't complete until the surrounding cover is removed".
The EU court isn't going to waste its time hearing arguements about that.
tim
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wibbled on Saturday 13 February 2010 16:01

Dunno - maybe he's going to try a completely different tack to try to render the technicalities of the last argument null and void?

No, but I'm sure between a couple of baristers that this could spin out for another few years whilst he enjoys his "castle". You can do this stuff if you're rich...
Might have been cheaper though to move to a decent country and find a plot of land where he could have done this legally...
--
Tim Watts

Managers, politicians and environmentalists: Nature's carbon buffer.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I expect they followed the regs. Footings will be 900mm cube under each upright. Light might be an issue but who knows how many windows are on the other side.
The barn looks like a standard BS 5502 agricultural building but with insulated composite walls and roof. I have just fitted some of those roof lights and found they had to insert an additional internal membrane to meet he regs. Cuts down the light transmitted rather a lot.
I really must stop calling the present barn re-build the *bungalow*.
In defence of the 4 year rule.... I suppose, if nobody found a reason to object to the actual use, then it meets the criteria for a greenbelt development. Chap in Wales, who built a *castle* behind some straw bales, is being made to demolish!
regards
--
Tim Lamb

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tim Lamb wrote:

yes, there are two completely separate issues. One is planning, and the other is building regulations. To be in defiance of planning, can involve complete removal of the structure. To be in defiance of building regs, merely requires that it be made to conform.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

socan he put windows etc in it now and *convert* it into a 1.5million house? or knock it down and build a better one? if so genius! (NB BBC article: can a windowless house be worth 500,000 to anybody else? or is the plot now worth that alone?)
Cheers JimK
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tim Lamb wrote:

But how does one prove footings are to the current requirement? In this case he could used a structural engineer or surveyor to provide evidence of the construction but this would implicate them as no submission has been made to building control for a material change.

Is this different from the chap in Reigate that made two silos into towers for his castle?
AJH
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Photos are good. All the steel frame buildings I have erected, over 30 years, called for the same foundation pads.

I may have erred:-) I thought I saw the report in FWi but a quick search has failed to find the article.
We are having supper with a planning consultant. I will ask.
regards
--
Tim Lamb

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tim Lamb wrote:

Fine I have done the same for steel portal buildings but is this good enough for a dwelling? Here on the weals the BCO seems to require 2m deep strip footings.
Do footings have to extend below basements? Once you dig this deep you may as well have a low headroom basement.
On a separate matter I may need a link to the structural engineer who specifies internal support for decayed buildings, the boss wants to rebuild a barn that started life as a 1860 brick built mansion till it was gutted by fire in 1945. Existing use is as a mushroom growing building and he wants to convert it to rentable workshop space. We've done a single storey without problems but this one is 2 storey in height, though the floor/ceiling is long gone.
BTW it's interesting that you see the advantage of 4 year historic use being sensible for pp but object to 20 year public use to establish a footpath.
I too can agree on the continued need for laws of prescription, after all pp is often just an excuse to tax development, otoh 4 years does seem a bit short a period.
AJH
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yes if it is only supporting the roof.

I would think so. BRs discourage digging a trench deeper than a 45deg. intercept from existing foundations.

OK but my particular one needed a full digital survey of the building. I was quoted 390ukp for floor layout plus heights, external elevations 150ukp, long and cross section showing timber details 300ukp.
The structural eng. fee was 1000ukp and included calcs. and sketch drawings of the proposed frame.

It only takes one objector to tip off the planning dept.
No landowner of sound mind is likely to permit such use to be established without some documented agreement with highways. If he intended such use he would be daft not to use it to improve his property by arranging a trade off. It only requires 6 liars to claim they have used a route unopposed with no test for those who have been turned back to come forward.

regards
--
Tim Lamb

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 08:03:41 +0000

If I lived in Hertfordshire, I wouldn't want windows either. R.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It's been completed for over a year, so unless it's actually dangerous, there's nothing BC can do about it.
Cheers Richard
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
[Default] On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 08:03:41 +0000, a certain chimpanzee,
wrote:

As others have pointed out, if it's been longer than two years* since an offence under the Building Regulations (failure to notify of a commencement, failure to notify of covering of any material laid over site, drains, etc., failure to notify within five days of completion of the work**, failure to notify of a change of use***, failure to comply with any of the technical requirements of the regulations), then action for a fine in the magistrate's court cannot be commenced, and the issue of a 'section 36' (Building Act) notice cannot be taken more than 12 months after the completion of the work in question. However, the local authority could apply to the High Court for an injunction to remove the work.
One imagines that they can never sell this building as a dwelling. One presumes it doesn't have its own independant metered water or electric supply (they wouldn't have wanted to take the risk that the water or electric utilities would bubble them to the local authority), the Council ain't going to collect their bins separately from the main house if charging for waste ever happens. It looks like a barn with no windows. It's unmortgageable.
* Changed a few years ago from the original six months. A case still has to be brought within six months of discovery of the contravention.
** When did they 'complete' the work? One presumes they've never notified Council Tax that it's a dwelling. If the Council/Councillors wanted to take it further, they could be arguing that, if the owners never told them it was completed, it's still work in progress. I would be looking for them to say, "OK, now you've got your Certificate of Lawful Use, so today's the day of completion, and here's your Section 36 notice to pull it down".
*** A separate process. At some point the building went from being a barn to a dwelling, in which case the clock starts running again.
--
Hugo Nebula
"If no-one on the internet wants a piece of this,
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.