Easy list of building regs applicable to houses converted to 2 flats?

Building Regulations are not retrospective. Most older conversions wouldn't begin to satisfy current regulations wrt thermal and sound insulation and fire safety. But they still get sold and bought. The crucial thing is whether there are any defects that would get a mortgage surveyor excited.

Not retrospective, however IME what can and does cause a problem if is there's a Change of Use, which is the case here, surely? That means that modern regs will apply - obviously only insofar as it's possible in an old property; however I suspect it will be very much down to the interpretation of the individual BCO as to how much he will insist upon and what he will let you get away with. Therefore pretty much impossible to provide a checklist of what you need to do.

David

Defects other than non-compliance with building regs, do you mean? Can you be more explicit?

Thanks..

Hank

Thanks for the input. If you are right, and if I understand the situation correctly, then one option would be to be to apply for retrospective building regs approval. It will certainly fail in one or more respects, but the visiting BCO agent will give me a list of what I must do in the way of improvements, in order to get the certificate. Is that how it works?

Or should I forget the retrospective building regs approval idea and just bring the place up to more-or-less 1992 fireproofing and soundproofing regs and hope the buyer's lender's surveyor will consider it acceptable.

I also need to insure the property against fire so the fireproofing improvements would presumably make the place more insurable too.

Hank

Sorry just ignore me... what I was saying would be the scenario if you were carrying out the conversion now, not 15 years ago.

Is this not one of those situations where your solicitor just tells you to buy a 100 GBP insurance policy to cover any eventuality arising from lack of Building Regs approval, but otherwise you do nothing? I'm sure others can and will comment.

David

Thanks.. I have heard of these policies, and I would like to know more

- e.g., whether mortgage lenders consider them satisfactory mitigation of building-regs non-compliance. One solicitor suggested that a flat that doesn't comply with building regs would be considered a high risk for lending purposes. Whether buildning-regs indemnity insurance would mitigate that risk from the POV of a typical mortgage lender, I don't know.

I also want the flats to be insurable. I'm wondering if non-compliance with building regs could pose a problem in this respect. I don't know, but I could imagine that a company insuring against fire damage to a flat & contents might have some clause in the small print saying that the poilcy would be void if it was found that the flat didn't meet such-and-such building regs re fire-proofing.

Hank

No, defects such as a wall subsidsing.

As Tony said. The regs now focus heavily upon sound (between flats) and thermal (to ouside) insulation.

Your flat almost certainly doesn't come close to the new regs and the work to fit retrospectively is massive.

OTOH if you wanted to comply with a requirement to fit self closers to doors, it is going to be do-able but no-one other the BCO will notice if you don't (I wish that I could remove mine!)

tim

If this was not done then the property remains, in law, one dwelling, and you will be starting from scratch and the BCO may insist on all work being to current standards.

But the first question the buyer's solicitor will ask is "what works have been done on the property", and if you do anything that is notifiable then they will need to see a Building Regs certificate from the council.

The buyer's surveyor is not going to inspect the property in detail for a mortgage valuation.

Owain

As the conversion was sone in 1993 (I think), I think it might only need to be brought up to 1992 regulations, but I may be wrong.

Seems like I might be wise to take out buiding regs indemnity insurance, so that if I am ordered to upgrade the specs by BCO, I will be covered for the costs.

Hank

The last one may never have been required: you might (as my father did in the 1960s) convert a property into flats and let them out leaving the title unaffected. If the planners were to take an interest, separate Council tax bills and/or electoral roll entries would be fairly strong evidence of a change of use.

only

If the conversion was done then, Building Control have no power to require anything except under related powers regarding dangerous structures, public health issues (drainage) and the like.

No, none of that. Since the council tax system, they have been sending one bill to each flat.

That's interesting. I have spoken to about four different solicitors about the prospects of selling teh flats separately and none of them mentioned that.

A couple of solicitors have suggested that a building regs indemnity policy would be a way to overcome this.

Ok, thanks for the input.

This is the first time I've heard this, so thank you for that! None of four solicitors has told me that before. However, I'm not sure exactly how many aspects of my conversion job could be threatened by the dangerous structures and public health rules. It all seems very safe to me and has stood the test of time, but no doubt the rules are not interested in that.

Perhaps I should quit worrying and just apply for a certificate of lawful use from the council (on the basis of established use) and then go ahead and sell the flats separately - perhaps taking out building regs indemnity on the two flats, to make any prospective buyer and his solicitor happy?

Or will applying for a certificate of lawful use put me in danger of being ordered to undo the conversion - or the drainage that was part of the conversion?

The only proof I have of established use is 14 years of council tax bills (separate ones for each flat). Apart from that, the only way it could be proved might be to get a physicist to carbon-date some of the materials used!

Hank