Notifying mortgage company of work / building regs / planning permission

[Neil Williams]

Hello all...

I recently bought a terraced house which has a small (about 3-4 square metres if that) porch on the back. The porch is a wooden lean-to type affair with single glazed windows and a corrugated plastic roof, and is in a very poor state of repair, with most of the timber badly rotten. There is a brick wall supporting it on the boundary with my neighbour, which if structurally sound I will leave in place, if not I will pull it down and replace with a 6' fence panel.

As a result, I want to remove the porch, and have a set of French doors fitted to open out onto the patio in its place. I'd get the latter done professionally as it's likely to require a new lintel and I don't know what I'm doing with that sort of thing.

A few questions then:-

1. My mortgage T&Cs say that I need to notify them of building work, as I believe they generally do. Is this sort of thing likely to require this? I expect given the state of the porch it would increase the value of the house overall even though it would remove some storage space - but I imagine they might think that removing a porch would reduce value and thus argue about it?

1. Would removing the porch require building regs consent? (I'm aware that adding the French doors would require either that or a FENSA certificate, but as I'm going to have that done professionally that's less of a concern).

2. Would any of the work be likely to require planning consent or any other type of consent e.g. relating to the wall? I'm not in a conservation area or anything like that, but the house is a bit odd in that it's one with road access at the rear and the "primary elevation" fronting onto a footpath - a fairly typical 1970s estate arrangement but one that I think often requires planning consent for more things than the usual situation of gardens backing onto gardens.

Thanks

Neil

[Neil Williams]

One more thing to add regarding electrical work and Part P.

The porch has a floodlight attached to it, which I would remove. Would removing a circuit involving an outdoor light require Part P consent, or only adding one?

Additionally, the supply to the rear garage runs through the porch. If the part within the porch isn't suitably outdoor-safe (I haven't checked it yet as it's behind panelling), does modifying the existing installation to resolve this require Part P consent? If so, would disconnecting it completely inside the house for the time being also require consent? (I expect to be removing the porch some time before I get chance to arrange for the building/window work, and I'd probably get any professional electrical work done at the same time).

Neil

[Mike Clarke]

I doubt if they'll have any objection but don't be surprised if they want to charge you a fee for saying so.

[Invisible Man]

I rather doubt whether any consents would be required unless the porch has structural elements supporting or weatherproofing the main building.

Unless the mortgage is very new I would keep quiet but that is your decision.

I seem to recall an outside light fixed to the outside of a building from which it is supplied is not a part P job unless it comes off a circuit in a wet room, eg bathroom or kitchen but hopefully an expert will be along shortly.

Was the porch originally part of the building? When selling houses many solicitors are now picking up on cases where alterations have been carried out without the original developers permission. It is then necessary to pay to apply for retrospective permission or to pay for an indemnity if the developer cannot be traced. If the porch was original check the covenants on the building. I had to pay for changes carried out previously on a 1960s house as did the vendor selling a 1980s house to me.

[Neil Williams]

No, it doesn't; it's a wooden lean-to.

No, or at least I strongly suspect not, as none of the other houses on the terrace has such a porch.

Neil

[Hugo Nebula]

When you bought the house, did you have a full survey which included an assessment of the porch? If you only had a valuation survey how would they even know that the porch had been there in the first place?

The mortgage co. are only concerned that their loan is secured against something that is worth at least that. So long as the work you do will not significantly (*) reduce the resale value of your house, then they're happy. Of course, if you tell them you're having work done, they'll expect you to pay for a surveyor to tell them that it's not significantly reduced the value.

(* I suspect 'significantly' depends on the loan to value ratio.)

Removing the porch? No. Altering the lintel over? Possibly unless replacing like-for-like. [Supplementary question - should you make an application for it? For piddling minor work, don't bother.] If the opening into the building requires widening then it's outside the scope of the FENSA self-certification scheme (although I'm pretty sure the window firm won't bother telling you that); again, should you make an application for a minor alteration?...

Normally, I'd say be honest and upfront about building work. However, it sounds like in your case it may be better to just get on and do it.

The way that the vast majority of unauthorised works come to light is via neighbour complaints, and the biggest reason that neighbours complain is that they think that major works may be about to start. Speak to your neighbours and let them know exactly what you're doing.

[jgharston]

Normally a porch is permitted development unless a listed building or in a conservation area, see

[Neil Williams]

There was a homebuyer's report (which to be fair alerted me to a couple of other things I had dealt with, so was worth it overall). This does make it clear that the porch is in poor condition, though.

I suppose the question is whether they'd consider removing the porch would reduce resale value. My personal view is that it would increase it - I'd be adding double glazing where there is presently none (the windows and door onto the porch are single-glazed and the kitchen gets horribly cold in winter as a result), making the garden bigger (it's quite small at present) and making the kitchen a nicer place to sit and eat, offset against the loss of a bit of junk storage which I can easily make up for by putting some decent racking in the back of the garage.

It would seem odd if my only options were to remove and replace the porch (which I've considered, but rejected because of cost and because I don't really want that) or to leave it to rot further...

I suppose I could wait until the LTV improves a bit first (it'll be quite low because it was 15% to start with and prices have dropped a bit, though I'm not in negative equity) - but I would prefer to get the work done during the summer so I don't have such a cold kitchen come next winter.

It does, though none of the brickwork as it is could be load bearing in and of itself, as it only comes up to about waist height under the window. However, I have a feeling that the current wooden door frame may to some extent be load-bearing, as the opening is pretty much the full width of the house (it presently has a uPVC window on one side which will remain, a wooden single-glazed window on the other and the door in the middle, both of which would be removed). I suspect replacing the door and wooden window with a pair of French doors (or for that matter a sliding patio door) may require additional support because of the wide opening and the fact that uPVC frames are weaker to start with.

Neil

[Man at B&Q]

Adding one, yes.

MBQ

[js.b1]

You need to download the document SI2006 from ODPM website.

Work is Notifiable & Non-Notifiable.

You can maintain & repair any final circuit ANYWHERE.

- You can replace an existing SWA cable crossing a garden.

You can not extend or add a new final circuit in special locations without notifying BC.

- You can not add a new SWA cable without paying a fee.

- You can not add a new final circuit to a CU.

You can modify, remove or extend any final circuit in a porch because it is NOT a special location. However any work you do must be a) to BS7671 and b) performed with good materials and workmanship and c) comply with P1 of Part P / SI2006 which mandates that it be done safely even if temporary (so no taping up live insulated cores, disconnect at source if removing).

Of course for some BCO it seems compliance with BS7671 is not enough, which merely moves us closer to "prescriptive code" regulations rather than interpretative thereby de-skilling the industry like USA electricians have become and their pay likewise. All closed shops eventually fail one way or another, and John Prescott's will fail like any other.

[js.b1]

Oh, I should add.

Many insurers specifically EXCLUDE structural building work, whose precise definition is as per their insurance policy wording.

That means if you get someone in to do structural work then *they* need to have appropriate insurance OR you need to arrange suitable insurance yourself. This is often not understood and has resulted in some pretty horrible life-wrecking consequences.

It should be noted that whilst some insurers excluding structural building work cover by contractors, they DO cover it where the work is done by YOU - ie, you DIY remove the lintel and it all falls down. This notwithstanding I recommend people assume all lintels & walls are load bearing unless proven otherwise, walls can have hidden structures inside them despite appearing "Barratt plasterboard & lollipop sticks".

Reading your policy document is very important.

With people switching policies and shopping around, it is very easy to assume cover where none exists. Having seen the imbecile BCO mentioned in another thread, I strongly advise anyone doing work to have legal insurance cover which is often cheaper than that offered by car insurance companies.

If workmanship appears "a bit rough", assume the wiring is too and tread accordingly - ie, buy a Fluke Voltalert to confirm the light is dead rather than you believe it to be because you pulled a particular fuse or circuit breaker.

[Neil Williams]

Interestingly, I read the mortgage T&Cs and it only requires them to be informed about "structural alterations", not all building work. The interesting question is whether removing an obviously-DIYed lean- to wooden porch is structural work or not. It's clearly structural to itself, but clearly not to the house, which is otherwise (I believe[1]) as built.

[1] As stated elsewhere in the thread, none of the other houses on the terrace have a rear porch, and they all have pretty much the same rear window layout.

Neil

[ARWadsworth]

Or you could do the work correctly and keep your gob shut. Lots of people do that.

[js.b1]

Shhhh... ... although that is indeed the best solution.

Whilst beautifully installed some slip up on other factors... one just fitted a 500W PIR and tried driving into their own driveway... it was a case of holding ones breath to see if they noticed the gate posts through the glare. They left the car half in the road and got the stepladder out. Taxi driver was not happy, but they seem to never be the happiest souls...

[Brian]

Having been away for a few days, a lot of the posts I can see at the moment all begin with "Re:" and appear to be follow-ups to some originals that I can't see. This may be a fault of Outlook Express, or it may be something else, I don't know, but it doesn't really matter.

The point is, you appear to have given a brilliant answer to _something_ but, because you haven't left anything of the original question/posting in your reply it makes no sense and can be of no use to anyone who hasn't seen the original. It is good nettiquette to snip excess or irrelevant info from a reply but do please leave enough to make sense.

[fred]

In article , Brian writes

Perhaps not the best form but his post does contain the correct "References:" header used to maintain threading of articles so if yours are not displaying correctly then it suggests that your newsreader is broken.

[Brian]

Never thought to look at/for the "References header" Fred; shouldn't have to. It's not rocket science to follow a bit of netiquette and after all, it's just commonsense to leave some of the original post in situ for context purposes - why on earth would you _not_ do that? Just seems that if there's an easy and correct way to do something, why would someone go out of their way to do it the wrong way and make it difficult for others - not everyone is tech-savvy enough to look at/for the references header and, after all, isn't the whole idea of the group to help others?

[fred]

Which ignores my point completely, I was pointing out that if your newsreader doesn't correctly thread an article that contains that header it is broken.

You wouldn't have any problem gaining the context of those replies if they were in the correct thread position.

[Brian]

Which ignores my point completely - js.b1 should just learn to do things the correct way. For whatever (unimportant and irrelevant) reason, my newsreader did not download the original message, only js.b1's reply to something, but because js.b1 had not left ANY of the text to which he/she was replying to in there, his/her reply made no sense and so is rendered useless. For all I know, there may have been a dozen messages in the thread before his/hers and he/she could have been replying to any one of them. Without any context or any idea of who or what he/she is replying to, what sense does it make? Why take all that time and trouble to reply but not do it properly?

Of course, it's not a legal requirement and the world will not come to an end because js.b1 didn't reply properly, but it's a convention and a guideline that has been around for a long time, the purpose of which is to make things easier for everyone - and that is more important than ever these days because of the web interfaces to usenet that are cropping up and being used rather than proper, dedicated usenet clients.

I just do not understand why someone would deliberately choose to use an incorrect method that makes things awkward, when the whole purpose of the group - and his/her reply to a post - is to help others, and for which a correct method both exists and is easy to implement.

[fred]

Boo hoo, you can either stew in the corner about it or you can use RFC compliant tools that minimise the impact of others behaviour on your browsing enjoyment. I've suggested a workaround for you, it's up to you whether you use it or not.