Retrospective building regs approval for old flats conversion job

[Brad Jeavons]

There is a property I want to buy from an old friend. It is an end-of-terrace house that he converted into two flats back in Back in 1993. It was a very simple conversion which he did without getting building regs approval. (He wasn't aware he needed it.) All he did was build a wall separating the house into two halves and install an extra kitchen upstairs and an extra bathroom downstairs. It already had WC's upstairs and downstairs. I'd like to buy the house and sell one of the flats, but I don't want to hit problems whith buyers demanding to see a council completion certificate for the conversion work. (Is that likely?)

Does anyone know what the building regs said about flat convesions back in 1993? I gather the ceilings of the lower flat were not modified during this conversion. If any mods were required by bulding regs in 1993, then retrospective building regs approval is not an option.

I'm guessing that my best course of action is to bring the conversion up to present-day building regs standards and get approval for the work. Anyone agree?

Is it feasable to do this without getting my friend into trouble for not having got building regs approval back in 1993? if so, how do I go about it?

Thanks for any advice

BJ

[Lobster]

Think you'll find this case has already been covered here recently in some detail, if you check the uk.d-i-y archives on Google for Jake's posts (although many of his messages on this subject were posted under your name, which is all a bit confusing....)

David

[Brad Jeavons]

David, Jake is the owner of the place in question. Yes, the subject was discussed in another thread (and we appreciated your input very much) but the actual question I asked in *this* thread was not actually covered.

Thanks again David

BJ

[Hugo Nebula]

On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 18:06:45 GMT, a particular chimpanzee named [e-mail] (Brad Jeavons) randomly hit the keyboard and produced:

Sound insulation is going to be the main requirement that will need to be met. If your friend hasn't done anything to the floor, then this will need upgrading. The 'old' Approved Document E (Sound Insulation) is still available on the ODPMs website, which should give you an idea of what's needed to be done. There's going to be no other way to obtain retrospective approval (without returning the building back to a single dwelling).

Sound insulation and other requirements have increased recently, so in terms of the amount of work needed to comply, it would be easier to go with the 1993 requirements.

Enforcement action can't be taken after so long, so there's no chance of getting anyone 'into trouble'.

[Brad Jeavons]

Thank you for your help. I just looked at the old Document E, circa

1992. The requirements for floors+ceilings in conversions looked incredibly complicated and difficult to comply with, and I'm certain that the flats are not converted to anything like those standards, particularly re the floors+ceilings. So retrospective bulding regs approval looks impossible to me. So now I'm thinking of buying the place as it is and not seeking any building regs approval - then trying to sell one of the flats as it is. Would that be legal to do? And is it realistic to expect anyone to buy the flat?

BJ

[Al Reynolds]

As someone said before, planning is your enemy here.

Your council thinks it's a single dwelling, but you think it's two flats. You will need to apply for retrospective change of use. Currently the deeds will be for a single property (probably freehold). If you sell one of the flats then you'll need to sort out a leasehold arrangement on at least the flat you are planning to sell. This will be tricky without people finding out that the work has been done without building control approval. Building regs are there for a reason (apart from Part P obviously). When the buyer's solicitor asks whether all work that required BC approval has such approval, are you going to lie? If so then you can expect a nasty surprise when you get found out and the buyer pursues you for the cost of getting retrospective approval.

I would be walking away by this point.

Al