Loft storage vs Habitable space

[pedantician]

Sorry, but have to disagree on this. Ex-BCO and plenty of experience with dodgy loft conversions!

The important point is whether the room is habitable or not. This is not determined by the means of access to it. It is a question of judgement, but if you have boarded floor and ceilings, fully insulated, power, light, etc, it would be classed as a habitable room. B Regs would then require safe access/egress from it, ie full blown loft conversion.

If you need to make any structural alterations, eg if it's a trussed rafter roof, you would need B Regs approval, irrespective of whether it is a "loft conversion" or not.

Of course, you could take the risk and just do it, because the local authority are unlikely to find out about it, but that would probably invalidate your house insurance. You may also come unstuck when you come to sell. I don't think it's worth it really.

 

[Idrisdraig]

Pedantician, in your opinion, where would the line be drawn in terms of floor, ceiling, electrics and a window? What would keep us on the right side of regulations?

Structurally we have raked queen struts, which a builder has suggested replacing with supporting stud walls and doubling up the joists, but other than that there's no need for structural work. I'm not even convinced by the worth of the stud walls as that would loose valuable storage space.

 

[tony1851]

The important point is whether the room is habitable or not. This is not determined by the means of access to it. It is a question of judgement, but if you have boarded floor and ceilings, fully insulated, power, light, etc, it would be classed as a habitable room.

The definition of 'habitable room' for Part B is;

'a room used, or intended to be used, for dwelling purposes....'

The relevant words are 'used' and 'intended to be used' etc. There has to be an objective standard, and the means of access to that space is that standard.

The finishes on the walls, floor, ceiling etc can be changed very easily, but the access cannot. Making the access to the roof space the same as the access between the ground- and first floors (ie building a proper staircase) would constitute an additional storey.

On the other hand, a hatch with a pull-down ladder automatically implies that it is a little-used space within the house and most people would see it as that. Hence it could not reasonably be classed as a habitable room.

 

[pedantician]

Pedantician, in your opinion, where would the line be drawn in terms of floor, ceiling, electrics and a window? What would keep us on the right side of regulations?

Structurally we have raked queen struts, which a builder has suggested replacing with supporting stud walls and doubling up the joists, but other than that there's no need for structural work. I'm not even convinced by the worth of the stud walls as that would loose valuable storage space.

There is no hard and fast limit - it's a question of judgement. The important thing is whether the space is capable of being used as a habitable room. If you did all of that I would say it was habitable. If you didn't line the ceilings it would be hard to call it habitable.

Assuming the struts support purlins, if you take them out you need to support the purlins. Putting a stud wall in would do that, but would also place more load on the ceiling joists - not good. This work would need building regulations approval as it constitutes a material alteration.

 

[pedantician]

Tony

If you apply that definition, then people could easily just say that any room is not "used or intended to be used for dwelling purposes". Opens up a complete can of worms. Which is why most building control bodies (and certainly the ones I have worked for) consider what the space is capable of being used for.

A pull down ladder can be (and often has been, in my experience) used as a primary form of access to a loft room clearly used for dwelling purposes. It may be a little used space, but so is my dining room. It's still a habitable space and used for dwelling purposes, however infrequently.

As I said, I am talking from direct experience of dealing with unauthorised loft conversions and years of detailed discussions within my own authorities and also with peers at conferences and training events over a sustained period of time.

 

[tony1851]

This work would need building regulations approval as it constitutes a material alteration.

Assuming the OP did not install a conventional staircase - and just had a pull-down loft ladder - how would the other work in the loft space constitute a 'material alteration' and so fall foul of reg 3(2)?

 

[tony1851]

Tony

If you apply that definition, then people could easily just say that any room is not "used or intended to be used for dwelling purposes". Opens up a complete can of worms. Which is why most building control bodies (and certainly the ones I have worked for) consider what the space is capable of being used for.

A pull down ladder can be (and often has been, in my experience) used as a primary form of access to a loft room clearly used for dwelling purposes. It may be a little used space, but so is my dining room. It's still a habitable space and used for dwelling purposes, however infrequently.

As I said, I am talking from direct experience of dealing with unauthorised loft conversions and years of detailed discussions within my own authorities and also with peers at conferences and training events over a sustained period of time.

I would certainly not doubt your experience in these matters, and I agree that there must be many thousands of such 'conversions'. FWIW I also agree that they are potentially dangerous.

But I was looking at this from a legal aspect.

The regs are sometimes ambivalent on these matters and peoples' interpretations will often be at odds. Your own dining room may be a little-used space, but presumably you don't have to go to the effort of using a pull-down ladder to get to it! The ultimate arbiter of interpretation are of course the courts, who have to take a strict view of the rules. With no conventional staircase, I would imagine it might be difficult for a LABC to pursue a case like that through the magistrates' courts. After all, there are no rules prohibiting a carpeted and lined storage space, and a clever defence lawyer would point this out.

Ultimately, we cannot dictate what people do in their own homes - they can sleep under the stairs or entertain guests in the bathroom, and there are no regs against that - regardless of what it might state on the plans!

 

[pedantician]

This work would need building regulations approval as it constitutes a material alteration.

Assuming the OP did not install a conventional staircase - and just had a pull-down loft ladder - how would the other work in the loft space constitute a 'material alteration' and so fall foul of reg 3(2)?

If you remove a strut (which is necessary to support the purlins) the roof (and therefore the building) will either:
1. not comply with Part A where previously it did, or
2. it would be more unsatisfactory in relation to Part A than it was previously

As Part A is a relevant requirement to which 3(2) applies, the alteration is material and therefore falls into the definition of "building work".

 

[tony1851]

If you remove a strut (which is necessary to support the purlins) the roof (and therefore the building) will either:
1. not comply with Part A where previously it did, or
2. it would be more unsatisfactory in relation to Part A than it was previously

As Part A is a relevant requirement to which 3(2) applies, the alteration is material and therefore falls into the definition of "building work".

Yes, I agree with that - any alteration to the roof structure would of course be assessed under Part A.

(I wasn't taking into account altering the roof timbers - I was just concerned with the principle of not altering the access to the roof space).

(Welcome to the forum, by the way! )

 

[geraldthehamster]

The important point is whether the room is habitable or not. This is not determined by the means of access to it. It is a question of judgement, but if you have boarded floor and ceilings, fully insulated, power, light, etc, it would be classed as a habitable room. B Regs would then require safe access/egress from it, ie full blown loft conversion.

So if a local authority became aware of such a loft, would it:

a) Demand the householder build a staircase, fit fire doors, etc.

b) Demand the householder remove all the work done, or

c) Note the non-compliant work so it would come up in a search when the house was sold?

Or does the answer depend on whether the work was discovered within two years of the work being completed (if "completed" could be determined)?

Cheers
Richard

 

[ban-all-sheds]

The ultimate arbiter of interpretation are of course the courts, who have to take a strict view of the rules. With no conventional staircase, I would imagine it might be difficult for a LABC to pursue a case like that through the magistrates' courts. After all, there are no rules prohibiting a carpeted and lined storage space, and a clever defence lawyer would point this out.

Indeed - let's not forget that the situation would be the the owner testifying on oath that the loft, which could only be accessed via a ladder was not being used for dwelling purposes and that there were no intentions to use it for dwelling purposes, and the council would have not a scrap of evidence to the contrary. And for them to prevail they would have to convince the court beyond reasonable doubt that the owner was lying.

 

[pedantician]

Tony

Agree that the regs have to be subject to interpretation to an extent, otherwise they would be so long and unwieldy (even more than they actually are in order to cover every possible situation. I also agree that the courts are the ultimate decision makers.

In one case, my authority was on the point of applying for an injunction (as allowed by section 36(6) of the building act) against an unauthorised loft conversion which had a pull-down ladder access. Other than the ladder, it was a proper room - insulated, lined, power, light, window, radiator - full works. Our legal dept had no qualms about taking the action. The owner decided to remove the work in the end, so the action wasn't taken.

Even in that example, I am sure a good QC could make a cogent case, but it would cost a lot of money to take this course of action, and I believe that the LA would still win.

Of course you can sleep under the stairs, but you can't lawfully form a loft room (with or without a staircase) without applying for and complying with building regulations![/u]

 

[pedantician]

(Welcome to the forum, by the way! )

Thanks

 

[tony1851]

The owner decided to remove the work in the end, so the action wasn't taken.

If he was my client, I would have advised him to remove the loft ladder and seal and plaster over the hatch, rather than take the whole thing down.

What he did once the dust settles would be up to him, but if he had an IQ of more than three, he wouldn't put his kids up there.

 

[Idrisdraig]

All very interesting. Thanks.

If we insulate between the roof timbers, reinforced and boarded the floor, add a velux, but don't put any heating in (and don't change the roof structure other than tying it in better to stop the roof creep getting worse) would that be likely to be enough to qualify as not-habitable?

Although we could probably settle for not doing so, if we got it all signed off and then in a few years fitted plasterboard on the ceiling, am I right in thinking we'd need to go through the whole certification process again? [/i]