Upstairs Bedrooms – Building Regs compliant or NOT?
- This topic has 9 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 11 months ago by
.
- Posts
Hey folks
Hoping somebody might have a view on a query I have.
If you have a single storey dwelling , with upstairs bedrooms in roof space with Veluw Rooflights only (built day one as opposed to an attic conversion) should these upstairs bedrooms comply with Building Regs Part B in terms of means of escape (ie size of window, height above floor level, ceiling height over 50% of room etc).
lets say the house has planning for the design. 2 bedrooms in the upstairs so therefore its a 5 bed house with planning.
But if the rooms upstairs do not comply with the above regs, then is it not a 3 bed house with upstairs storage (similar to the way most attic conversions are classed for Opinion on Compliance with Building Regulations purposes).
look forward to your thought
In my opinion: To be classified as bedrooms they’d need to comply with Part B. The one I spot the most is the opening greater than 1100mm above finished floor level. As you say this is a three bedroom house + storage.
Yes Mark , thats what I would have thought. even if there is planning for a 5 bed house – if 2 of them dont comply with building regs then it surely cant be classed as a five bed house from a sale or compliance point of view.
Again, assuming that there would have been a cert of compliance with building regs signed off originally.
If this was noticed at a sale, would it be severe enough to warrant a sale to fall through, or at the very least compel the owner to upgrade the windows to suitable means of escape (size f ope , 1100 above floor, 2.4m to eaves etc.
If that was done and there wasnt 50% of the floor area at the required head height, would that still constitute an issue?
This is all part of the dangers of signing off on an opinion I guess.
@GreenFlag wrote:
If this was noticed at a sale, would it be severe enough to warrant a sale to fall through, or at the very least compel the owner to upgrade the windows to suitable means of escape
Not nessicarily, it would be up to potential buyers whether they were willing to purchase “as is” or whether it is an issue that would make them walk away from the sale, just once they know what they are buying.
@GreenFlag wrote:
(size f ope , 1100 above floor, 2.4m to eaves etc.
This is not correct in my opinion, please check the regulations.
@GreenFlag wrote:
If that was done and there wasnt 50% of the floor area at the required head height, would that still constitute an issue?
Yes it would, no compromise.
Wild Bill
thanks for thoughts.
the windows in each room are Velux only. The regs I thought should apply are Part B, 1.5.6. In this house, the bottom of window is above the min height of 1100mm. Also the distance from the eaves to the bottom of the window along the slope is greater than 1.7m. so therfore in my view the windows do not comply and therefore the rooms cannot be classed as habitable accomadation.Is this correct?
Also there is not the required head height over the required amount of floor area. Is this correct?
thanks
Sorry, yes that is my reading of it as well. When I read it first earlier, I thought you were referring to the 1100mm as minimum cill height. (of course we know that is 600mm)
something I should have said earlier is that it is often forgotten that all the dimensions for escape windows are part of the Technical Guidance Documents (TGD) that are guaranteed ways of meeting the Building Regulations. The Building Regulation in this instance is pretty straightforward:
“A building shall be so designed and constructed that there are adequate means of escape in case of fire from the building…..”
In theory therefore you could negotiate with the Building Control Department with your own different means of escape – this is done frequently for non-residential building Fire Certificates. The problem is the lack of Building Control (I haven’t talked to or seen a B.C. officer in the 8 years I’ve been working here). You’ll also have difficulty convincing other engineers/banks/solicitors that your building complies.
@markstephens wrote:
something I should have said earlier is that it is often forgotten that all the dimensions for escape windows are part of the Technical Guidance Documents (TGD) that are guaranteed ways of meeting the Building Regulations. The Building Regulation in this instance is pretty straightforward:
“A building shall be so designed and constructed that there are adequate means of escape in case of fire from the building…..”
In theory therefore you could negotiate with the Building Control Department with your own different means of escape – this is done frequently for non-residential building Fire Certificates. The problem is the lack of Building Control (I haven’t talked to or seen a B.C. officer in the 8 years I’ve been working here). You’ll also have difficulty convincing other engineers/banks/solicitors that your building complies.
my experience too… 🙁
@markstephens wrote:
In my opinion: To be classified as bedrooms they’d need to comply with Part B. The one I spot the most is the opening greater than 1100mm above finished floor level. As you say this is a three bedroom house + storage.
If that’s the one you are spotting the most then I suggest you get better at your job.
1100 isn’t (and never was) the min height above floor level for these windows. Not exactly a top class service if you made people alter windows that were compliant.
@Bren88 wrote:
If that’s the one you are spotting the most then I suggest you get better at your job.
1100 isn’t (and never was) the min height above floor level for these windows. Not exactly a top class service if you made people alter windows that were compliant.
no.. it is, as Mark is referring to, the MAXIMUM height above floor level…
read his post again, hes saying its the most common factor of non-compliance he finds on site…
thats the way i read it anyway…
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
