Anyone Experience of Building Regs?

[malcolm]

Had building regs around today as I've simplified my plans and wanted to tie things up. I have this annoying change of use going on with an old pub dating from 1600, 1850, and 1920 depending on where you look. Building regs for change of use call for insulating the heck out of the place.

The issue I'm having is you can't just insulate a solid wall with plastic paint or cement render outside and high external ground levels. The regs assume it is quick and easy to bung a bit of insulation on, but for me there is digging trenches outside, knocking off render and replacing with lime, replacing all the doors and windows lost in the process. The assumed payback on energy saving is 30 years, and I'm running into thousands of years payback. Apart from the time and money I doubt that will be environmentally friendly. I would much rather throw £100k into a pot to help other people insulate their lofts than do inefficient work here, but there isn't the option.

Has anyone been through this? I'm getting a bit fed up. I tried being depressed for a while but that didn't work for me so I'm looking at making a plan. It seems obviously silly so am I missing something here? My plan at the moment is to find cheap insulation and throw it away again when the damp issues get a bit much.

 

[plasticpigeon]

What if you just ignore the change of use and live in it, or open one hour a week between 7 and 8 am on a wednesday, have one terrible beer on tap, nowhere to sit, and make sure the landlord is the gumpiest in history.

 

[malcolm]

Thought about it - there is the possibility of council tax being £15,000 per year for a business premises, but most of all the place won't be mortgageable if I sell it so it would go for whatever cash people happen to have in their pockets. To be fair nobody wanted it for that reason when I bought it so it was cheap.

If there was a way to exit building regs and get on with doing things properly, then rejoin again without having to do everything again to whatever new regs they have thought up then that would be an option.

Current building regs guy is retiring and is trying time pressure. I'll phone the council tomorrow and see if they can take over under 2014 rules.

 

[steveb]

I believe that there's an exemption in the regs for historic buildings where breathability may be compromised. Although not a change of use, our BC man was entirely happy with lime render, silicate paint and no additional insulation when we re-rendered the house.

 

[malcolm]

My reading of the regs suggests that they only seem bothered with insulation if there is a 30 year payback. I'm toying with the idea of causing damp in my building for as long as it takes for signoff, then landfill the insulation and sorting it out at my own pace later. @steveb - who did you use for the regs?

 

[malcolm]

After a few afternoon beers since the visit I've decided to ditch the private building regs guy and take my chances with the council, so long as I can stick to 2014 regs and don't have to do everything else again.

I like to do things properly. I would be badly suited to development.

 

[steveb]

I used the local authority one in North Devon. Quite sensible really to my pleasant surprise. No need to actually cause damp I would suggest, just the thought of compromised breathability was enough.

 

[malcolm]

@steveb When I bring up the subject of damp issues I am directed to rebuild the wall first or something like that. It was a mistake to go with a private building regs guy with no sympathy for old buildings and the work needed to keep them functioning.

 

[Flyfisher]

Seems like a tale of madness but I guess there will always be a few instances where well-meaning and widely applicable regs clash with the needs of a period property. That, in itself need not be a problem as long as there was some sort of sensible 'mediation' route to overrule things when really necessary. After all, when properties are bought and sold, who actually reads the detail of BC reports? In my experience, it's just a tick-box requirement to state that BC sign-off is in place.

I can only imagine how frustrating this must be and I'm sure you've been racking your brains about all manner of possible ways to move forward. You mention the 30 year energy payback assumption; would it help if you could show that the required works cannot possibly achieve this? In which case, the required works would very likely be a retrograde step in terms of energy conservation.

Another thought is to contact other private BC firm/consultants. Discuss your problems with them and find out what they would be willing to sign-off? Given that there seems to be an element of interpretation in the regs, perhaps you could find someone with a more sympathetic interpretation?

Of course, the real madness is that you could just concede, do the bare minimum and cheapest thing just to get the BC file signed off, then rip it all out and do something more sympathetic for the building, by which time no one would care anymore and you'd have your change of use 'file' all signed off.

Current building regs guy is retiring and is trying time pressure. I'll phone the council tomorrow and see if they can take over under 2014 rules.

I don't really understand why a retiring BCO should be relevant. Surely it's the job itself that's relevant, not the person doing the inspections and sign off? Across the country, BCOs must be moving jobs all the time so there must surely be a mechanism for dealing with such things.

 

[malcolm]

Thanks everyone for your help and support - it has been very useful!

I asked about the process of changing building regs back to the council and the current building regs guy seems prepared to give me a sign off based on work done. Maybe he is as fed up of the place as I am.

Whether that will be sign off for change of use (most is already insulated to death) or just for works done I don't know but it gives me a way out. Hopefully I can organise remaining work in a more sensible fashion so I can do it properly.

 

[george2019]

The exemptions aren't very stringent. There are two you can use in this case:

Part L1b 3.8c which refers to structures which may be damaged by applying unsuitable insulation; and
Part L1b 5.9 which refers to a payback period of 15 years and just requires best achievable performance once hitting that payback.

 

[malcolm]

The building regs guy didn't seem to want to consider those. Annoying for walls that aren't damp internally at the moment but have high external ground levels, concrete render and plastic paint to deal with before insulation would be sensible. I worked out the kitchen insulation has over 500 year payback (though that was causing problems already so needed the ground levels etc sorting).

 

[george2019]

Using a different building regulations professional is your prerogative.

There are other reasons to have insulation - comfort and some protection against increases in energy costs (the two reasons I'm using wood fibre insulation on my house - just not to full building regs levels).