reinstating attic rooms

[martiny]

We recently purchased a lovely 16thC house which has an old original 5ft wide staircase into the loft. It is obvious from the bricked up windows in both the gable ends and the visual remains of plastered walls that at some point in time the attic area was used as living accommodation. We naively thought that it would be possible to reinstate these areas into bedrooms but our architect has advised us that this is highly unlikely to be allowed and at best we might get approval and consent for possible office use but not as actual living space. Has anyone had a similar situation or any advice on the problem? What would have happened if previous owners had still been using the rooms and we only wanted to maybe add en-suites, would we have been told that we could no longer use the attic in this way? Really confused and very, very disappointed that what seems to us an obvious plan now looks a no-go area.

 

[rogerh]

Building Regulations apply to new work or alterations and there are minimum height, ventilation, fire safety etc. requirements for a 'habitable' room. A new en-suite would itself have to comply but that shouldn't alter the existing use of a different room that remained unaltered.

 

[Flyfisher]

If the attic was previously used as bedrooms then why should you need permission to continue to use them as such?

We have three large attic rooms, once used for bedrooms and accessible only by a tiny and quite tricky spiral staircase - especially when coming down. I'm sure it wouldn't meet any of today's building regulations but I'm equally sure it met the prevailing regulations when built many hundred's of years ago.

Unless your property is listed or in a conservation area then I don't believe you'll need permission to 'unbrick' a window. The new window should be compliant with the latest building regs, but if you use a FENSA-registered installer they will be able to advise and certify.

If your attic walls are already plastered then, presumably, they only need 'repairing'. It all sounds as if you're just restoring existing rooms, not actually altering anything at all, so building regulations don't really apply (although adding an en-suite bathroom is a different matter).

 

[Lime]

our architect has advised us that this is highly unlikely to be allowed and at best we might get approval and consent for possible office use but not as actual living space

I think that is rather a strange thing to say.
Whereas I can understand an opinion that asserts that no permission would be granted (very much depends on the specific situation) I cannot understand why "office use" may be allowed while normal domestic occupation wouldn't be.
If the property is a domestic dwelling an office area is still living space.
In fact, on the contrary, I would have thought that the regulations would be much more complicated for office space as that sort of use is covered by many more acts of parliament.

 

[masochists-r-us]

Agree with Lime. This is a strange thing to say. I think he may be saying office use only on the basis of fire regulations. My understanding is that if you want to use as bedrooms you will need to comply fully with fire regs because you will be sleeping in there i.e. self closing doors, defined escape route etc. This is not applied as strictly for playrooms, office space etc.
We had the same issue. Initially our CO was indicating no on the grounds of a 'change of use', but on the basis that there was clear evidence that the second floor was used previously as living space she relented. The fire issues remain though. Escaping from a second floor room in a fire is much more risky than a first floor. However, we have been advised by our building control guy that the best way of addressing this will be by installing a sprinkler system to the ground floor, plus mods to design of staircases.
Based on our experience I would suggest you get your CO on board as you appear to have clear evidence of previous occupation and disregard your architect's unhelpful comment for now.
Good luck.

 

[martiny]

Thanks for all the comments, nice to hear positive opinions, you've actually given me a little hope that things may not be as negative as we feared. I think our architect is just trying to prepare us for the rocky road ahead because he feels there will be conflict between building regs and the CO and has therefore given us the worst scenario. We're new to all this, never owned a listed property before but fast learning that it doesn't matter how passionate you are about preserving your house's historical charms the logical ideas count for nothing if different from 'those who must be obeyed'!!

 

[DaveBrigg]

My understanding, from a cousin who converted a loft into a playroom, is that sleeping accommodation needs two means of exit in case of fire. The thinking being that during the daytime you will notice smoke before the stairs become unusable, but may wake too late. The second exit can be a window, as long as it would be relatively easy to get out of in a hurry.

 

[benmc]

We have just been through a very similar process. We are opening many of our Church rooms up and also putting in a staircase to the 2nd floor.

Now when you put in a second floor you get into a whole new set of regulations regarding Fire Protection (This is the document to read - http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/england/professionals/en/1115314683674.html)

Now the design of our building and the listed status means we cannot fully comply with the building regs but the Building Control officer has been very good in coming to an agreement. His biggest concern was not to use the 2nd floor as a bedroom. I assume as fires when you are asleep are very dangerous. We have agreed on the following wording 'I can confirm the gallery area is only to be used at study/living accommodation and should never be used a sleeping or bedroom accommodation.'

My advice would be to pop down and speak to your building control officer.

Ben

 

[Moo]

I find all this very puzzling.
Our three bedrooms are on the second (attic) floor, served by a single staircase. I guess that when the house was last used as a dwelling these attic rooms were used by the servants (who, of course, were of no importance when it came to safety considerations), but for most of the 20th century, when the house was used as dentists' surgery and then as offices, they were just store-rooms.
When we were turning the place back into a home neither the BCO nor the CO suggested that it wouldn't be safe to sleep up there - in fact, the CO helped us solve the "how can we fit in a couple of shower rooms" question.

 

[benmc]

Moo

Our 2nd floor is open to the ground floor and does not have any windows. This does not help with fire regs

 

[Moo]

Ah. I see.
But - we'd have just as far to jump as you would (and we'd land on very solid paving, to boot).


xx M

 

[Pford75]

There is a clear distinction in building regulations between the requirements for bedrooms and other accomodation. Our previous house was a new build and had 3 floors. The top 2 rooms were marketed as a 'den' and a 'study'. When we were viewing the house, we questioned why the house was not marketed as a 6 bedroom house instead of a 4 bedroom house. The agent pointed out that building regs would not be granted for the 2 rooms on the top floor to be built as 'bedrooms'....but how we actually chose to use the rooms was up to us.

There is nothing stopping you from submitting an application for the creation of office space. How you actually choose to use the space is up to you. But the regulations are there for a reason and you ought to consider how you would escape in the event of a fire.

 

[Feltwell]

Ah. I see.
But - we'd have just as far to jump as you would (and we'd land on very solid paving, to boot).


xx M

A single staircase is fine, I thought the idea of an "escape" window was so that the Fire Brigade could get you out of it and onto a ladder.

A friend has a 1930's house with a loft conversion done about 10 years ago. He has a "Velux" type roof window as an escape window - there is no way you would be able to get out of it without there being someone on the outside with a ladder. The window is quite lethal actually - it's very close to the floor, at a height where a small child could easily climb out of it. First thing he did when he moved in was put a bolt at the top of the window, out of the reach of little hands!

My house has attic rooms, I wanted to add an extra roof window and was concerned that I would be made to mount it at this very low position - but the BCO advised that as the room was already habitable then I didn't need to worry. He did say that if I was converting a non-habitable room into a habitable one I would have to mount the window low down, and improve the fire protection to the staircase. He did also say that common sense says that you could get out of the existing dormer windows easily enough in the event of a fire, even though they wouldn't now meet the regs.

As an aside - what I have fitted is radio-interlinked smoke alarms throughout the house, so if 1 smoke alarm is activated then they all go off. As with quite a few rambling older houses, there are some parts of my house that you wouldn't hear a smoke alarm at the other end from, especially if you were in a deep sleep.

 

[Flyfisher]

I've seen 'roll-up' fire escape ladders for attic rooms. A bit like a rope ladder but made of solid interlinking sections. They're designed to be easily stored out of sight somewhere but will clip over the window cill and roll out down to the ground if needed. Just a thought.

 

[Moo]

The only thing that's stopped me from investing in some of those ladders is worry about the strength of the windowsills/parapets.
Daft, I know. I really must get out more.

 

[Flyfisher]

Not really daft at all. Any safety equipment should be tested in non-emergency conditions. It's not a good idea to be fumbling with the instructions or trying to put theory into first-time practice with fire and smoke coming up the stairs.