Window sill height

[JanieB]

My next door neighbour is selling his house and has just been round to ask me for help with his paperwork. The buyer (coincidentally a friend of mine) has a load of questions brought up by his surveyor. One is intriguing me. The previous owner had the windows replaced with a) at the front - double glazed wooden sashes and b) at the back - double glazed wooden casements.

It appears that if the original windows were still there there would be no problem but because they were replaced the window sills are below the recommended height for modern building regs ie 800mm. The windows are copies of the originals. The front parts of the terrace date from C1790 and the back 1820.

It strikes me that his next door neighbour on the other side may have the same problem when he comes to sell. It also answers a question I had about why when my neighbour on the other side converted a shop back into residential and copied the frontage of the terrace, her windows aren't in line with everyone else's.

I had mine refurbished except for 2 on the first floor, which are very quaint and I haven't decided what to do with them yet. Probably paint and internal double glazing. I like the wobbly original glass.

Surely they can't expect people to completely change the placement of window apertures in old houses to comply with building regs. I do realise it's a safety issue and that strengthened safety glass should be used. Neighbour has no way of knowing if that is so.

 

[malcolm]

I think there might be a requirement to replace the lower part of the glass with toughened glass if the window is ever replaced (in order to satisfy building regs). For change of use (the shop) requirements are a bit more stringent. They still don't require openings to be changed, but it might have saved money on glass to introduce openings a little higher up. That rule is to do with young children running into the glass as far as I can tell.

I have some brand new sash windows turning up soon hopefully which were required by building regs for fire egress rules brought into force by change of use. The old windows (cheap nasty 1990s ones) had a top opening only.

 

[Flyfisher]

Is the date of the replacement window known? I believe it would only have to comply with the regulation in force at the time rather than the current ones?

Is the house listed? If so, was LBC granted for the work? I've replaced SG windows myself (with LBC) and not had to get building control involved even though they didn't meet the building regs at the time.

Also, while the solicitor is duty bound to point out such things, it need not prevent a sale if the buyer is happy to proceed anyway. I can't imagine building control suddenly getting heavy-handed about it - besides, how could they prove when the windows were actually replaced? :wink:

 

[plasticpigeon]

I would ignore it.

 

[Flyfisher]

I tend to agree but some people don't like to ignore their solicitor's advice.

One of our neighbours moved a couple of years ago. The chap was a builder and had built the house himself after buying a piece of land that used to belong to our house (about 30 years ago, so before our time) over which our property had rights (even older than 30 years) to lay a drain through what was now their garden. This was all clearly documented in their deeds.

The buyer's solicitor only discovered this close to exchange of contracts and advised the buyer not to proceed until this could be sorted out and the subsequent delay started to put a severe strain on the chain and our poor neighbours became very stressed at the thought of losing the property they were moving to. When they came to discuss it with us we pointed out that the drain had, in fact, already been laid (again before our time) but using a different - and more sensible - route along our lane. Thus, although the right to lay a drain across their garden still existed, we could see no circumstances in which this would be necessary or desirable and certainly had no plans to exercise this right. We told the neighbour's estate agent and solicitor all this and, later, the buyers solicitor but they still advised the buyers not to proceed until the issue could be resolved and communication along the chain was very difficult and fraught. Eventually our tearful neighbour asked us to explain the matter to the buyer, which we did, at which point the buyer exclaimed 'is that all?' and instructed their solicitor to ignore the effectively theoretical issue and exchange as quickly as possible! Sometimes, the process can stifle communication between the main parties.

 

[malcolm]

I had that sort of thing when I bought this house. The solicitor took it upon himself to insist a badly installed roof light was replaced before purchase. I replied with an old fashioned letter.

Solicitors want everything to run on so they can charge more money. I have never heard of building regs doing midnight raids to make you get everything up to spec. Risk is the next lot will have solicitors when you come to sell.

 

[MikeG]

Just as a point of fact, the cill height is irrelevant. The important thing is the height of the glass from the floor.

 

[mm289]

We are just replacing a whole range of windows on a G2 listed farmhouse. LPC was obtained based on detailed drawings and approved by building control. Now I am doing the work the BC officer has been round and started mentioning things like "need a 140mm concrete lintel", window opening needs to be "450mm for escape".

The lintels I don't mind cause they will be covered by weatherboard but the 450mm will be a problem as the very expensive custom made DG casement windows are already made :shock:

My QS basically said LPC trumps BC, and as they signed of on the original plans they cannot insist on changes.........

Cheers,

MM

 

[Flyfisher]

Surely not ALL windows need to be sized for possible escape in case of fire? There must be tens of thousands 'decorative' windows in all manner of properties up and down the land. We certainly have some small windows through which escape would be impossible (and not just because they are non-opening), some of which require replacement due to rot. I have no plans to enlarge them to meet this apparent 450mm 'escape' requirement because quite apart from being listed we also have plenty of other windows through which escape WOULD be possible should the need arise. Surely even BC would take such things into account (regardless of listing)?

 

[malcolm]

It's worth getting building regs to have a read of the Part B document. My reading is if an existing window is replaced, and you are not doing anything silly like a change of use, then the requirement is only that the new window must not be any worse for fire egress than the one it replaced.

The structural requirement seems odd too. I have never been asked to upgrade the original wooden lintels. I would run that past the conservation officer as it sounds like unnecessary hacking around of a listed building.

 

[Flyfisher]

That sounds eminently sensible to me. I've rarely seen regulations that must be applied retrospectively because the implications would be too far reaching - and that doesn't just apply to building regulations, it applies to all manner of things.

As for wooden lintels, I'd assume the same principle. If the lintel is sound and has done its job without problems then why change it? Even when a wooden lintel has to be changed (and we've had to do a few), I've been quite happy to replace them with an equivalent piece of wood.

Don't quote me on this but I reckon it's better not to get building control involved if possible :wink:

 

[mm289]

Agree with both of you Malcolm and FF.The problem with this particular window was we were changing from an incorrectly fitted sash (done before the listing) to a correct matching casement, so in theory it is not exactly like for like.

With the lintel the PO had fitted DG with NO LINTEL and had destroyed the brick arch in the process :shock: , if it had been exposed I would have rebuilt the arch, but as it will be clad I agreed to the lintel. Upstairs I have argued to keep the existing timber lintels which I think I will get away with, although they only cover 3/4 of the wall thickness as the outside 3" of brick would have original rested on the window frame.

Cheers,

MM

 

[mims&pip]

We prefer to avoid the intervention of Building Control where possible. At previous houses (none of which were listed, I might add, although ranging in age from Victorian back to Tudor) we have used an independent building inspector - one that Pip happens to have known for years :wink: - and have found him to be far more understanding of old buildings than I'd imagine the local authority inspectors would be As a result we have had works passed and signed off that - whilst sympathetic to the building itself and of an extremely high standard of workmanship (something we would never cut corners over) - may have stumbled over trivial issues had we gone down the local authority building control route.......

Probably best not to follow my example though, lol!

Mims x

 

[malcolm]

Agree with both of you Malcolm and FF.The problem with this particular window was we were changing from an incorrectly fitted sash (done before the listing) to a correct matching casement, so in theory it is not exactly like for like.

You would have thought if building regs had signed off the original drawings they shouldn't be complaining now. Is it the same building regs body that signed off the drawings? That (with the idea they can pay for any unused windows you had made under false promise), and backing from the conservation officer might be the way forwards.

My (independent) building regs guy reckons he has the trump card on fire related things and that the conservation officer has the trump card on preservation and insulation related things, but my building is not listed so the balance may be different for you. I agreed stuff with my building regs guy up front and I'm working to that. It sounds like you have done the same?

 

[mm289]

Yep, pretty much Malcolm, trying to avoid issues by getting BC involved early though only on external works,not letting them inside, the thought of having to fit battens and insulation on walls that need plastering is a bit too much to bear!

Apologies to OP for taking over your thread

Cheers,

MM

 

[MikeG]

Surely not ALL windows need to be sized for possible escape in case of fire? ......

No. Every "habitable" room needs a secondary means of escape, and this doesn't necessarily mean a window. Habitable doesn't include kitchens, bathrooms, utility rooms etc. Each habitable room only needs 1 secondary means of escape, so any room with 2 windows only needs one as an escape window. I have 24 windows in my house..........5 are escape windows.

 

[Flyfisher]

Thanks for that clarification. So presumably a 'secondary means of escape' could simply be a door to another room?

 

[JanieB]

Yep, pretty much Malcolm, trying to avoid issues by getting BC involved early though only on external works,not letting them inside, the thought of having to fit battens and insulation on walls that need plastering is a bit too much to bear!

Apologies to OP for taking over your thread

Cheers,

MM

You're OK. The thread remains interesting.

As part of our Neighbourhood Plan there is a proposal to extend the conservation area and include more buildings as listed. This would include the terrace I live in. Knowing what has happened to other buildings in the town I want to get my house finished ahead of listing.

One beautiful Georgian house had had a single-skinned, corrugated roofed single storey shed added to it prior to listing. This eyesore of an extension was therefore part of the listing and the owner fought for years to be able to pull it down.

At the moment, if they listed my cottage, or included it in the conservation area, I would be either stuck with the horrors perpetrated on it in 1981 or have a long fight to undo the damage.

 

[MikeG]

Thanks for that clarification. So presumably a 'secondary means of escape' could simply be a door to another room?

No, to the outside.

 

[MikeG]

.......One beautiful Georgian house had had a single-skinned, corrugated roofed single storey shed added to it prior to listing. This eyesore of an extension was therefore part of the listing and the owner fought for years to be able to pull it down.

At the moment, if they listed my cottage, or included it in the conservation area, I would be either stuck with the horrors perpetrated on it in 1981 or have a long fight to undo the damage.

I don't know why this is such a generally held view. I am doing changes to Listed Buildings all the time, and the process is very straightforward. I suggest that people always employ an architect (with a background in conservation work) ...........well I would, wouldn't I?!.........because they'll design the right extension and alterations and get it through without any great hassle 9 times out of 10. I've never know of "years of a fight", nor have I known anyone stuck with an unwanted modern extension to a Listed Building.

BTW, having a Conservation Area extended is not the same as having the buildings listed.