what would you do?

[dombanks]

i bought a 3 bed 1930s semi. house is ok, solid and now almost has a decent garage for the car!! but the bathroom is downstairs. typical style so large lounge, separate kitchen, and bathroom off kitchen.

i want to move the bathroom to the upstairs and loose the smaller 3rd bed. all the houses in the crescent are the same and going by the pipes on the walls its something that everyone else seems to have done. i would then look to put a single story extension on the back, big bit of steel sloping roof with skylights, bifold doors to the garden type thing giving a decent open plan kitchen diner.

i think adding living space will outweigh the loss of a bedroom and not knock the value but it will make the living space better. my friends are split 50:50 with me some say great idea others say 3 bed better than 2. Personally i dont think the space with 3 beds with would work with 2 adults and 2 kids due to only 1 living room and dropping to 2 bed so 2 adults 1 kid would be much better 

any thoughts that i should consider... i dont need 3 bed so for me its a better living space. I did also consider the thought of getting desgnes and planning for a 2 story extension on the side of house  sort of over the garage that could add the 3rd room back.

[Andy (Sycho)]

We did that with our first house, as we didn’t like the bathroom downstairs & we didn’t need 3 bedrooms. I’d go with what works for you, especially if your thinking of not moving anytime soon.

[Geoffrey Carter (Buttercup)]

I would also do what works for you.

Not everything is about money and if its your home than I would do what is required to make it a family home especially if you are there long term.

[Dave Eastwood (Gadgetman) - Club Chairman]

I’d say more people are put off by the downstairs bathroom arrangement than there only being two bedrooms.

[BenD]

Can the 3rd bedroom be used. When I moved houses that said they were 3 bed were actually only 2 as the 3rd was so small that it couldn't be used as a bedroom. 

[Mark (smokey mow)]

If you moved the bathroom to the first floor would you still have a WC or cloakroom on the ground floor?

To comply with Building Regulations you would at the very least have to retain a WC on the ground floor or provide one in an alternative location on the ground floor.

[CraigHew]

8 hours ago, Mark (smokey mow) said:

To comply with Building Regulations you would at the very least have to retain a WC on the ground floor or provide one in an alternative location on the ground floor.

Really??? 

[Peter Robinson]

10 hours ago, Mark (smokey mow) said:

If you moved the bathroom to the first floor would you still have a WC or cloakroom on the ground floor?

To comply with Building Regulations you would at the very least have to retain a WC on the ground floor or provide one in an alternative location on the ground floor.

Those regulations are for New build only aren't they?. 

https://www.heatandplumb.com/blog/what-are-the-rules-about-installing-a-downstairs-toilet/

[Mark (smokey mow)]

43 minutes ago, Peter Robinson said:

Those regulations are for New build only aren't they?. 

https://www.heatandplumb.com/blog/what-are-the-rules-about-installing-a-downstairs-toilet/

No it also applies to an existing property as well if you are making it worse with regards to compliance than it was previously.

[Mark (smokey mow)]

2 hours ago, CraigHew said:

Really??? 

Yes 

[Peter Robinson]

Unless it was added after the property was built that is.  If the survey brings up that the W/C has been removed if they are bright they will realise it won't comply and this may trigger a buyer's solicitor into requesting a Building Regs certificate which you won't be able to provide. You could get an indemnity insurance to placate buyers though. Furthermore you may actually devalue your house by removing the bog, see what estate agents would value your house for before and after.

 

 

[Kevin (Mr T)]

20 minutes ago, Mark (smokey mow) said:

Yes 

Wouldn't there be an element of interpretation there? It wouldn't be making it worse per se. Surely this is relocating, not removing?

[Mark (smokey mow)]

2 hours ago, Kevin (Mr T) - Essex AO said:

Wouldn't there be an element of interpretation there? It wouldn't be making it worse per se. Surely this is relocating, not removing?

It is making it worse with regard to compliance with part-m of the building regulations which requires a wc on the entrance storey.

 

Coincidently I had exactly the same conversation with an architect last week and this is what I wrote to him.

 

In this case the proposed works to remove the ground floor WC would be considered as a material alteration under the Building Regulations as the works would be more unsatisfactory in compliance with a relevant requirement (Part M) of the Building Regulations than before the works took place.  Where any building is extended or undergoes a material alteration, the building works must be carried out so that after it has been completed, the building complies with the applicable requirements or, where it did not fully comply with any applicable requirement, it is no more unsatisfactory than before.

 

This is covered in Section 3(2) of The Building Regulations 2010 (as amended) which I have highlighted below.

 

(2) An alteration is material for the purposes of these Regulations if the work, or any part of it, would at any stage result—

(a)in a building or controlled service or fitting not complying with a relevant requirement where previously it did; or

(b)in a building or controlled service or fitting which before the work commenced did not comply with a relevant requirement, being more unsatisfactory in relation to such a requirement.

(3) In paragraph (2) “relevant requirement” means any of the following applicable requirements of Schedule 1, namely—

Part A (structure)

paragraph B1 (means of warning and escape)

paragraph B3 (internal fire spread—structure)

paragraph B4 (external fire spread)

paragraph B5 (access and facilities for the fire service)

Part M (access to and use of buildings).

 

As with any of the Building Regulations A-Q it is irrelevant what guidance was written in the approved document at the time of construction as to whether future proposed works should comply with the current requirements or the regulations that were applicable at the date of construction, as sections 3 (meaning of building work) and section 4 (requirements relating to building work) of the Building Regulations is the over-riding legislation and would always take precedence over this when carrying out future works.

 

the example given in section 0.4 (example 1) of approved Document M (2013) which detailed the exact scenario which we are discussing here:

 

Example: a planned project involving the removal of a WC in the entrance storey of a dwelling would be a material alteration if it is the only WC in that storey and the storey contains habitable rooms.  The WC must not be removed or made less compliant with Part M, unless another WC is provided in the entrance storey that is no less satisfactory in terms of compliance with Part M than the old one.

[Kevin (Mr T)]

7 minutes ago, Mark (smokey mow) said:

It is making it worse with regard to compliance with part-m of the building regulations which requires a wc on the entrance storey.

 

Coincidently I had exactly the same conversation with an architect last week and this is what I wrote to him.

 

In this case the proposed works to remove the ground floor WC would be considered as a material alteration under the Building Regulations as the works would be more unsatisfactory in compliance with a relevant requirement (Part M) of the Building Regulations than before the works took place.  Where any building is extended or undergoes a material alteration, the building works must be carried out so that after it has been completed, the building complies with the applicable requirements or, where it did not fully comply with any applicable requirement, it is no more unsatisfactory than before.

 

This is covered in Section 3(2) of The Building Regulations 2010 (as amended) which I have highlighted below.

 

(2) An alteration is material for the purposes of these Regulations if the work, or any part of it, would at any stage result—

(a)in a building or controlled service or fitting not complying with a relevant requirement where previously it did; or

(b)in a building or controlled service or fitting which before the work commenced did not comply with a relevant requirement, being more unsatisfactory in relation to such a requirement.

(3) In paragraph (2) “relevant requirement” means any of the following applicable requirements of Schedule 1, namely—

Part A (structure)

paragraph B1 (means of warning and escape)

paragraph B3 (internal fire spread—structure)

paragraph B4 (external fire spread)

paragraph B5 (access and facilities for the fire service)

Part M (access to and use of buildings).

 

As with any of the Building Regulations A-Q it is irrelevant what guidance was written in the approved document at the time of construction as to whether future proposed works should comply with the current requirements or the regulations that were applicable at the date of construction, as sections 3 (meaning of building work) and section 4 (requirements relating to building work) of the Building Regulations is the over-riding legislation and would always take precedence over this when carrying out future works.

 

the example given in section 0.4 (example 1) of approved Document M (2013) which detailed the exact scenario which we are discussing here:

 

Example: a planned project involving the removal of a WC in the entrance storey of a dwelling would be a material alteration if it is the only WC in that storey and the storey contains habitable rooms.  The WC must not be removed or made less compliant with Part M, unless another WC is provided in the entrance storey that is no less satisfactory in terms of compliance with Part M than the old one.

How about running an outside staircase to the first floor and moving the front door up a level as well? Guess you would have to include ramp access as well 

Very comprehensive answer Mark.

[dombanks]

Thats rediculous this house would totally unsuitable fir amyobe with mobility issues in ybe first place with thr curve at the top of the stairs. Plus you'd never get a chair into the loo now! 

Tbh i would like to keep a downstairs loo if i could... Aldi have a camping one i could put under the stairs. 

I appreciate regs etc are there to stop stulid things and shonky works but this is a joke. If i understand right.. Had the bathroom been upstairs amd i moved it between rooms its ok but cos its downstairs unless i add a loo in a space that cant support it its not up to code?