Regularisation Application !!!

R

richard911

Joined
21 Nov 2008
Messages
15
Reaction score
0
Location
Leicestershire
Country
United Kingdom
Due to complete and utter cock up by the architect in not applying for building control, only planning. I visited my local council offices in order to submit the required form and fees, just to put you in the picture the project is for a side extension of 2 storeys and single storey to the rear, total area = 83sqm, and so far only the side wall to four courses is built.
I have to honest and tell you that i was astounded as to the costs i am going to incurr, they have estimated the overall cost of the project being
£63,240, as i am doing over half the work it will be £30,000, secondly as it exceeds 60sqm i am having to pay commercial costs at a rate of £750 per sq metre, this equates to a building control fee of £821.00. my argument is that its a 3 bedroom semi, not a commercial property so why should i incurr commercial contstruction costs, secondly, how can they automatically assume that the build will cost you xyz?.
I would appreciate comments as I feel I am being ripped off big time by blaby district council.
 
You are charged a fee based on "market rates" not "commercial costs" based on m2 of floor area, and if they are using £750/m2 then you have got off lightly.

Basically, this is how much an average extension costs a typical householder to build per m2 of floor, if built by a company - so this is where you are confusing commercial rates

The alternative would be for you to get several quotes from local builders and use these as an average cost

It does not matter if you are doing the work yourself, or if your aunt is building it for you for free
 
richard911 said:
I have to honest and tell you that i was astounded as to the costs i am going to incurr, they have estimated the overall cost of the project being
£63,240, as i am doing over half the work it will be £30,000
Click to expand...
At 83m2, if you'd asked the forum what you would expect to be the cost to have your extension built, you'd have got a price around that figure. The extent of the works will not vary whether a contractor does it all or whether you do everything yourself for half the money and it is the extent of the works that they base the fee on. Its just that they use a value of works instead because using the area does not lend itself to being used.
 
Was the building inspector not slightly conspicuous by his absence?
 
hotrod said:
How can you submit an application to Regularise work if the work hasn't been done? :?
Click to expand...

That's a good point. I'm not sure on the actual policy of whether this needs to be regularised, as it is still in progress and should come under a normal building notice - same costs but without any % addition which they may add to regularisation work.

Yes, foundations etc may have to be exposed, as in regularisation, but there would be an argument to split the work and only pay regularisation fees for the complete bits (ground floor?) and normal building notice fees for any incomplete work.

I'd certainly push for a building notice if this is going to be cheaper
 
That's what I thought Woods. It should probably have been done under full plans (which it obviously hasn't - hence the Architect cock up).

So, why not just sneak it through under a Building Notice and "amend" any non-compliant now as the project progresses. No need for a Regularisation application and the additional fees (120% of normal notice fees)?
 
Firstly thanx to all for your input, I feel i should explain a bit more about the project, the project commenced in 2007 after planning approval and it was going to be a do as can afford to do, to date their are footing a metre deep alondside the house of 12.4 metres, these have already been inspected prior to filling,on the footings is 6 courses of brickwork with a piller to the front and thats all, in 2007 i lost my father and we have only just sold his house and i can now proceed further. Now it wasnt until the bricky asked about the building control that I went to Blaby and asked, this is when i found out she had cocked up and not submitted it!. Blaby's records however do show building control for a car port we were going to build back in 2005. I still feel that Blaby is being very unfair here, i mean does one run of footings and 6 courses of brick require retrospective application......or can this be deemed as the car port, which has been applied for and paid for.....this is really doing my head in.
 
Logic and good sense aside, technically (and legally I suspect) if work has commenced before either a building regs plans application was submitted or a notice was submitted then the works will be considered to have been started and will need retrospective approval. Councils have to stick to the law however illogical it may seem.
 
ok, as the work we have already done could be used to complete the carport, and as there are no works yet to the rear could i complete the car port as i have already paid for building regs on it, and then apply a fresh application for building control the remaining build, this would negate a retrospective application????.
 
Sorry but whats the car port got to do with anything? I might be being a bit thick but I really don't understand the history.

For a full regularisation fee looking at Blaby Dis Councils Fees http://idocs.blaby.gov.uk/external/...ng-control/schedule-of-charges-2008-11-26.pdf I work out out that at 83m2 you should be paying a fee of about £1013. I don't quite know where they got the £821 fee from. Even for a full plans and inspection fee would be £970 by my reckoning so I'm a bit confused tbh. Now presumably you're only getting regularisation on the founds so the fee is part regularisation and part full application + inspection or on a notice (which is the bit I don't understand).
 
The last response from Freddie has asked what has the car port got to do with it??. Ok let me explain, back in 2007 i submitted my own plans along with the fee's for both planning and building control for a car port, the planning permission was granted and I then did the trench for the footings, this being 12.4 metres by 1 metre depth by 600mm wide, i made it this size because we would eventually extend above, the footings were inspected prior to filling and after, and passed. To date, due to certain constraints there are approx 8 courses of brick (including blues) and a brick pillar to the front. Again in 2007 I was left property, I then realised i could then afford to extend as we had intended to do but earlier, so plans were drawn up and submitted to include extending above by one floor and to the rear at ground level. Now as previously stated the architect screwed up as she got planning ok but not submit building control!. Ok so far?. Now here are my questions.
1) As the work has not commenced on the extension does retrospective building control apply?
2) if the answer is No, then would i be better completing the carport and treating the proposed extension as a new building control application bearing in mind i have planning approval for it?.
3) Any other suggestions?????

Rich
 
richard911 said:
1) As the work has not commenced on the extension does retrospective building control apply?
Click to expand...
No, you cannot get regularisation (retrospective building control as you call it) on something that has not been built yet.

When you say car port what do you mean exactly? This is most peoples idea of a car port:

PVCu+car+port.jpg


Presumably your car port is more substantial as it seems to require a dirty great foundation?

In any case, (although I appreciate I may still not have fully grasped the situation), in my experience, you cannot get part approval for building regulations, ie they won't be able to approve foundations for an extension unless they receive an application for an extension. If they received an application for foundations for a car port then it is on that basis that it would have previously been approved not an extension. Which is presumably why they are now asking for regularisation on the foundations as they were originally approved as foundations for a car port. As mentioned originally by ^woody^ back on Wednesday it sounds like they need to give you a combined fee some for regularisation (the foundations) and some for proposed works the rest of the works not yet commenced).

I have to say I am intrigued as to why the finger keeps getting pointed at your architect, was she actually appointed to get you building regs/make the application, why did you not follow it up at the time?
 
As far as building control are concerned, then structurally the existing footings will be deemed adequate for the task in hand. It would be similar to digging a suitability test hole on an existing ground floor building where there will be a first floor extension above.

As far as fees are concerned you will be asked to pay extra according to size.


Probably.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top