I identified 3 breaches of building regulations on a new development. I have managed after 18 months and many emails to the local council to get two of the breaches rectified. The remaining breach has still not been rectified and it is likely I will now have to approach the courts under Building Act 1984 Sec 36 (6).
The remaining matter in dispute relates to the lack of adequate vertical circulation provided between the ground and the approved 240 sq. meters of first floor B1 use (office).
Although I have written to the Architect/Owner of the development he still refuses to accept there is a beach of building regulations. His opinions are:
For clarity we can confirm the following:
• We can confirm that the development has full planning and building regulations approval (which includes Approved Document M).
• The scheme comprises of 5 commercial I retail properties at ground floor and 5 residential apartments above at first floor level. The retail units have now been subdivided into only three units, 2 units for a fish and chip restaurant, 2 for a cafe bistro and one other remaining unit. All of the retail units have level access.
• The main first floor area over the retail units is 5 residential apartments and not B1 office use. There are no regulatory requirements for a lift to be provided to the apartments which are accessed at first floor level from an ambulant disabled staircase that has been designed in accordance with Regulation M1.
• There is a separate detached office building of 95sq.m above the 5 car parking spaces (for the 5 residential apartments) which is to be rented to Fitz Architects. Due to the limited size and occupancy, the ambulant disabled staircase is also considered appropriate to access the small office. The actual office I studio space has only 55 sq.m of floor area with ancillary facilities. Fitz Architects do not offer any direct sales or goods sold and operate on an appointment only basis and visitors can not visit the office without prior arrangements. Door access and internal facilities within the office area will be provided to accommodate ambulant disabled. We will prepare an office policy that meets the requirements of the Equality Act so that any disabled users will receive personal home visits rather than having to visit the office. This is standard practice with some of Fitz Architects existing clients now. The policy would also include provision for any prospective future employees who may be disabled to enable home working as the practice is geared to this with a dedicated IT system that is networked and working remotely from home is already common.
This reply does not consider change of use or the fact that the development excludes disabled from the working environment. Both these issues have been a subject of the Secretary of States determinations.
The Secretary of States decision, dated 12/Nov/2010 ( Ref SB/007/002/003 ) concerning a similar breach of requirement M1 of the Building Regulations.
The panning approval is for 240sq meters of first floor office use as stated on page 14 of the delegated decision report: Notwithstanding the submitted plans, no more than 240 square metres of the available 450 square metres of internal floor space at first floor level shall be used for the purposes of use class B1(office use).
My question is as this breach is obvious how can I get the local authority to listen rather that me having to approach the courts?
