Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I think it works.


We have worked in a few different house types and if the house is relatively thin then it works. Most people have put in a small hall/lobby to to the front door.


Open plan will affect a loft conversion as you need to have a "protected stairwell" to pass fire regs. It's still possible but requires demister system or fire curtains to pass regs. Both are somewhat expensive but worth it to maintain the open space.

I have seen some houses in Nutfield Road like that, but they are quite small. I also saw one in Upland Road, and it was open to a small kitchen at the back.


I would imagine it could be very drafty (and also very noisy) if you did not have good insulation. I think it does look attractive. Surely it's just personal taste.

Noise transfer between your place and next door would be my main concern - you'd lose that existing sound-reducing barrier between you and them. If they've done (or did) the same it's possible you'll be hearing a lot from them - and vice versa.


I quite like the way the open stairs into an open plan front room looks but I wouldn't be so keen hearing them fart as they watch telly.


If I was doing it I'd lose some inches on the party wall to add some decent soundproofing. An extra expense there again though.

in response to the OP's question, no, I wouldn't buy a Victorian house where the stairs opened into the back sitting room. it reminds me of the time when people got rid of fireplaces and panelled doors to 'modernise' their houses.

Have you thought about opening up the wall between the front and back sitting rooms as an alternative that would be more sensitive to the architectural character of your house (and maintain its future resale value)?

purplehaze Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> thank you everyone - looks like majority view is -

> don't do it. The whole point of it was to

> increase resale value as the back room is a bit

> pokey.

> cs I am going to knock the wall between front and

> back living rooms



The house I grew up in (and will sell soon) had 3 rooms

where in the 70s/80s everybody else had open plan.


I remember I preferred open plan - my dad said wait

til you bring a girl home.

The two main rooms are knocked through, so we have the parliament doors from the back room to the hallway, and just a normal door from the front room to the hall. From memory, the parliament hinges were pretty easy to source, then we just got someone to build up the top part of the wall and hang the doors. I can't recommend the builders we used though. They were rubbish!

Salsaboy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I'd get a structural engineer in first if you are

> planning to do this. I have an idea that at least

> one of the walls would be load bearing.


Definitely get someone to have a look if you're considering this.

I knew someone who took the wall out. It looked lovely but when it came to selling they realised they hadn't put the proper supports in so had to put everything back to as it was.

If you already struggle with heating the rooms in the winter you'll find it even more chilly.

purplehaze Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> thank you everyone - looks like majority view is - don't do it. The whole point of it was to

> increase resale value as the back room is a bit pokey.

> cs I am going to knock the wall between front and

> back living rooms



good luck - you'll prob need an rsj to support the wall above as SB and others have pointed out, but ultimately well worth the impact on your own amenity and resale value!

  • 1 month later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Per Cllr McAsh, as quoted above: “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution. " Is anyone au fait with the Clean Air Act 1993, and  particularly with the state of 'Smoke Control' law and practice generally?  I've just been looking  through some of it for the first time and, afaics, the civil penalties mentioned  were introduced into the Clean Air Act, at Schedule 1A, in May 2022.  So it seems that, in this particular,  it's a matter of the enforcement policy trailing well behind the legislation.  I'm not criticising that at all, but am curious.  
    • Here's the part of march46's linked-to Southwark News article pertaining to Southwark Council. "Southwark Council were also contacted for a response. "Councillor James McAsh, Cabinet Member for Clean Air, Streets & Waste said: “One of Southwark’s key priorities is to create a healthy environment for our residents. “To achieve this we closely monitor legislation and measures that influence air pollution – our entire borough apart from inland waterways is designated as a Smoke Control Area, and we also offer substantial provision for electric vehicles to promote alternative fuel travel options and our Streets for People strategy. “We as a council support the work of Mums for Lungs and recognise the health and environmental impacts of domestic solid fuel burning, particularly from wood-burning appliances. “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution.  “This work is being undertaken in collaboration with other London boroughs as part of the pan-London Wood Burning Project, which aims to harmonise enforcement approaches and share best practice across the capital.” ETA: And here's a post I made a few years ago, with tangential relevance.  https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/278140-early-morning-drone-flying/?do=findComment&comment=1493274  
    • The solicitor is also the Executor. Big mistake, but my Aunt was very old, and this was the Covid years and shortly after so impossible to intervene and get a couple of close relatives to do this.  She had no children so this is the nephews and nieces. He is a single practitioner, and most at his age would have long since retired - there is a question over his competence Two letters have already gone essentially complaining - batted off and 'amusingly' one put the blame on us. There are five on our side, all speaking to each other, and ideally would work as a single point of contact.  But he has said that this is not allowed - we've all given approval to act on each others behalf. There are five on her late husband's side, who have not engaged with us despite the suggestion to work as a team, There is one other, who get's the lion's share, the typicical 'friend', but we are long since challenging the will. I would like to put another complaint together that he has not used modern collective communication (I expect that he is incapable) which had seriously delayed the execution of the will.   I know many in their 80s very adept with smart phones so that is not an ageist comment. The house has deteriorated very badly, with cold, damp and a serious leak.  PM me if you want to see the dreadful condition that it is now in. I would also question why if the five of us are happy to work together why all of us need to confirm in writing.             The house was lived in until Feb 23, and has been allowed to get like this.
    • Isn’t a five yearly electricity safety certificate one of the things the landlord must give for a legal tenancy?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...