For convenience, the owners often begin to redevelop their homes. Small windows do not provide enough light in the room, and therefore you have to replace them with more modern structures. House owners are faced with the question of how to make a door out of a window. In construction, this problem is solved in two ways. The first is quite simple and does not require much effort - when the wall under the window is demolished and a new structure is installed in its place. In the second case, it will take much more skill and effort: when to install the door you need to expand a very small opening. Then you need to change the jumper, which is responsible for durability and stability.
If the wall with windows is a carrier, then when installing the doors will require jumpers.
What you need to know before starting work?
It is worth considering separately the question of reinstalling the radiator, if it was located directly below the bottom of the window opening. Outside, you will need to install a window sill and fix the balustrade in the simplest version. If the event is more complex, you will have to cut through the wall. In the process you will need the following tools:
- Corners of steel at an angle of 90 degrees, in order to make the jumper.
- Channel bars
- Reinforced concrete beams, when you cannot do without a new wall hole.
- Perforator.
- Ruler.
- Bulgarian.
- Sledgehammer for dismantling.
- Mineral wool.
- Polyurethane foam.
If the wall is load-bearing, then the overlapping structures should be fixed by using long vertical posts along the entire height of the dwelling. Most often the door is made exactly in the bearing partition that holds heavy plates. For such a case, it is necessary to use beams in order to sustain the future structure. If you live in an apartment building, then you should take care of the consent of the tenants and a special permit.
First, after you removed the window, you need to remove the lower partition. If it is made of brick, it breaks with a sledgehammer. If it contains metal elements, they are eliminated by the grinder. Products from gypsum cardboard understand in parts, at first screws get.
How to set the jumper, changing the parameters of the opening?
Often there are very small openings that subsequently expand. Sometimes in order to, you need to break a wall of several layers, for example, a brick one. Then the strengthening takes place in two stages: in the supporting structure and brick. It is rather difficult to do this work on your own, usually jumpers are bought. But you can do it yourself.
There are several types of jumpers:
- Beams that withstand horizontal supports.
- Constructions on which there are exclusively laying on top.
- Interior lightweight beams.
- Structures equipped with shelves for top loads, called bolts.
Depending on which room the future door will be in, it is worth starting. For cladding mount will occur through the corner. It must be greater than 80 mm. Fix it so that it is not visible in the laying of the opening of the former window. When dismantling, make sure that the parameters remain as smooth and symmetrical as they were. The angle should fit snugly according to 1/4 window dimensions in 50 mm.
There are 2 types of products, depending on their installation in the former window opening. Sometimes the jumper is poured immediately above it, and it happens that is attached later. The first type is more convenient in construction, it is also cheaper. This will allow no cost to enter the price of the door in the budget, because the design will not need to move a special crane.
Now make the formwork with the help of 20 mm thick wooden bars. Connect them through the use of screws. A row of planks is laid on the base horizontally in the dimensions of the cut window, and on top is the reinforcement. The second stage is knocking down a vertical row of boards with self-tapping screws.
The final components of the work
The armature must be tied with wire threads. In this case, the master can do without welding. And for the strength of the use of props, as they will have to withstand concrete.
It is important to provide in the space left by the facing masonry and lintel. Mineral wool 1 dm thick will serve you well. And on top of it will be a layer of concrete.
The window looked out on the street, so protection from the cold should be maximum and when re-planning.
Lay a brick on a layer of cotton wool and then spray the mounting foam so that the draft does not penetrate through the gaps in the door. Today there is an opportunity to take for insulation polystyrene foam 3 cm thick.
To prepare concrete for fixing the door, you need sand, cement, crushed stone. Pour concrete with reinforcement. To do this, lower it into the solution. After that, usually wait a day, then clean the formwork.
Remember that paint or excess plaster may remain in place of the window. Then it is time to insert the door frame instead of the window. Screw it in with screws or dowels. But before that, measure the level so that everything is smooth. Fill all extra space with foam for installation.
So, if you are tired of the existing plan of an apartment or house, then take up to change it. With certain skills in handling certain construction equipment, this can easily be done without help.
Telephone consultation 8 800 505-91-11
The call is free
Door instead of window
House in common share ownership. One owner wants to make a door in his wall instead of a window - access to the street, so as not to walk around the common courtyard. How to arrange it, whether the consent of other owners?
Hello dear visitor of the site, without your consent, he can not do it, and your walls may collapse, as the window in the main wall is located. Good luck to you and all the best, respectful lawyer Ligostaeva A.V.
I bought an apartment in a brick house on the 6th floor, they made a door instead of a window for access to the loggia, this was not legalized. What should new owners do?
If the reconstruction does not affect the bearing wall, then it can only be legalized in a court of law, since the works have already been completed. If the bearing wall is offended, the court will refuse and will oblige to bring it to its original state. You can go to the designers, if you find it difficult to determine whether the bearing wall is affected or not. The court will still need their technical opinion.
Bought an apartment. It 1) removed 3 built-in wardrobes, 2) a door and a metal staircase were made instead of a window. When inspecting and discussing transactions with realtors, we were verbally confirmed that everything was legalized.
As they made out the mortgage and ordered the report to the appraiser, there was no doubt about the authenticity of the documents. After the transaction, I requested a report from the appraiser - he did not notice (!) The absence of built-in wardrobes and the presence of an iron door with an iron staircase instead of a window. What are the consequences, the risks I bear as a new owner, and how to reduce them to the minimum?
Hello. You can legitimize yourself. After building technical expertise.
Can I make a door instead of a window in a multi-storey house built of panels?
Maybe, but for this you need 100% for the general meeting of all owners of the house, since the wall is a common property of the MKD.
Neighbors on the 1st floor removed the window and instead put the door, cutting through the window opening, thereby not informing anyone and not presenting any papers for permission. What are our actions ?! Who to contact? We have the HOA.
Contact the housing inspection, the prosecutor's office to conduct an inspection. In court on bringing the premises to the original position. Must be architecture resolution.
A shower is installed in the bathroom instead of a bath, and an arch is made in the kitchen instead of the door to the balcony and the windows, is this an illegal redevelopment? After the arch was made, the loggia was insulated, glazed, and a battery was hung there. The apartment has independent heating. Appealed on this issue to the BTI, they replied that it is not considered a redevelopment. I also wanted to hear your answer. Do I need to make these changes in the apartment in the cadastral passport?
If you have already been answered by BTI specialists, then we are all the more not experts in this field. And how will you make a change in the cadastral passport without the conclusion of BTI specialists,
Good day! Replacing plumbing fixtures, sinks, plates and pipes with similar ones in parameters and purpose, but provided that their location does not change is not a re-planning! You all correctly answered.
If during the creation of the arch the outer wall was broken - then this is a redevelopment, you can be instructed - by the administration - that you would bring the wall into its original form.
Good day to you. If BTI specialists have already answered you, then we will not be able to answer you anyway. I wish you good luck in solving your question.
According to Art. 25 LCD RF redevelopment of residential premises is a change in its configuration, and the reorganization of residential premises - installation, replacement or transfer of engineering networks, sanitary, electrical or other equipment, requiring changes in the technical passport of residential premises. The order of actions of interested persons, as well as the grounds for the reorganization and (or) redevelopment of residential premises are established by Art. 26 LCD RF. Works that may include these concepts are listed in clause 1.7.1 of the Rules and Regulations for the Technical Operation of the Housing Fund, approved by Decree No. 170 of the Gosstroy of the Russian Federation of September 27, 2003. In particular, redevelopment of residential premises may include: transfer and disassembly of partitions, transfer and installation of doorways, dividing or enlarging multi-room apartments, arranging additional kitchens and bathrooms, expanding living space through auxiliary premises, eliminating dark kitchens and kitchen entrances through apartments or veins premises, equipment or renovation of the existing platform. "In the kitchen instead of the door to the balcony and the windows an arch is made" - here you have removed part of the wall under this window - this is an extension of the area due to the auxiliary premises. I think you should still get a new technical plan and legitimize your work. There are questions - you can call.
Is it possible to install a door to the loggia instead of the window (disassemble the brickwork under the plastic window and put the door and window to the floor)? the loggia will not be heated. The house is brick, apartment on the 6th floor. If you do, and then legitimize in BTI, is there a large fine?
Is it possible to remove the non-carrier partition between the kitchen and the room so that there is a large kitchen-living room? The remaining 2 rooms are fenced off with doors. The apartment is a new open plan house brick, gas stove.
Good day. To make such a reconstruction you need to get permission from the administration, for this you first need to prepare a project. Legalize the BTI will not succeed, BTI just make peremery and reflect the presence of illegal reconstruction in the data sheet on the apartment. Then you have to contact the Administration with a statement to legitimize. In practice, the Administration usually refuses, after which you will need to go to court with a claim. Therefore, it is better to do everything legally - and the nerves are smaller and cheaper. Just prepare the project and get permission for this project in the Administration.
Question about the device of a separate entrance to a residential apartment on the 1st floor, by installing a door instead of a loggia window (not a bearing wall).
Namely, the consent of the owners of the house. How many consents to collect? The house is 2 years old (450 apartments) and it is occupied by no more than half.
Information from the Criminal Code - you need 50% +1 vote (hard to reach), from the town planning committee - 100% (which is not even theoretically possible).
Since we are talking about making constructive changes in common property, which are the walls of the house, it is necessary to obtain the consent of all owners. If not all apartments are sold, the missing part can be agreed with the developer.
Unfortunately - most likely it will not work with a separate entrance, you have reduced the total property, which means that Pgo Art. 36 LCD RF - you need the consent of all homeowners in the house.
Good day. Since it is a question of changing the construction of the common property of all owners in accordance with Article 36 of the Housing Code, the Consent of all owners of residential premises must be obtained.
Good day. Alas, it was rightly said that the consent of all the owners of the house is required, article 36 of the housing code. All the best and thanks for contacting the site.
Good afternoon! I have a non-residential premises on the 1st floor, instead of the window you need to mount the front door. Do I need the consent of the neighbors?
Good day. First of all you need the consent of the administration for the reconstruction. To do this, you need to prepare a project and apply with the appropriate application to the administration.
We rented non-residential premises in a brick house, we want to make a door instead of a window, without a porch. Just a metal door. In fact, we do not do the reconstruction of the facade of the building, we just do the redevelopment, we remove the window sill. The width of the door will be the same width as the window, do we need the consent of 2/3 of the owners for this redevelopment?
You need 100% consent of the owners of residential and non-residential premises in the house, as the outer wall of the house decreases, which is common property, the disposal of which requires the unanimous decision of all owners.
Can I install a door instead of a window in the living room?
It depends on what you mean. LCD RF. Article 26. The basis for the reorganization and (or) redevelopment of residential premises 1. The reconstruction and (or) redevelopment of residential premises shall be carried out in compliance with the requirements of the legislation by agreementwith the local government (hereinafter - the body that carries out the coordination) on the basis of its decision.
Is it possible instead of a balcony to make a railing from the floor, and to alter the windows in the door?
Only with the permission of the administration. Apply to the municipality. And get approval for the collection of the MKD, article 44,46 LCD RF.
Is it possible to cut through the door, instead of a window in a residential building, thereby making a separate entrance on the first floor, without a porch. The apartment is located in the city of Penza. What authorities do you need to contact if it is legal?
Hello, Article 7.21. Violation of the rules for the use of residential premises 1. Damage to residential buildings, residential premises, as well as damage to their equipment, unauthorized reorganization and (or) redevelopment of residential buildings and (or) residential premises or their misuse - entails a warning or imposition of an administrative fine on citizens in the amount of from one thousand to one thousand five hundred rubles. 2. Unauthorized re-planning of residential premises in apartment buildings - shall entail the imposition of an administrative fine on citizens in the amount of from two thousand to two thousand five hundred rubles. See the text of the article in the previous edition Good luck to you and all the best.
An expert builder can answer this question (about the technical possibility of such a reconstruction of your house). Contact an expert organization that has such a specialist on staff.
Hello. With this question you need to contact your local architecture. They get permission. It will be necessary to conclude that the state of the main building structures will not be disturbed. All the best. Thank you for choosing our site.
Hello. To do this, you need to order a reconstruction plan and obtain a building permit from the city administration (in the Architecture Department). But for residential premises such permission is usually not issued. Now, if the apartment is transferred to the non-residential category and will be used as an office, then most likely, such permission will be issued. God help you.
Instead of a window in a non-residential premise, put a door - is it necessary or not to agree the occupants of the whole house?
You do not pretend to use common areas, therefore you don’t need the consent of the owners, but the consent to the redevelopment of the premises from the municipality is required.
I live on the 1st floor, 17 years ago I made a glass door instead of a window, now 17 years later they demand that the door be removed and the window be installed! The apartment is private! Are you entitled to this?
Hello. Yes, if the door is installed without permits
She and her husband lived in his apartment without registration. The repair was done. Door windows were made together and everything was registered in my name. I have documents and furniture. I can go into the apartment and take anything out of furniture without a trial.
If the husband is not against it. You lived without registration. Share the property.
The point is in personal relations, if you are already divorced, the husband’s apartment, he may not let you in, since this is private property, only the division of property remains. Try to negotiate a division before trial by an agreement.
Question: in 1 square. Square. on the 1st floor (corner) make the door instead of the window. Consent of the tenants, transfer to non-residential fund is necessary? Or not. Project, coordination with local organizations. G. Gremyachinsk Perm Region. Under the store selling app. parts. Oils and chemicals are excluded, only iron. Thank.
Hello! Consent must tenants GOOD LUCK YOU
Tell me please, if instead of the window (exit from the room to the street) put the door. Is this considered redevelopment? It’s just that the old man has no other entrance; he is climbing through the window to his home on a stepladder. The apartment is for several owners, they put a wall to him and now he is without entry and exit.
yes, this is a redevelopment, you need the consent of the MO administration
The complaint against the owners must be filed with the court.
In 1 to the apartment window was demolished in the kitchen and the door to the loggia was inserted instead. And from the kitchen to the loggia transferred batteries. Is it possible and how difficult is it to legalize such redevelopment?
you need to take a conclusion in the SES, BTI, draw up a draft redevelopment and go to court.
Can I make an additional door instead of a window in the house where there are 4 apartments (it is considered multi-room, apartments have rooms), but I want to make an additional balcony.
Hello! You can, only with the permission of all co-owners.
Can I remove the window in the kitchen overlooking the loggia and put the door instead of the window?
you can, in this case does not affect the supporting structures and the intended use of the premises
Is it possible to tear the cabinet under the window, and instead of the window to put the door?
Can. If you get permission.
In the new building, access to the balcony would be desirable to remove the window and the door to the balcony, only instead of them (windows and doors) to put sliding doors glass-plastic. Do you need permission for this and where to get it?
To redevelop the living space you will have to take permission from Art. 29 LCD RF)
In general, this redevelopment, permission to moszhilinspektsii.
How to rent an apartment to the enterprise on the first floor, make the door to the street instead of a window, legally?
To do this, you need to move the apartment into a non-residential space.
Hello. First, you get permission for re-equipment in the management of housing and communal services or construction. Then make a lease or rental agreement with the company. If the living room, then hiring.
I live with a grandson on the 1st floor of a corner apartment. How to make a separate exit to the street instead of a window-door; where to start where to turn.?
This is a redevelopment of the apartment (as well as reconstruction, depending on the project). Making redevelopment is quite expensive and time consuming. You need to start with an appeal to the Committee of construction control of the city administration for permission to agree on the redevelopment. The following documents will be needed: Application for redevelopment according to the form, documents of title to the apartment, project of redevelopment, technical passport of the apartment, written consent of all members of the employer's family, conclusion of the body for the protection of architectural monuments.
If instead of the window between the kitchen and the balcony do the door is a reconstruction?
Yes, this is a reconstruction.
Is it considered redevelopment if we want to remove the balcony door with the window? That is, we will not touch the stone partition, which is under the window! Just make an exit to the loggia open. Do you need permission to do this?
With this question you need to contact Moszhilinspektsiyu.
21.03.2011, 23:33
22.03.2011, 00:54
Write a complaint to the Housing Inspectorate, the Prosecutor's Office and the Federal Service for Supervision of Consumer Rights Protection and Human Rights Control.
22.03.2011, 01:02
Sorry! Please poke - and what has changed in the Legislation and when - on the transfer of residential square in non-residential fund?
22.03.2011, 01:16
According to ch. 3 and ch. 4 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation, the local authority does not have the right to take into account the agreement or disagreement of the owners and users of other premises in an apartment building when making decisions on re-equipment, re-planning of residential premises, transfer of residential premises to non-residential, non-residential premises to residential premises.
22.03.2011, 01:17
i dug a little here
Norms of art. 23 and 26 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation, without requiring the consent of the general meeting of owners of premises in an apartment building, are in contradiction with Art. 44 LCD RF for the following reasons:
- reconstruction of an apartment building (including its expansion or superstructure), construction of farm buildings and other buildings, structures, structures, repair of common property in an apartment building should be based on the decision of the general meeting of owners of premises in the apartment building (Section 1, Part 2 44 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation);
- the competence of the general meeting of premises owners includes making decisions on the limits of use of the land plot on which the apartment building is located, including the introduction of restrictions on their use, transfer to use of common property in an apartment building (paragraph 2 - 3 h. 2 of article 44 Housing Code of the Russian Federation).
Also according to Art. 137 Housing Code of the Russian Federation in cases where it does not violate the rights and legitimate interests of the owners of premises in an apartment building (that is, including not contrary to decisions taken in accordance with article 44 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation), the homeowners ’partnership has the right to:
1) to provide for the use or limited use of a part of the common property in an apartment building;
2) in accordance with the requirements of the legislation, in accordance with the established procedure, to build upon, to rebuild a part of the common property in an apartment building.
22.03.2011, 01:19
from which I conclude that without the consent of the owners of an apartment building for the reconstruction of the premises, they are not entitled to make a second entrance with a staircase. I’m also thinking about housing inspection))
22.03.2011, 02:34
And such permission without the consent of the owners - is it possible to get?
Or maybe a decision was made after an absentee meeting?
22.03.2011, 03:09
22.03.2011, 08:50
the opinion of the owners does not matter, there should be a resolution on transferring to the undead fund from the administration, only then can the door be made
Laugh :)))
22.03.2011, 12:11
Today I found out from the chairman of the Homeowners' Association that allegedly a year ago there was an absentee voting (and there were no notifications about it anywhere) and the owner collected 2/3 votes. Permission to cut the door received. I think the chairman does not say everything, because I think he got his own too. But the complaint to the housing inspection will issue, let them check.
22.03.2011, 12:14
the opinion of the owners does not matter, there should be a resolution on transferring to the undead fund from the administration, only then can the door be made
But what about 44 Art. LCD?
22.03.2011, 12:37
And how will the hairdresser in the house interfere?
Cutting the outer wall threatens to collapse the house?
22.03.2011, 12:42
22.03.2011, 12:51
Connoisseurs, tell me. The situation is as follows:
We live in a small 3-ten-storey access brick house 4-year building. We have the HOA. The owner of the apartment on the 1st floor decided to make a hairdresser from his one-and-a-half. At a meeting of the HOA, which took place 4 years ago, it was decided by a majority of votes that the HOA is against non-residential facilities in the house and against the hairdresser’s. Now the legislation has changed and no one asks us, as the apartment owners of an apartment building (members of the HOA). Already 2 months of work on repairing the apartment. Now they are going to cut through the front door (the second) from the window of the apartment to the street (along the outer wall).
But the question arises: How to find out whether it is legal? Did they get permission for this and who? Are they required to provide this information to members of the HOA, the chairman upon request? Is it possible to prevent, suspend these actions legally?
Just won a trial on a similar occasion ...
22.03.2011, 13:44
Article 22 of the Russian Federation LCD has changed.
22.03.2011, 14:00
Article 22 of the Russian Federation LCD has changed.
When? we won in february.
22.03.2011, 14:20
i can't find something right now
22.03.2011, 14:56
Now we are preparing a complaint. As it turns out, many people are not satisfied with this barber shop. There are activists who have already prepared a complaint to the prosecutor’s office. I think it comes to court.
22.03.2011, 14:57
just won a trial on a similar occasion ...
when did the law change?
Tell us more about your experience?
22.03.2011, 14:58
Yes, I am concerned primarily with safety. We all know how all these redevelopments and renovations are consistent.
Then, after some time, the owner may sell this premises and there may be something else (pyshechnye, wine glasses, underground casinos, etc., etc.
If the door is placed in place of a window opening, security does not suffer at all.
Bearing structures remain unchanged. And the rest of the owner can do what he wants (of course with the agreement of the administration). We here in the basement first opened a grocery store, everything was fine. And now drinking with all the consequences in the literal and figurative sense. So if there is a hairdresser - rejoice.
Decision № 2-1600 / 2015 2-1600 / 2015 (2-6974 / 2014;) ~ M-4770/2014 2-6974 / 2014 M-4770/2014 of April 9, 2015 on case No. 2-1600 / 2015
Case number 2- 1600/15DECISION
In the name of the Russian Federation
Oktyabrsky District Court. Izhevsk composed of:
Presiding judge Ivanova MA,
When Secretary Vshivkovoj AND.A.,
Having considered in open court a civil case under the claim of Kataev P.M. to Ivantaeva F.Z., Buzanov V.N. about the compulsion to eliminate the unauthorized reorganization of the premises,
y with t and N about in and l:
Kataev P.M. Originally filed a lawsuit with Ivantaeva FZ on elimination of violations of the rights of the owner of the dwelling, the obligation to bring the room to its original state.
The claims are motivated by the fact that the claimant is the owner. In July 2014, a doorway appeared from the outer wall of the front facade of the house, instead of a window in a non-residential room (rooms on floor plan 36-42, floor: basement) belonging to the respondent, a separate entrance to the land plot, which is in common ownership all tenants, including the plaintiff. Meanwhile, the defendant does not have both permits and the consent of all owners of residential premises to use the common property of an apartment building.
Based on the above, the plaintiff requested to oblige the respondent within one month from the date the decision enters into legal force to bring non-residential premises, basement floor, numbers on the floor plan 36-42, at:, in its original condition in accordance with the technical passport to the house, dismantling the doorway with the door, restoring the brickwork and facing the outer wall of the front facade of the house in the place of the doorway, restoring the window opening.
He also requested to recover legal costs of paying the state fee, representative services in the amount of 20,000 rubles.
By a court ruling, at the request of the plaintiff, Buzanov V.N., who is 1/2 the share of the disputed non-residential premises, was involved as a co-respondent in the case.
The plaintiff Kataev P.M., being duly notified of the date and place of consideration of the case, did not appear at the court, submitted a statement of consideration of the case in his absence. In previous court sessions, he insisted on the claims, clarified that his rights were violated by a decrease in the common share ownership, while his opinion was not clarified, his consent was missing. The plaintiff dismantled the outer part of the wall by expanding the window opening for door installation, occupied a part of the land plot adjacent to the house, which is a change in the parameters of the capital construction object, as the property of the owners of the apartment building’s building diminished. related to enclosing structures.
i decided:
The claim Kataev P.M. to Ivantaeva F.Z., Buzanov V.N. about the compulsion to eliminate the unauthorized reorganization of the room to satisfy.
To oblige Ivantaeva F.Z., Buzanova V.N. within one month from the date the decision enters into legal force, bring non-residential premises, basement floor, numbers on floor plan 36-42, at:, in its original condition in accordance with the technical passport to the house, by dismantling the doorway with the door, restoration of brick masonry and cladding the outer wall of the front facade of the house in the place of the doorway, the restoration of the window opening.
To recover from Ivantaeva F.Z., Buzanova V.N. in equal parts in favor of Kataev PM court costs in the amount of 10 200 rubles. 00 cop., At 5100 rubles. 00 cop from everyone.
The decision may be appealed to the Supreme Court of the Udmurt Republic within a month from the date of its adoption in final form through the district court.
Presiding judge MA Ivanova
01/06/2012
Historical buildings in St. Petersburg are overgrown with unplanned ladders leading through unplanned doors to shops, bars and laundries that appear on the first floors. Who allows all this?
R the result is a disfigured facade
For six years now I have been following the deterioration of the facades of old houses on Bolshaya Morskaya Street. A typical example was house 46.
In 1996, Governor V. Yakovlev (who was once like this in St. Petersburg) signed two orders for the transfer of residential apartments No. 22 and No. 34 to non-residential funds for offices. In 2001, in August and November, two more orders appeared, and two more apartments, Nos. 5 and 27, became an office and a department store. Then there was a lot of different things; the premises, having become uninhabited, changed owners and functions repeatedly, which eventually led to the fact that the facade of the house was completely disfigured. To the right of the main entrance, the door to the basement was once broken, a staircase and a carport were made, but now everything is abandoned and boarded up. To the left of the main entrance, too, the door to the basement was pierced, a canopy was made, first there was a cafe "Taj Mahal", then a bar ... To the canopy above the bar entrance, to the right, there was a staircase in the mezzanine leading to another company. The result is a disfigured facade of the house 46.
It is not an architectural monument, but an architectural monument - located near it, 44, on ul. Big Sea. And standing in front of the house 43, 45, 47, with houses 43 and 45 (the houses of P.N. Demidov) were designed by O. Montferrand, and house 47 - the house of E.I. Nabokova. And in the very center of this ensemble, the facade of the house 46 “private traders” are disfigured as if it were a country barn that can be rebuilt as you please.
Construction of an attic on Gagarinskaya St., 1
The photographs taken by Alexander Makarov depict House 6 in Gagarinskaya Street. In the summer of 2010, one staircase was attached to the facade. In April 2012 there are already two of them. Ladders multiply, the facade is spoiled more and more.
Again, house 6 is not a protected object of cultural history, but directly opposite is house 3 - the palace of N. A. Kushelev-Bezborodko, a monument of federal significance. By the way, in 2012, the corruption touched him directly - next to him is House 1, the house of G. A. Kushelev-Bezborodko, which opens onto the embankment on the embankment. Kutuzov and is a monument of architecture of federal significance, which is now begun to barbarously reconstruct. The building was resettled in 1995, and, as indicated in the recently distributed materials of the ERA group, “as a result of a check with an on-site inspection, it was established that a 2-storey attic is being built on the front wing of the house 1, which leads to gross distortion of the total volumetric-spatial solution of the monument ... "*.
The entrance to the basement took half of the sidewalk on Bolshaya Konyushennaya, 2
Another one photograph taken by A. Makarov shows house 2 on Bolshaya Konyushennaya Street. A considerable pit was installed in depth and area; a fence was made. In addition to the ugliness and damage to the facade, all this construction product almost completely occupied the pavement. The photo shows a lamppost, it is so located relative to the pit with an impressive fence that a wheelchair with a child or a disabled person on such a sidewalk is no longer smuggled. And it is abundantly clear that permission to enter the basement was given in violation of the improvement rules.
This is an aesthetic aspect and an aspect of beautification. But there are others, for example, household - noise, vibration, odors. When under residential apartments are bars, restaurants, cafes, galleries, etc. - to tenants becomes uncomfortable. Therefore, in recent years, one of the most typical complaints of citizens has become a complaint related to the transfer of residential premises to a non-residential fund.
Based on the statements of citizens, ZakS deputy Alexei Kovalev wrote a deputy request to the Governor of St. Petersburg (dated February 24, 2012). Given the great social significance of the problem, I will retell it in detail, because this document, firstly, well explains to citizens their rights, secondly, outlines the range of documents related to the problem, thirdly, shows the established judicial practice, from which it follows that first, district administrations, and then the courts make decisions not in favor of citizens, i.e. conduct anti-people policy.
MP Kovalev writes
Alexey Kovalev wrote that he received numerous appeals from the owners of premises in apartment buildings complaining about the actions of district inter-agency commissions (IAC) in agreeing on projects related to the construction of separate entrances to non-residential premises on the ground floors, as well as in the basements and basements of apartment buildings . Such separate (or additional) entrances, as a rule, are installed on the site of window openings in the transferred (option - planned for transfer) to non-residential stock of residential premises for the purpose of their commercial use ...
In accordance with the Rules for the maintenance and repair of facades of buildings and structures in St. Petersburg, actions related to the device or changing the appearance of windows or entrances are allowed in agreement with the owners of buildings and structures.
Obtaining the consent of the owners actually requires the Housing Code of the Russian Federation (article 36, subparagraph 3 of paragraph 1), and the Rules for the maintenance of common property in an apartment building, approved by the Government of the Russian Federation of August 13, 2006 No. 491. It says that the supporting structures of an apartment building (including foundations bearing walls bearing pillars, etc.) are common property.
However, the administrations of the districts, acting on behalf of St. Petersburg - the owner of the premises in the same apartment building, a participant in the common ownership of common property, do not insist on complying with these rules.
So, on January 20, 2012, the Vasileostrovsky District Court of St. Petersburg considered a civil case on the claim of one of the owners of the premises of apartment building No. 37 on the 12th line of V. O. to another owner of the premises in the same house for recognizing the illegal actions of the latter on entering the site window opening in the front facade of the house. The decision of the court refused to meet the stated requirements. From the case file it is clear that the decision of the MVK on the coordination of the project was made in the absence of agreement of all the owners of the premises of the house.
This example is extremely characteristic. The complaints of owners to district administrations in most cases remain without satisfaction, including with reference to part 2 of article 40 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation - although it has nothing to do with the case. The norm of this article states that during the redevelopment and redevelopment of premises, the consent of the owners of the premises of an apartment building is not required, except in the case that such a conversion is impossible without attaching part of the common property to them in an apartment building.
But the organization of separate entrances to the rooms on the first floors is connected with the dismantling of the subwindow masonry of bricks in the facade main walls, that is, it interferes with the common property of the house.
From the answers of the officials of the district administrations it is clear that neither they, nor the district MVKs set up separate entrances as an operation with the common property of an apartment building, and therefore the projects of such works are agreed upon by the MVK in the absence of consent of other premises owners.
Even in the presence of decisions of general meetings of owners of premises of apartment buildings on the refusal of the so-called. to investors in the device of additional entrances and notification of such decisions by the administrations of the districts, the latter still agree on projects for the equipment of individual entrances.
As a result, the deputy Kovalev asked the governor to inform him if he considered it necessary:
To organize the verification and synthesis of the practice of coordination by district MICs of projects related to the arrangement of individual entrances;
Make changes to the Regulation on the district EIC, allowing them to coordinate such projects after receiving the decision of the general meeting of owners.
There is nothing to comment here except for one nuance.
On the one hand, we have the “Rules for the maintenance and repair of facades of buildings and structures in St. Petersburg”, approved by the resolution of the Government of St. Petersburg dated September 14, 2006 No. 1135, according to which the actions in question are allowed in accordance with the design decision agreed with the owners buildings and structures.
On the other hand, the Provision on the regional MVK, approved by the Decree of the Government of St. Petersburg of 04.02.2005 No. 112, is in effect, and here the competence of the IDC is to approve projects for arranging additional entrances to non-residential premises of an apartment building without changing the purpose of non-residential premises, facilities are not required.
It seems to be a contradiction. In fact, there is no contradiction, and both documents should be applied together. For there is no such document that would cancel or limit the rights of owners.
But they pretend that the “Rules for the maintenance and repair of facades of buildings and structures in St. Petersburg” have nothing to do with such cases.
Vice-Governor Kozyrev is responsible
Deputy governor Sergei Kozyrev responded to the deputy on behalf of the governor. His initial thesis is that the issues of the transfer of residential premises to non-residential are regulated by Art. 22 - 24 of the Housing Code (LCD) of the Russian Federation, and an exhaustive list of documents is specified in Art. 23. “Providing the consent of the owners of the premises,” Kozyrev emphasized, “Art. 23 is not provided, therefore, the requirement of the authorized body to provide such consent will be illegal. ”
This is an example of a typical bureaucratic balancing act. Indeed, in art. 23 of the LCD, it is indicated that for the transfer of the dwelling to a non-residential one, the applicant submits five documents to the district MVK. Including "the project of a reorganization prepared and executed in accordance with the established procedure".
This is where the consent of the owners should be contained, since the “Rules for maintenance and repair ...” establish the procedure for the preparation and execution of projects, which includes the consent of the owners.
So actually everything is simple: the vice-governor Kozyrev is trying to defend the unlawful practice of the regional MVK, administrations and courts in his response. And what is curious: the power in the city has changed, and the war of officials with the people continues successfully under the old scheme.
Then Sergey Kozyrev went deep into the problem associated with art. 36 and 40 of the Housing Code. In short, this is about the following. If the transfer of residential premises to non-residential does not reduce the size of the common property of apartment owners in an apartment building, then their consent to rework is not required. If it decreases, it is required. For example, in the basement of the building arrange a shop. Basement - common property. And then the consent of all owners is required. Or, for the device of the shop, a part of the corridor, stairs are grabbed
But, Kozyrev emphasized, “if the project of the reorganization provides for a separate entrance device, and such a device is impossible without using the common property of the owners of the premises in the apartment building, the consent of all owners to such redevelopment and (or) reorganization is not required.”
At the same time, Mr. Kozyrev delicately missed the fact that the wall of a building is also always the common property of all owners of residential premises in an apartment building, and the transformation of a window opening into a door will certainly be accompanied by the elimination of part of the wall. At first, Kozyrev simply walked around, and then, referring to court practice, absurdly stated: “The construction of a door out of a window without its expansion cannot be interpreted as carrying out a reconstruction.”
Thus, the Vice-Governor Kozyrev, stated in his reply that the door could be made from the window in the first floor of the house without expanding the opening in the wall. I didn’t have to see something, so that in order to install a door to a store created from a residential apartment on the first floor of a building, it was not necessary to increase the window opening.
In conclusion, Mr. Kozyrev wrote for some reason, stating that according to clause 3.1.2 of the Rules for the Maintenance and Repair of Facades of Buildings and Structures in St. Petersburg, the consent of the owners of the premises in an apartment building is not required.
While in the specified paragraph the following is said: "Actions related to the device, reconstruction, elimination of entrances ... installation of door structures, canopies ... arrangement of stairs and pits ... must be coordinated ... with the owners of buildings and structures".
Why it was necessary to write a frank lie, it is known only to Kozyrev himself.
Regulations and attic
By the way, a little earlier - in December 2011 - Kovalev was answered by the same questions by the now former vice-governor Roman Filimonov.
Given the fact that they have done with the facades of St. Petersburg houses, it is especially ridiculous to read such Filimonov reasoners as: “It’s not allowed ... extension of stairs and canopies that violate the composition and historical appearance of the facades, the elimination of historic door paintings ...” At the same time “A significant part of the changes in the historical facades of buildings is the result of the unauthorized activities of citizens and legal entities ... made in many cases in the period before the approval of the Law and the Rules”.
It is noteworthy that the “Rules” mentioned by Filimonov were adopted on September 14, 2006, and the ugly staircases that violate the composition and historical appearance of the facade of 6 Gagarinskaya Street appeared in 2009–2010 and 2011–12.
In the same letter, Filimonov mentioned the “Architectural and artistic regulations of Nevsky Prospect,” approved by the CGA order of May 28, 2010. According to clause 2.2.7 of this document, “on the territory of OZ-1, it is allowed to install mansards on the front buildings without changing the roof configuration (it is possible to raise the ridge mark by 1 m, on yard buildings with partial roof configuration changes)”. In this regard, the question arises: what to do with the attic on the building on the corner of Nevsky Prospect and Karavannaya Street, which began to be erected after the adoption of the Regulations and which clearly provides for raising the roof ridge by more than one meter? Keep walking with your head down and not notice anything?
* In the same materials of the ERA group, a curious detail was noted: “The territory of the monument is under layered guard. Even the equipment of the contractor at the entrance is first passed through the external fence, after which the gate is locked, and only then the gate of the second circuit opens, directly to enter the household ”.
Mikhail ZOLOTONOSOV
