What you can keep, and what has to be rebuilt
Owners reasonably hope that replacing a conservatory means keeping the base, the walls up to cill level and the footprint, and simply building a better structure on top. Sometimes that is achievable and it saves real money, but each element needs checking rather than assuming, because conservatories were built to a different standard by design. The foundations are the first question. A conservatory base was designed to carry a lightweight aluminium or uPVC frame and a glass roof; a habitable extension with a solid roof, insulated walls and a screeded floor is substantially heavier, and the foundation may not have the depth or the width for it — particularly on clay, where the required depth near any trees is greater than a conservatory base is likely to have. A trial hole at the existing base answers it. The dwarf walls are the second. They are frequently a single skin, uninsulated, and built off the base without a cavity or a proper damp proof course, so they cannot simply be built up: either they come down and are rebuilt as insulated cavity construction, or they are retained and lined internally, which loses width and needs careful damp and thermal detailing at the junction. The floor is the third. Conservatory floors often have minimal or no insulation and sometimes no damp proof membrane, so the build-up usually has to be replaced to meet current standards and to arrive level with the house rather than a step below it. And the connection to the house is the fourth: the existing opening was formed for external doors, so opening it fully into the kitchen usually means a new structural opening with a beam sized for the load. The honest position on most of these projects is that the footprint and possibly the foundations survive, and very little else does — which is still worth doing, because the footprint is the part that had planning behind it.