Permitted planning and loft conversion

[indus]

I've looked into it a bit further and under class B (which I take it refers to lofts) it does say that the 'resulting roof space' does refer to any expansion that has been caused by this class or other.

However under the rules for rear extensions roof volume is NEVER mentioned.

Therefore is there any reason why if you get the sequence of events correct you should be able to do both ie

1) Do loft conversion and stay under 50m3 as required.

2) Now do first floor extension. There are no rules under this sort of PD that say you have a roof volume limitation. If there are I politely request you prove your point with a link.

Now if you did things the other way round you could hit problems. If you did the rear extension first and added 20m3 to the roof space as result and THEN tried to do a loft conversion you would be subject to the PD rules on lofts and only have 30m3 left.

 

[DevilDamo]

No you have said the opposite?

Yes, because after going back and reading through the post made by ukplanner...

3) The PD volume limits changed in October 2008. The only mention of volume comes under Class B Roof Extensions - 40/50 cubic metres of resulting roof space. For the purposes of Class B ‘resulting roof space’ means the roof space as enlarged, taking into account any enlargement to the original roof space, whether permitted by this Class or not (so Class A extensions are counted).

...and jeds post above, it makes sense.

If what you are saying is true then why is it that on the planning portal under rules for 1st floor rear extension nowhere does it say 'roof volume to be kept under 50m3'? All the rules are there, ie distance from neighbour, not being able to go more than 3m in depth etc but no roof volume limit.

This is why I was also getting confused... as it doesn't mention it on the PP. However, like the Approved Documents, the PP is only a guide/summary. To look into the situations specifically, you would have to refer to the GDPO, which would mention the additional roof volumne created with extensions, etc...

To take your theory further, if I were to do just a rear 1st floor extension under PD that met all the other criteria but the roof volume were to go over 50m3 it would now need planning permission?

It appears so. There's no reason why you can't obtain clarification via your LPA to put this at rest?

 

[indus]

OK DD.

Can you tell me what the GDPO is please?

I will ring the duty planning officer but I find they are much like other people in planning/building regs ie their interpretation differs from person to person.

I'd like to see it in black and white myself so I know exactly what I'm talking about before I talk to them.

Thanks again

 

[hotrod]

Can you tell me what the GDPO is please?

I'd like to see it in black and white myself so I know exactly what I'm talking about before I talk to them.

Happy reading.

 

[jeds]

The 2008 GDPO is full of anomolies. So much so that nearly every paragraph has had to be explained and clarified. The thing has probably cost more time and reasources than it was supposed to save.

The thing is though you can't take each part of the GDPO in isolation. Roof volume is not mentioned in Part A because that would just be duplicating what is mentioned in Part B. If your extension increases your 'original' roof volume by more than 50M³ then Part B comes into play. In not then it doesn't. The volume in Part B must be compared to the 'original' roof. So you can't circumvent the system by adding on several small increases that total >50m³.

 

[indus]

I spoke to a very nice chap today at my planning office who was veryy helpful indeed.

He says the two ARE NOT connected. In other words the rear 1st floor extensions do not have any roof volume limitations. This 50m3 rule applies to loft extensions ONLY. I asked the same question on a number of ocassions just to be surre that there was no misunderstanding and he was adamant about this point.

That's the good news......but there is bad news.

Technical guidance for home owners regarding PD was released in Aug 2010 which supersedes anything before. My single storey existing extension has a depth of 4m. My plan was to build the 1st floor extension on top of this wiith a depth limited to 3m. Prior to Aug2010 this was deemed acceptable for PD.
The new guidance says that the ground floor extension must also be limited to 3m. The fact that it is 4m in depth excludes it from PD even though the 1st floor extension would be limited to 3m.
I have read the technical advice and that's exactly what it says.

So after all that I will have to apply for planning permission, though it's for a different reason than I first thought!

Thanks to all

 

[jeds]

You said it yourself indus.

Interpretation of Class B
B.3 For the purposes of Class B “resulting roof space” means the roof space as enlarged,
taking into account any enlargement to the original roof space, whether permitted by this
Class or not.

I wonder which bit of this the planning officer doesn't undersatand?

 

[indus]

You said it yourself indus.

Interpretation of Class B
B.3 For the purposes of Class B “resulting roof space” means the roof space as enlarged,
taking into account any enlargement to the original roof space, whether permitted by this
Class or not.

I wonder which bit of this the planning officer doesn't undersatand?

Jeds, this is why I was doing so much background investigation prior to talking to them. I'm never entirely convinced by my conversations with the LPA, but you can only ask them the same thing so many times before you begin to wind them up.

Anyway, the bottom line is that due to the other issue I mentioned I will need planning permission regardless. So the whole roof volume thing becomes redundant as I can't build my extension under PD anyway.

I know on the whole councils are quite strict regarding rear second floor extensions and PP. I'm not sure they will let me do what I want in it's entirety.

Thanks

ps, I've started another thread with regards to planning permission for the rear extension and would welcome your input

 

[DevilDamo]

So that PO says they're not connected, which is how the guidance on the PP is stated, but not under the GDPO.

I have just emailed a PO I know personally at a LPA so will await his response.

 

[DevilDamo]

A few emails have gone back and forth between myself and the planning officer and I note below the discussions...

The PD volume limits changed in October 2008. The only mention of volume comes under Class B (Roof extensions), i.e. 40/50m3 of resulting roof space. For the purposes of Class B, ‘resulting roof space’ means the roof space as enlarged, taking into account any enlargement to the original roof space, whether permitted by this Class or not.

Does that mean the roof volume allowances also take into account Class A extensions?

For Class B, it says that any previous enlargement to the roof-space must be figured into the calculation to see whether the 40 or 50% of original roof-space.

If the property has previously had a full height extension, whether PD or not, its roof volume should be counted if it extends the roof when considering later roof-extensions. Whether you are meant to include the roof-space of single storey extensions on a two or more storey dwelling is less clear. It may be something that would need to be looked at on a case by case basis.

If a client wanted to carry out a roof conversion with dormers to their detached house that created 49.9m3 of additional volume, this could be carried out under PD, in accordance with the guidelines. If the client then wanted to carry out a single/two-storey extension (Class A), would the volume of that roof be taken into account, which would mean the extension could not be built under PD? Or does the volume limit only apply to roof conversions (Class B)?

It states that for a two storey extension at the rear of the house where the roof joins onto roof of the house, it must satisfy the requirements of Classes A and C – it does not refer to Class B and therefore roof-volumes do not need to be taken into account in this scenario.

The order in which the works are carried out is crucial.

Thus, in your example, both operations could be PD if the roof-extension is added before the side extension, but would not be if the extension is added first and its roof has added more than 0.1 cubic metres of volume to the main roof of the building.

This is my informal understanding of a hypothetical situation – I am sure that there will be plenty of examples in real life where things are not so straight forward and each case will need to be considered on its own merits.

The document being referred to is this...

http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/uploads/100806_PDforhouseholders_TechnicalGuidance.pdf

So has that complicated matters? If only the planning system was simple