Lawful Loft conversion Refused

[holy85]

Hi All,

A architect applied for planning to have my loft converted into a liveable room with dormers.

I just got the reply back from the council and they said its been refused.

"The applicant is advised that the volume calculation from the drawings as submitted
equates to a volume increase of 82.1 cubic metres."

I was wondering does this mean that you can't extened the house more then 50 cubic metres? ... and should my architect have known this?

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

To be allowed under Permitted Development you cannot extend the volume of the loft by more than 50m³ for a detached or semi-detached house or 40m³ for a terraced. Your architect should have known this. They must be some pretty big dormers to exceed 50m³.

The PD limits are no secret http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/permission/commonprojects/loftconversion/

 

[indus]

80m3?? That is huge. I'm.having my loft done as we speak. It involved a hip to.gable extension and a rear dormer of of approx 7m wide x 4m deep x 2.4m. This came to 48m3.

If the work was to be done under permitted development then yes your.agent should have known that there is a 50m3 limit for sd or d houses

 

[^woody^]

It's not PD ... read the OP - they applied for permission. So the PD limits are irrelevant.

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

It's not PD ... read the OP - they applied for permission. So the PD limits are irrelevant.

Well ^woody^ the OP may have applied for planning permission, then again the thread reads as an application for lawful development. We shall have to await the OP's reply for clarification.

 

[holy85]

Hi,

Thanks for the reply guys. Just to confirm the architect sent in an application for a lawful development certificate. In the form where it says "information about the proposed use" he wrote Permitted Development.

So basically the loft conversion has been drawn too big, and my architect should have known this. What a waste of time.

 

[holy85]

Unless the council made a mistake, because the loft conversion wasn't massive, but just ok. It was going to have a dormer height of 2.1m.

 

[indus]

I won't comment on the planning issues as there are experts here who know better.

But I can't see how that could possibly add 80m3

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

Aye, cannot see how the additional volume has been calculated as 80m³ although difficult to see exactly which part is additional to the existing roof. What has the architect said?

 

[^woody^]

If this was done under permitted development, and the council has refused to issue a CLD on the basis that the conversion is greater than allowed under permitted development, then that implies that the conversion is unlawful and they should be either requesting a full planning application or taking enforcement action.

You need to sort this out with your agent

 

[holy85]

Thanks for the reply.

I've been trying to contact my architect, but he doesn't seem to be asnwering...I'll continue ringing him, I just hope he hasn't gone opn holiday!

I'm not sure if I've done this right, but to work out the extension in m3.

I did 4.6m x 4.6m x 2.1m = 44.4m3
Then I divided that by 2, as I'm only extending a dormer.

So I guessing an average for my loft conversion is 22.2m3?

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

Well we can't confirm those figures as that drawing does not define the extent of the dormer. Anyway your figure of 22 sounds a lot more realistic, you need to be questioning where the 80 figure came from.

 

[jeds]

Like others have said it's unlikely a dormer conversion would be 80...odd cubic metres. My advice is to first of all establish exactly how much it is - or post drawings where it can be calculated. If it is less than 50m² then I don't see why you would apply for a CoL in the first place - just get on and build it.

 

[PaulQAS]

Have you got an existing pitched roof extension by any chance as they use the additional roof volume added there as part of your 50m3 / 40m3 total limit?

 

[indus]

Slightly off topic but I see the drawing shows an escape window. I thought these were no longer required?