Loft under PD with staggered rear wall ?

[MartinWilkins]

Having some issues getting PD for a loft conversion.

The rear of the house is staggered, so most of the rear extends about 1.5m further out than the rest. About 2/3 to 1/3.

The PD I put in is to have in effect two doormers, both extending the rear walls, neither goes further than their respective rear wall.

The inspector is saying the doormers can only go as far as the shallow rear wall which makes the loft conversation pointless.

Any advice or similar issues/success under PD ?

Many thanks,
Martin.

 

[^woody^]

I don't understand how you are having trouble getting permitted development, and why the council is involved?

 

[MartinWilkins]

I don't understand either !

The officer seems to read the phrase
"other than in the case of an enlargement which joins the original roof to the roof of a rear or side extension, no part of the enlargement extends beyond the outside face of any external wall of the original dwellinghouse"

and take it to mean any dormer cannot be beyond the shallowest external wall. I read it as the relevant wall, so we do not extend beyond the external wall in the longer section of the house at the rear and we do not extend beyond the external rear wall in the shorter section. The whole intent with the roof line, eaves etc. seems to be to ensure doormers stay within the orginal footprint, which we are. We just have two doormers due to the staggered nature of the house at the rear.

Any advice or help or previous experience welcome !

 

[^woody^]

What i meant was, of its PD then why are the council involved? Are you applying for a certificate of lawful development?

 

[tony1851]

If you are claiming the work is permitted development, are we to assume that you have applied for a LDC and the council has turned it down?

The wording you have quoted is from B2(b)(ii), which the official is clearly interpreting in a very narrow sense.
However, if you look above that at B2(b)(bb), it states;

'the edge of the enlargement closest to the eaves of the original roof shall, so far as practicable, be not less than 20cm from the eaves, measured along the roof slope from the outside edge of the eaves...'

The pertinent wording here is 'so far as practicable'. The implication must be that there may be instances where it is not practicable to keep further away than 20cm, which could apply here. There is clearly a conflict between (b)(ii) and (b)(bb), and in this case, the official should take a more commonsense view. Looking at the spirit of the GPDO in Part B, it is difficult to imagine that it has been worded to prohibit your type of dormer.

By analogy, in Part A, rear extensions can be built staggered, so why not dormers?

 

[MartinWilkins]

I am applying for a ldc and at the moment the officer is saying he is likely to turn it down unless we make the two dormer the same size, so making the loft room unusable.

Tony, great write up, I could not agree more. The clear intent to me is about maintain the existing footprint which we are, we are within the two existing rear walls, just the original house design is staggered. Ive written to the officer, we are meant to hear Thursday, fingers crossed...

I'll appeal if its a no as it seems a pedantic call on words not to the intent.

So would another option just to build without ldc ?

 

[tony1851]

If, as is likely, the ldc is refused, you have 2 options;

1. appeal, though the onus would be on you to prove that the work would be pd. If you get a difficult and pedantic planning inspector, it may go against you. Remember that inspectors usually come up from the ranks of planning officers, so they are all from the same bureacratic mind-set. You would have to put forward a very well-argued case.
Maybe take on a planning consultant, or join the Planning Jungle website. That is a mine of information on permitted development rules and has loads of cases of recent appeals which can be very helpful.

2. Ignore the refusal and build the dormer. In this case, the council would ultimately have to take enforcement proceedings if they didn't believe it was pd. and the onus would be on them. However, they would have to be pretty sure of their case - enforcement action is never taken lightly because of the possible cost implications if the appeal went against the council.

 

[^woody^]

This is why applying for an lawful development certificate for work which is permitted development is a bad idea and bad advice.

Build it, or if there there is doubt, apply for full permission as there are then advantages for when the work is subjective.

A lawful development certificate is only of use as an administration document at sale time. And only worth applying for once the development is complete, or complete and beyond enforcement action.

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

I am applying for a ldc and at the moment the officer is saying he is likely to turn it down unless we make the two dormer the same size, so making the loft room unusable.

Tony, great write up, I could not agree more. The clear intent to me is about maintain the existing footprint which we are, we are within the two existing rear walls, just the original house design is staggered. Ive written to the officer, we are meant to hear Thursday, fingers crossed...

I'll appeal if its a no as it seems a pedantic call on words not to the intent.

So would another option just to build without ldc ?

And make this clear to your planning officer, in a nice way. And mention you will be asking for all costs to be awarded to you as part of the appeal, assuming there will be financial costs of course.

 

[napoleondynamite]

The Council's reading of the wording of the legislation is potentially correct. Therefore if you are cautious it might be best to appeal the LDC refusal.

The alternative is to build something which may in fact require planning permission, and could be subject to formal enforcement action which in the worst case scenario could result in having to remove the dormer in the future.

As the technical guidance (p34-35) http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/uploads/100806_PDforhouseholders_TechnicalGuidance.pdf does not really provide any clarification on this point:

'The enlarged part of the roof must not extend beyond the outer face of any wall of the original house if it is to qualify as permitted development. An interpretative provision at paragraph B.4 of Class B clarifies that for these purposes any roof tiles, guttering, fascias, barge boards or other minor roof details which overhang the outer face of the wall should not to be considered part of the roof enlargement.'

the only other source of information would be appeal decisions where Inspectors may have looked at this issue in detail.

 

[tony1851]

The Council's reading of the wording of the legislation is potentially correct.

Taking a very - very - literal meaning of the words, I suspect you are probably correct, and ultimately a judge might well agree.

The sub-paragraph above the wording does, however, introduce a little ambiguity, and one would hope that on appeal (if it came to that) an inspector would apply some common sense.

@op - I looked at the Planning Jungle web site as a matter of interest, but there doesn't appear to be any appeal case matching your facts - so it is a moot point.

 

[DMHarchi1]

if you are applying as part of other works the size of the loft area to be developed comes into play, as the amount of extra development. There is a percentage rule of m3 in loft.

 

[tony1851]

if you are applying as part of other works the size of the loft area to be developed comes into play, as the amount of extra development. There is a percentage rule of m3 in loft.

?

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

Maybe DMHarchi1 did the dodgy loft drawings thread in the dodgy loft drawings thread in the Building section atm?

 

[DMHarchi1]

Clear as mud isn't it! But then that's the PD rules... Suggest a lawfulness cert is a good way forward at design stage (only half the planning fee at this stage!) and if the planning dept deems it requires a full app then you have not cost yourself money but easy to comply and negotiate with them.
And I won't get into the derogatory responses by what should be professionals.