dormer higher than ridge tiles

[shardy]

hi all,
I've attached an image of our dormer loft conversion under construction.
The lip of the dormer roof is higher than the ridge tiles. I'm presuming this will be trimmed down, although they have torched the felt on now so I wonder if its too late?

Any advice from somebody who knows about dormer construction would be very much appreciated.

thanks in advance

 

[chappers]

has this been done under permitted development as technically it would be in breach, but enforcement would be unlikely for such a small amount. However I would wonder why they have done this, what is the headheight in the loft room?
It's never too late to do anything but would mean completely re-building the roof, dormer cheeks etc

 

[shardy]

Thanks for reply chappers.
It is under permitted development. They have agreed to trim the lip that stops rain water blowing on to neighbours roof. Not sure if they will need to shave the firring as well but then we lose gradient on the flat roof. They say its no problem. There was no mention of taking the structure apart.
As long as nothing is higher than the top of ridge tile we are fine, I hope.
As well as being signed off by building control we will be applying for a certificate of lawful development as I've read it's a good thing to have if you think you might need to move house within the next few years.
Should've applied for that earlier as it then would've been a proposed application rather than existing structure which is cheaper.
There was plenty of headroom in original loft, about 2.3 metres I think. The builders say the neighbours ridge on the right is 3.5cm higher than the neighbour on the left. Our new ridge tiles will be slightly higher than our old ones but they say it will be millimetres and barely noticeable. I should get that confirmed in writing.
The new floor joists and flat roof joists are deeper than I expected. Perhaps we could've saved height by using smaller ones closer together.

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

Stupid builders! If it's higher than the ridge it is a breach, albeit arguably minor.

 

[chappers]

If your going to be putting ridges back on then I wouldn't worry about it, particularly if it is in line with the higher neighbours and to be honest if they aren't level then whos to know that yours weren't different too. Just let them crack on. That being said with so much head room to play with not sure why they didn't keep the line well below the ridge.

 

[catlad]

If you are going to put the ridge tiles back on then nothing too worry about !!!
Erm I think you will have to catch the BCO on a good day to get away with that nonsense, its a clear guideline not to go higher than your original roof line.

 

[Nige F]

Am I right in thinking the 2.3 ceiling height in bedrooms doesn't apply now ? so the roof could have been dropped anyway.

 

[tony1851]

There is no legal minimum headroom to loft conversions (save over the top of the stairs) so the beam supporting the ridge could have been lowered without undue
problems.

Technically, it breaches the permitted development restriction, but as the others have pointed out, it's only minimal. It is highly unlikely that the LPA would take enforcement proceedings because they have to go by certain guidelines; enforcement is regarded as inapproriate for a 'minor or technical breach where no harm has occurred'.

That said, I personally would not advise applying for a LDC regardless of the cost. You may open a can of worms and start a deluge of threatening letters from the council.
Although these will have little substance, they will draw you into correspondence, which is best avoided - why give the dog a bone?
Just sit tight, wait 'till the 4-year period is up, and then apply for a LDC, which they will have to give you.

 

[geraldthehamster]

Is the face of the dormer 200mm back from the eaves? Just asking

Cheers
Richard

 

[tony1851]

Is the face of the dormer 200mm back from the eaves? Just asking

Cheers
Richard

Let us hope so!!

 

[shardy]

thanks again for replies folks.
crikey, you had me worried there geraldthehamster. There is 3 rows of tiles so yes it must be 200 mm back from eaves, phewee
I've been up there measuring again. The height from top of old loft boards to top of new ridge beam is 267 cm so there was plenty of room.
There is 11cm gap between top of old loft boards and underside of floor steels that is wasted space I think.

Still, if the angle fillet on top of dormer roof is cut back a bit without compromising weatherproofing, I think the roof deck might just about be at the height of top of ridge tiles, give or take a couple of cm, and nobody is going to notice that. I imagine it would be easier to make water tight if ridge tile could overlap roof deck a bit.
I don't think it looks very nice when lead flashing from the roof deck overlaps the ridge to take water on to front roof, so you have a ridge of flashing visible from street instead of nice new ridge tiles.
The fall on dormer roof is currently 1:52, so there is only room to shave off about 1 cm off firrings before the fall gets to 1:60.
A lot of faffing for 1cm.

Its good to know that enforcement is unlikely for a minor technical breach.
I won't bother with an LDC unless I really need it.
I must say the guys building this have been pretty great. Really hard working, polite and fearless at heights. I can forgive a minor breach if it can be hidden a bit.

 

[chappers]

Personally I wouldn't bother with the LDC unless it's a real deal breaker on a sale. If a buyers solicitor asks about planning permission just tell your solicitor to tell them that it has been done under PD and that the buyers solicitor can confirm this by doing his own research on his clients behalf.

 

[shardy]

the builders amended dormer roof to keep below top of ridge tiles. they trimmed the firrings and will direct water under the ridge tiles and on to front roof. I've attached a couple of crude not to scale diagrams and a picture. I hope they can tidy it up a bit, doesn't look so neat now. The felt is 3 layers torched on. Never heard of this method before, I wondered if this is a good way of keeping a roof water tight?

 

[shardy]

also, I hadn't noticed but the dormer roof leans from left to right. The others around here don't. Are all the scrape marks on tiles just from cutting? I'm presuming this will look better once its been rained on a bit.
Box dormers are never gonna win any medals for architecture, but I would like it to look quite neat and tidy

 

[tony1851]

the builders amended dormer roof to keep below top of ridge tiles. they trimmed the firrings and will direct water under the ridge tiles and on to front roof. I've attached a couple of crude not to scale diagrams and a picture. I hope they can tidy it up a bit, doesn't look so neat now. The felt is 3 layers torched on. Never heard of this method before, I wondered if this is a good way of keeping a roof water tight?

View attachment 95075 View attachment 95074 View attachment 95076

I think that's a recipie for disaster.

Just looking at the 3rd pic, of the dormer cheek.
Don't want to pour cold water on it but I suggest it could have been done a little better. The capping on the fascia is not right; they seem to have missed a course of tiles at the top on the front, and the junction between the cheek and the existing roof looks suspect. Have they just mortared or mastic'd it up?
These things make one wonder what else might not be right. But it's the ridge tiles that are patently wrong and the main problem. Perhaps you should have left them as they were, even if they were a touch higher?