Council enforcing 20cm setback on loft

[chappers]

Good grief Doggit, Building Control sign off has nothing whatsoever to do with Planning and to suggest the OP will be able to get a meeting with the Head of Planning is beyond bananas! Some threads you really should avoid posting in.

Whilst absolutely correct and not something BC would enforce they generally are aware and around here they pick up on it. I have in recent years done two loft conversions without setbacks one under a technical issue and one under a planning application and both times BC questioned the lack of set back

 

[John D v2.0]

Even if BC question the planning thing, the previous owner or his builder could have just fobbed them off. It wouldn't stop the completion certificate although they might notify the planning department. To be honest maybe that's why planning are coming back on it, not sure how they'd be aware otherwise.

The council don't want to set a precedent,

No precedent will be set ever because planning is about policy not what other people have got away with.

 

[motorbiking]

lack of policy enforcement could lead to a judicial review and compensation if they subsequently behaved differently

 

[Nakajo]

I'm not convinced that you need a planning consultant. It would seem that a letter would suffice, identifying the relevant part of the legislation (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2015/596/schedule/2/made):

Permitted development

B. The enlargement of a dwellinghouse consisting of an addition or alteration to its roof.
Development not permitted

B.1 Development is not permitted by Class B if—

(a)permission to use the dwellinghouse as a dwellinghouse has been granted only by virtue of Class M, N, P or Q of Part 3 of this Schedule (changes of use);

(b)any part of the dwellinghouse would, as a result of the works, exceed the height of the highest part of the existing roof;

(c)any part of the dwellinghouse would, as a result of the works, extend beyond the plane of any existing roof slope which forms the principal elevation of the dwellinghouse and fronts a highway;

(d)the cubic content of the resulting roof space would exceed the cubic content of the original roof space by more than—

(i)40 cubic metres in the case of a terrace house, or

(ii)50 cubic metres in any other case;

(e)it would consist of or include—

(i)the construction or provision of a verandah, balcony or raised platform, or

(ii)the installation, alteration or replacement of a chimney, flue or soil and vent pipe; or

(f)the dwellinghouse is on article 2(3) land.
Conditions

B.2 Development is permitted by Class B subject to the following conditions—

(a)the materials used in any exterior work must be of a similar appearance to those used in the construction of the exterior of the existing dwellinghouse;

(b)the enlargement must be constructed so that—

(i)other than in the case of a hip-to-gable enlargement or an enlargement which joins the original roof to the roof of a rear or side extension—

(aa)the eaves of the original roof are maintained or reinstated; and

(bb)the edge of the enlargement closest to the eaves of the original roof is, so far as practicable, not less than 0.2 metres from the eaves, measured along the roof slope from the outside edge of the eaves; and

(ii)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

(c)any window inserted on a wall or roof slope forming a side elevation of the dwellinghouse must be—

(i)obscure-glazed, and

(ii)non-opening unless the parts of the window which can be opened are more than 1.7 metres above the floor of the room in which the window is installed.

 

[napoleondynamite]

Here's an image, the bit the council are not happy with is the big door window whereas the rest on the left (with drainpipe coming down) is setback

Both elements need to be set back 200mm from the edge of the sloping roofs, for the roof extensions to qualify as 'permitted development'. So what has been built is not PD.

Whilst the Government technical guidance sets out that:

This 0.2m set back will be required unless it can be demonstrated that this is not possible due to practical or structural considerations. One circumstance where it will not prove practical to maintain this 0.2m distance will be where a dormer on a side extension of a house joins an existing, or proposed, dormer on the main roof of the house.

my interpretation of this (and presumably the council's) would be that this guidance makes it clear that an 'L-shaped' dormer across the main roof and the rear projection, can be PD, and the required 'link' between the two part of the 'L' means that a 200mm set back would not be possible at the link, there is no reason why the extension cannot be set back 200mm from the edges of the sloped roofs in all other areas.



As has been discussed on previous posts (and apologies if this has been covered already as I have read the whole of this thread), one option is to wait and see what the council do (if anything). If they serve an enforcement notice you could appeal and put a case forward that the extensions as constructed are not substantially worse that what could have been constructed under PD, which could have legs as a case if the only difference is that the element which is not set back, would need to be set back 200mm. An Inspector could give wight to that case and grant planning permission. You could also argue that the 200mm set back is not required (i.e. argue that what has been built is PD) but personally I don't think that will stand up to scrutiny.

Another option is to apply for planning permission and appeal and put your case(s) forward if the application is refused by the council (which seems likely given their advice to date).

 

[John D v2.0]

napoleondynamite Agreed with your interpretation as well, it seems clear it is to cover the fact you can't restore the original eaves if they will end up inside the house.
Regarding it not being a substantial deviation, it might be tricky to argue that as it's a specific condition put in the rules, not just a side effect or technicality. But it's worth testing the council's patience on it if it's not something you can apply for retrospectively!

 

[tony1851]

Sorry Napoleon, but your interpretation is incorrect.
Attached is an extract from the SI itself.
The relevant words "other than" are outlined in red. What the wording means is that any enlargement which is not
either a hip-to-gable or joining a roof enlargement to an enlargement on a (side) or rear extension, must have the 20cm set-back.
The direct inference is that any enlargement falling in either of the above two categories does not need to have the 20cm set-back.
It is nothing at all to do with "where practicable" - that is a separate issue and not relevant to the OPs' case.
Always remember that if something is not expressly prohibited by the p.d. rules, it is allowed - that's how the legislation works.
All the OP really needs to do is wave the extract at the idiots in the planning dept and tell them to f___ off.

 

[tony1851]

napoleondynamite Agreed with your interpretation as well, it seems clear it is to cover the fact you can't restore the original eaves if they will end up inside the house.
Regarding it not being a substantial deviation, it might be tricky to argue that as it's a specific condition put in the rules, not just a side effect or technicality. But it's worth testing the council's patience on it if it's not something you can apply for retrospectively!

John, it IS a technicality and the council should abide by it.
Clearly the planning officers in his LPA are not up to the job.

 

[napoleondynamite]

Sorry Napoleon, but your interpretation is incorrect.
Attached is an extract from the SI itself.
The relevant words "other than" are outlined in red. What the wording means is that any enlargement which is not
either a hip-to-gable or joining a roof enlargement to an enlargement on a (side) or rear extension, must have the 20cm set-back.
The direct inference is that any enlargement falling in either of the above two categories does not need to have the 20cm set-back.
It is nothing at all to do with "where practicable" - that is a separate issue and not relevant to the OPs' case.
Always remember that if something is not expressly prohibited by the p.d. rules, it is allowed - that's how the legislation works.
All the OP really needs to do is wave the extract at the idiots in the planning dept and tell them to f___ off.
View attachment 118213

Well-I would agree that the legislation is open to interpretation. It's also very poorly worded and riddled with ambiguities. The Technical Guidance Document is often very helpful but is just guidance, and does not have legal weight (as the Hilton case demonstrated).

Personally I wouldn't agree with your case for the development being PD, but I accept that an Inspector might do as the legislation is open to interpretation.

 

[tony1851]

Well-I would agree that the legislation is open to interpretation.

Personally I don't think it's open to interpretation - the wording seems pretty clear to me, otherwise why would they include the words "other than"?

 

[John D v2.0]

Yes I suppose although it's clear what the intent of that clause is, as with all these things you can read it both ways if you're so inclined (and who wouldn't be inclined if there's thousands at stake!)

 

[John D v2.0]

Personally I don't think it's open to interpretation - the wording seems pretty clear to me, otherwise why would they include the words "other than"?

They're thinking of the situation where the loft extension literally is joining both of the roofs together, the old eaves would be covered where they join.

They basically remembered a couple of situations where the eaves couldn't exist and slapped a clause in for that, and made it too broad.

 

[wessex101]

I have a different interpretation. Because it talks about an enlargement that joins an original roof to the roof of a rear or side extension then it does not apply in this case as the outrigger is original and not an extension. I would suggest that in the case of a true extension it simply means the 200mm set back is not applied to the original rear eaves so the enlargement can extend over the extension but the 200mm set back still applies to the rear and side eaves.

I confess that it is not a situation I have ever dealt with personally so I am happy to be corrected, but even planning jungle seem to suggest in their guides that the 200mm set back should be maintained in an L-shaped dormer and that the technical requirements for dormers is somewhat of a mess.

 

[Nakajo]

Alternative facts ND.

 

[napoleondynamite]

I have a different interpretation. Because it talks about an enlargement that joins an original roof to the roof of a rear or side extension then it does not apply in this case as the outrigger is original and not an extension. I would suggest that in the case of a true extension it simply means the 200mm set back is not applied to the original rear eaves so the enlargement can extend over the extension but the 200mm set back still applies to the rear and side eaves.

I confess that it is not a situation I have ever dealt with personally so I am happy to be corrected, but even planning jungle seem to suggest in their guides that the 200mm set back should be maintained in an L-shaped dormer and that the technical requirements for dormers is somewhat of a mess.

Yes I have had a quick look through the planning jungle appeal summary on B.2(b) and there are lots of issues, lots of conflicting appeal decisions, and the whole thing is a bit of a pain.

I really do appreciate the intentions behind the 2008 re-write of householder GPDO (i.e. more works being PD, but a more complex set of restrictions being applied to try to address design and amenity concerns), but 9 years later I have to conclude it's a failed experiment. The restrictions are too complicated and too open to interpretation. Can we go back to 2007 please?!

For those who are interested, this is the 1995 Class B wording- I can't recall too many problems with it although I recall the overall volume limit for extensions scuppered quite a few people where the house had existing GF extensions or outbuildings within 5 metres of the dwellinghouse..

Permitted development B. The enlargement of a dwellinghouse consisting of an addition or alteration to its roof.

Development not permitted
B.1. Development is not permitted by Class B if—
(a) any part of the dwellinghouse would, as a result of the works, exceed the height of the highest part of the existing roof;
(b) any part of the dwellinghouse would, as a result of the works, extend beyond the plane of any existing roof slope which fronts any highway;
(c) it would increase the cubic content of the dwellinghouse by more than 40 cubic metres, in the case of a terrace house, or 50 cubic metres in any other case;
(d) the cubic content of the resulting building would exceed the cubic content of the original dwellinghouse—
(i) in the case of a terrace house by more than 50 cubic metres or 10%, whichever is the greater,
(ii) in any other case, by more than 70 cubic metres or 15%, whichever is the greater, or
(iii) in any case, by more than 115 cubic metres; or
(e) the dwellinghouse is on article 1(5) land.