Council Objection to 20cm eaves rule for Dormer

[Mikefromlondon]

I wish people would just build up the parapet wall. with the present arrangement, it's so fiddly when your neighbour then wants to build a dormer over their property.

I totally agree and the gaps would then look really ugly between two adjacent properties.

 

[^woody^]

The LDC can only be done under sect.192 as the proposed smaller dormer is only a proposal,

No. The dormer is there already, that is what would be assessed on any application. He can't propose to make it smaller and apply for something which is not there already, when something is there now.

The OP must apply on the basis that what is there is lawful development, so he must ensure that it is before applying.

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

You're on a hiding to nothing woods, they're just not getting it and what's really bad is that the OP paid (got ripped off by) a 'proffesional' who doesn't get it either.

 

[Darluc]

It looks like we are both on a similar situation. Do you mind telling me which arhitect you have used? I also live in newham and I have the same issue.

 

[Mikefromlondon]

I have PM'd you Architect contact

 

[napoleondynamite]

If I have followed this correctly, I'm not sure about that refusal. If you applied for a LDC for a proposed revised design; it can be considered based upon the proposed drawings. If they show a PD dormer they should be granted.

What has been built is separate matter which the Council can pursue through through enforcement action, granting a LDC for a proposed dormer would not change that. You would at least have a potential solution by altering what has been built to make it PD. I can give some general advice but I'll do it on Darluc's post..

 

[NabMo]

Thanks all for your replies. I don't get notification of posts hence didn't know there were responses.

I saw some confusion around current and proposed dormer structure. To be clear, we had dormer built around 2 years ago without 200mm setback from eves or any spacing on the sides (cheeks?). I understand this doesn't fall under PD and the council is right in sending enforcement notification. When I realised this, I hired an architect to correct this. He suggested to try our luck with plan to only show 200mm setback but no spacing on the sides. He was convinced that it will be rejected but the risk was worth it as moving side walls will be very expensive. This was rejected by the council so we applied again but this time both 200mm spacing from the eves and spacing on the sides. This was rejected again. This time the council said that since the structure is already built Certificate of Lawful Development for Proposed Use is not valid. I sent email to the Duty Planning Officer requesting what should I do and he suggested to apply under Certificate for Lawful Development for Existing Use. I have email from council confirming this. The architect wasn't convinced but I asked him to apply and attached council's email.

We recently applied again under CLE and the council has rejected the application saying this is not the correct application in this case. This is after including an email attachment from Duty Planning Officer asking me to apply under CLE. The council is now asking me to apply under Householder planning application (HH). I just feel like council is not being helpful here. Even if this was the case they could have told me to apply under HH the first time I asked them (6 months ago!). I have wasted fee on two different applications already now.

My architect is convinced that our application will not be accepted under HH. He has suggested to wait till we get enforcement and then appeal against it. What do you guys suggest?