Does this planning application have a dormer on?

[Ian H]

To cut a long story short, we hired an architect to draw us a roof extension and loft conversion.

His first submission to the council was knocked back because the dormer was too big. He advised us that he would remove the dormer from the planning permission and add it back on as a permitted development, he then sent us a revised drawing which still showed the dormer. We are unfamiliar with these terms and processes so though it had been swapped from planning permission to permitted development 'off plan'.

The council then uploaded the new drawings, again showing a dormer, to the public section of their website. We sat and waited for any objections from the neighbours and non came.

We thought it had been a while so contacted the architect for an update and they told us the plans passed the previous week. They posted us a set of the passed plans and they show no dormer. We questioned them and they said 'We told you it was removed and sent you a new plan' to which I replied saying 'the new plan you sent showed a dormer, it even detailed its construction'.

So now the architect wants £300 for adding the dormer back on and the council will want another £172 for a certificate of lawfulness. We feel let down.

Here is a link to the plans, would anyone mind having a look at them and offering me any advice?:

http://documents.rochdale.gov.uk/pav/planapp.aspx?MyQueryID=108&OBKey__705_1=16/00758/HOUS

Thanks

 

[wessex101]

If you look at the decision notice the approved plan is 16.1371.5B dated 23rd August........it has no Dormer.

Rubbish plan though, Mr Smith isn't the best draughtsman is he? His other effort 16.1371.5A of the same date still has the dormer in the section but not on the elevations, rather confusing.

You are right to feel let down. I don't understand why he removed the dormer if he is saying it is permitted development. He should have kept it on the original application and pushed to get it approved. Although I don't see how it could be PD as it extends across the new roof.

 

[Ian H]

Thanks for looking

I see that now and am confused. I've looked at that list of documents many many times, I've been through them with my missus, my parents, a few mates, I've had a guy at work look through them and non of us saw that drawing or the one above it. The drawing with the title 16.1371.5B (a bit lower down) shows a string of e-mails exchanged between the architect and council guy. I'm positive the untitled one you mention was not on there when the plans passed on the 19th October. I wish I had screen shotted it now!!!

The final revision he sent us was 16.1371.5 at the bottom of the list on the council website.

The most annoying thing is we chose to use a professional so everything would run smoothly and done with the correct permissions in place. Before we started someone said to me 'Your better off asking Rochdale Council for forgiveness rather than permission' and now I think they may have had a point!!

 

[Ian H]

This is the house:

It's ugly, it looks like it has a super tall garage. We just want to make it look better with the roof extension and be plenty big enough for the 6 of us by doing the loft/dormer.

I thought the building work would be harder than the paperwork.

 

[wessex101]

Seems rather harsh to charge £300 to re-produce a drawing that he's already drawn, in effect you have already paid for it as he has sent you a copy in the form of drawing number 16.1371.5, or is he just charging for the LDC application?

The other point is if he is saying it is permitted development and you've got that in writing like an email you don't need a lawful development certificate from the Council, he has put his own neck in the noose. Having said that I'm not convinced as it is shown it is PD, if it stayed within the existing roof/house footprint then it would, not strayed over the side extension but I haven't really studied it in that much detail.

 

[Ian H]

Yes, from a plan view or side view it fits within the original house footprint but from a rear view the top right of it is outside of where the original roof was.

The council building control guy says its still wouldn't comply with their SPD, he said it would need to sit further back from the eaves (I don't think he's right its already more than 200mm), that it must be lower then the ridge (I cant find a minimum measurement for that), and that it shouldn't have a flat roof (Although Rochdale is full of flat roofed dormers).

The area of the roof extension over the flat roof is 32.4sqm so the dormer cant be more than 17.6sqm to be within the 50sqm limit. I wish I knew all this before.

At the moment we have permission for the roof extension and I'm cracking on with the loft floor/bedroom ceilings. I feel like building 2 identical dormers with pitched roof's, one for the bedroom and one for the onsuite, making sure they are well within the 17.6sqm and then arguing about it later. There are so many dormers in the area its unreal.

 

[Ian H]

From my grandmas house I can see 4 flat roof dormers, all different sizes, different materials, some level with the ridges, some very close to the eaves. Seems one rule for me, something different for everyone else.

 

[^woody^]

I'm confused.

You were told by your designer that the dormer would be removed and the plans resubmitted to get the approval. And that has what had been done, so it can't come as a shock.

Your designer said that he would add the dormer back as PD. But ....

You can't add PD work to something that is not there already.
If the dormer is PD, the council could not have refused the original application.
You can't add a dormer back on the resubmission. It would need to be under a distinct application.
If the dormer is PD, then you don't need to apply for permission for it.

But most importantly, none of it makes any sense at all and is very bad advice.

What this numpty should have done, is submitted a compliant design in the first place. He should know what the council's policies are, and design to meet them. He should also be in contact with the planners, so that once the dormer became a concern, he could either argue or redesign it, or withdraw the application. None of this should be at any cost to you, because he should have known all this in the first place, and advised you accordingly.

Get him to sort it all out in accordance with his own advice to you, at his expense. Else tell him you will complain to his association.

 

[chappers]

If its PD then a flat roof is fine but usually won't be passed for planning application , unless it has architectural merit. The loft should be set back 200mm as you suggest, unless it's impractical to do so

 

[Ian H]

He told me he would remove it as planning and add it back on as permitted. He then sent me a revised plan to show this change and the dormer was still on.

That's why I thought the change was done off plan and also why it came as a shock.


I looked for an architects ombudsman, I found ARB and he is not listed. I e-mailed him last night asking (again) for him to explain what's gone wrong and to break down the £300 he wants.

 

[tony1851]

He won't be a registered architect.
To most lay people, someone who draws plans is an 'architect'.

 

[wessex101]

Looking at the plans he is CIOB so not a registered Architect but still a member of a professional institution with rules of conduct to uphold. Although I am not familiar with CIOB professional conduct rules I think it is a bit early to throw all your toys out of the pram and go in all guns blazing with a professional misconduct accusation.

I would just approach him with your concerns and ask him to sort out the dormer within the permitted development rules. I would point out that he already has a drawing for the dormer so you are not expecting to be charged for this, maybe a nominal £50 or so at most. Mind you he is likely to sting you for the Building Regs drawings if he feels aggrieved.

As for the LDC application it depends on your attitude to risk. Dealing with the planners is an absolute nightmare these days, I've never felt the need to get one but I can understand why people do. If it was me I would have submitted the drawing with the dormer shown within permitted development guidelines and clearly marked the dormer as PD on the drawing so the planners can't really reject it or gone for pre-application advice to get it documented that part of the project is PD.

I wonder if it would be worth submitting a revised drawing to the application with the dormer included to try and get the planners to admit the dormer is permitted development without actually having to pay for the LDC application.

 

[Nakajo]

Although 'if' the company have passed themselves off as 'architects' in their professional dealings with yourself then you may have grounds to complain to the ARB too. They get pretty upset about that kind of thing.

 

[^woody^]

They get pretty upset about that kind of thing.

I get upset when someone says that I am an Architect

 

[Ian H]

I say architect but their website says Chartered Architectural Technologists. Their office is opposite where my kids have guitar lessons so he didn't come recommended by anyone, we just called in.

I think his drawings are good, it's the lack of communication that's let us down. He sent us the drawing with the dormer still on and now I can see on the e-mail chain that he sent the same to the council, in error, 3 times. Once he realised his mistake he should have contacted me to let me know he had sent me the wrong ones too. That way I wouldn't be sat at home waiting for the dormer to be passed.

I'll see what he comes back with.