Dormer Loft Conversion - Dormer higher than ridge.

[JJPP]

Hi,
We're getting our loft converted currently and it's progressed to a point where we can almost see the end result and it appears our builder has taken some liberties with the conversion and gone a bit off-plan.

On our drawings, the dormer hits the roof just below the ridge. In reality, the dormer hits the roof line at (or just over) the original ridge line.

I've attached an image showing the dormer sticking up. Note the rubber roof hasn't been fixed yet (it's been leaded underneath and over the roof tile and a big piece of wood is currently sat on top to stop it blowing off) but you can clearly see it sticks up higher than the ridge and the step down to the right where a single ridge tile will go (not there yet), which will lessen the height difference a little, but not fully.

This causes a few issues for us:

1) Will is fall under permitted development?
2) We cannot have the nice new ridge line on our new roof that we expected (the dormer is too high in relation to the sloping roof to take a ridge tile). The builder said they're going to put a fascia on it, to neaten it up.
3) From the front and the side of the house (semi-detached), you see that the dormer is sticking up above the ridge line and there is now a step down to the only ridge tile on the right side of the ridge. If we could somehow resolve the step down, it wouldn't look so bad.

I've called BS on my builder who says they're done like this regularly. He says the plan measurements were wrong (an architect he arranged) and that he had to change things a bit to enable interior to reach min height requirements.

I'm not at all convinced, but it's too late to fix this and bring the roof down lower (would require almost the entire thing be done again if the interior height is the issue as floors would need lowering too), so I'm looking to remedy this by trying to find a solution to lessen the step down on the right side. I've thought about doubling up the ridge tile (2 stacked) or maybe a single taller ridge tile (more acute angle) or a ridge tile with a pointy bit on top to make it look taller.

What does everyone else think of this and are there any other suggestions to try and fix it? Or, am I being overly sensitive to the issue and should I just accept that that's the way it has to be?

 

[^woody^]

It's a significant planning breach if you have not got permission for that raised ridge, and it is not PD.

The risk is yours for the next four years or so wondering if any planners come knocking at the door.

 

[wessex101]

The risk is yours for the next four years or so wondering if any planners come knocking at the door.

If the stupid builder actually runs a fascia board along the ridge line as suggested I think even the most short sighted planning officer would spot it.

 

[jeds]

As above, it's all about risk. I have one identical to this on my desk at the moment working on building regulations. It was drawn by an architect and the dormer would have been PD except for the headroom was not great. So, fair play to him, he advised the client to apply for planning and raise the flat roof 200mm above the ridge. They applied and it was approved.

what headroom have you got now and what would it have been without the raised roof?

 

[JJPP]

Thanks all for your comments. We spoke to the architect last night and he gave us 2 addresses of properties that had been done in a similar way. So we took a drive out and actually found 6 within a 10 minute drive of our house that are done similarly. I was thinking ours was unique, and dormers where NEVER done like this, but apparently I was wrong.
It gives me a little comfort that there are more out there, even though I'm still not happy it was done this way without our input. I suppose we can learn to live with it.



Slightly related but the architect also said (and bear in mind I've yet to research this, so it may be fake news) that PD now allows for an entire new storey on a 2 storey property and that we might start seeing semi detached houses where one property is 2 story and the other is 3 - all under new PD rules.

Thanks again!

 

[^woody^]

Surely your conversion was done under the previous PD rules so whatever the new PD rules are, that work is not PD.

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

I suppose we can learn to live with it.

But as mentioned the risk is that the planners will come knocking on the door, why should you have to live with that above your head? No pun intended.

 

[JJPP]

Possibly / probably, but mine's not actually complete yet (flat roof covering, dormer render, guttering, tiling, fascias/soffits all still to do), so it might scrape by I guess :/

 

[wessex101]

Wow. The planning department at your local council must win a prize for being one of the most incompetent in the country (or most corrupt). How on earth are they letting those hideous abominations go unchallenged?

Although 4 of them do look very similar. Is it possible they are all the work of the same dodgy "architect" and bozo builder?

 

[Deleted member 281264]

I think they look awful like that

Why does your dormer not extended further back? It could be much bigger.

 

[jeds]

The risk doesn't change because other people have got away with it. You might be the first one to get a neighbour complaint. Once somebody complains the LPA have to follow it up, and that will probably mean applying for planning. You'll almost certainly get approval but you will be the one going through the hassle - and the cost.