Gable-to-hip

[RichA]

Lots of threads on here discussing hip-to-gable alterations being PD.

This has got me thinking; is there any reason why Class B can't be used for a gable-to-hip conversion.

[the reason is that my gable has a lower ridge than the main roof so a gable-to-hip would allow me to: 1. make the left side match the hipped right side; and 2. increase the ridge height. This second point will be key when I subsequently do a 2 storey rear extension.

 

[tony1851]

Leaving aside for the moment whether or not it is p.d. under class B, how would that work?
Are the eaves that we see to the left and right of the chimney in the same vertical plane? - otherwise would the roof slopes have to be different to get to the same ridge height?
Otherwise, looking at B.1 (a) to (d), I can't see how it would not be p.d.

 

[RichA]

Thanks. Good to get a second view that there seems to be nothing stopping it being p.d.

Re: design, that dawned on me this morning. The left is set back, and to have the same plane would mean the ridge was also set back, therefore the rear slope would need to be steeper. But this would only be temporary until the rear extension was built and 'swallowed up' the rear part of the roof.

The Existing & Proposed (after gable-to-hip and 3m rear extension) plans enclosed.

Now I need to investigate whether if I can do the gable-to hip amendment under pd, followed by the rear extension under pd (which would require removal of the roof), then can I do them both at the same time under pd.

Have seen the following guidance, but not entirely sure whether it helps or hinders!!
Where an extension to a house under Class A includes works that would require an alteration to the existing roof of the house (e.g. where the roof of the extension joins the existing roof), the alterations to the existing roof of the house will need to meet the requirements of Class B or C (as appropriate) in order to be permitted development"

 

[RichA]

Any thoughts on whether PD needs to be done as 2 parts (or whether they can be done a 1 under pd)?

1. extend the roof, then
2. extend the rear and join new roof

I need to advise my architect what our requirements are for the plans / tender doc and am stumped what is the most efficient way forward.

Many thanks.

 

[Nakajo]

But the second part surely adds too much volume to the roof to qualify as pd!?!? (Also, the existing plan doesn't match the existing elevation)

 

[RichA]

But the second part surely adds too much volume to the roof to qualify as pd!?!?

I understand that Part A is exempt from the 50m3.

Also, the existing plan doesn't match the existing elevation

How so? They were drawn by 2 different people. This is the elevation that (should) match that existing plan.

 

[Nakajo]

Yep, that one matches