Gable vs Hip Roof

[DevilDamo]

I am involved with a proposal for a first floor side extension over an existing garage. The existing main roof is gabled and on one of the roof planes, there are a couple of solar panels. The proposed roof over the new extension was shown on the planning drawings as gabled, to match the existing. However, before even neighbour notifications were sent out, etc... the planning officer advised that this roof be changed to a hip roof.

The bottom line was that the planning officer has now backed down and has agreed to the gable roof.

There have been numerous emails back and fourth between the client and planning officer and I note those below...

I have been looking at your application and an issue has come up with the design of the proposed first floor extension. The new roof is currently shown as a gable but this is not in keeping with the existing property and it is my recommendation that it should be altered to a hip in order to match the pitch of the original roof (I have shown this below). I appreciate that other houses nearby (namely nos. 12 and 10 Marefield) have a gable roof over their existing side extensions, but these properties’ roofs are of a different design to that of your property.

I recommend that you amend the submitted plans and send in three copies to me so that the changes can be considered under the current application. I am due to go on leave on the 23rd July so I would be grateful if you could let me know what you intend to do as soon as possible in the next week. I trust this is of use. If you have any queries please do not hesitate to contact me on the details below.

We are surprised that the design of the roof is causing a problem because it replicates existing extensions on Marefield and Barkby (off Marefield) which has exactly the same features for gable ended properties . Both of these examples are within 100 metres of our house which is what directed us to our proposed design.

In addition, we are concerned that the new design you are proposing may not allow us to continue using our solar energy that is currently in place on the main roof (the side of the proposed extension). This concern is due to the reduced surface area that would be available on each side of the hipped roof and we obviously want to continue saving energy.

I would appreciate your comments on the above before we re-submit drawings.

Thank you for your email. I appreciate your point about other properties in the area having similar extensions. However, we consider each application site individually and in this instance it is considered that a hipped roof would be in keeping with the existing house and substantially less bulky than a gable end over the proposed first floor side extension. I have yet to make a recommendation on this proposal but have discussed it with the manager for this area who feels that the hipped roof would be more appropriate on this property in this location.

Please let me know how you intend to proceed.

While I understand your recommendation, I'm unable to understand the intention. These other properties we referred to are exactly the same style as ours, with exactly the same extension as our proposal, so what makes our 'property' and 'location' so different from theirs when they are only 100m away?

In addition, we will have to remove our solar energy system as mentioned previously, as the surface area of the recomendation

will not support it's re-positioning, which is disappointing. Not only is sustainable energy important to us, but our costs will

increase dramatically to install a replacement hot water system. We would have expected the council to support environmentally

friendly measures to energise households, especially as this is a feature of our individual site.

Before we confirm how we intend to proceed, can you please confirm that the council has taken into account the fact that we will have to remove our solar energy system, and that domestic renewable energy sources are not being encouraged by our local council.

I can only consider the relevant planning issues with regard to your proposal, which includes the visual impact of the extension on the character of the existing house and the wider area. Unfortunately the provision of solar power - whilst desirable - is not a planning issue that would affect the approval or refusal of a planning application. This stance is related to the planning system and does not reflect Wokingham Council’s general policy to encourage renewable energy.

I will discuss the issue of the hipped roof again with the manager for this area and get back to you.

I have discussed this with Marcia Head who is the manager who deals with Earley and it is her opinion that the roof of the side extension should be hipped to match the main roof of the existing property. As I mentioned in my previous email I appreciate your points about the solar panels but these are not a planning issue that I can weigh against the impact on the character of the existing house.

If you wish to send me the addresses of the other houses that have been extended in this way then I am happy to have a look at these, but unless they are in the immediate vicinity of your property then they would not have direct relevance to this application. By ‘immediate vicinity’ I mean within sight of your house (i.e. part of the same ‘street scene’ that your property is on).

I trust this is of use.

Thank you for your email.

I have taken a walk down Marefield and the cul-de-sacs leading off of our road. There are 6 houses of the same style that have been extended to include a forth bedroom and only 1 has the hipped roof that you are proposing.

The addresses of the 5 remaining extensions that mirror our proposal are as follows:

6 Barkby
45 Marefield
77 Marefield
14 Sibson (this particular property has been granted permission to extend within literally inches of the next property)
21 Sibson

The house number opposite ours is number 53 and so those houses that are actually on Marefield are not far away at all although due the road layout, they cannot be seen from our house.

The irony is that we are having to extend our house to include a forth bedroom so that we have a suitable sized bedroom to accommodate our second child. The current so-called third bedroom of these properties does not even accommodate a single bed, barley a cot, so I am surprised that the council ever approved the designs of these houses in the first place. It is beyond me as to why we are being restricted given the state of some of the extensions that have been approved in Lower Earley. Our proposal is not an uncommon design and is not in any way that we, or our neighbours, can see offensive.

If it was not for our solar panel issue, we would have no problem in changing the design, however, I understand that environmentally friendly measures that people put in place on their properties cannot be taken into account, even in this climate where global warming is such a prevalent issue.

I am assuming that if we do not change our design then planning will be rejected. Please can you clarify.

I would appreciate your final comments before we agree how to proceed.

Thank you for your previous email – I apologise for the delay in getting back to you.

I have been back for a further discussion with my manager and whilst we both consider that the hipped roof would be a preferable option for this type of house, in this instance we consider that its lack would not justify a refusal in its own right given the wider character of the road. The plans therefore do not have to be revised and the application will be determined as submitted.

I trust this is of use.

I apologise it's a little long winded but it just goes to show how, with a little bit of force, planning officers/departments "will" or may eventually see sense

These conversations have been going on for about one week but that's an extra week now added to the decision process

 

[noseall]

From a builders' point of view a gable is easier to build, though it does mean less freedom regards gutter drainage, i.e. two spouts as opposed to one.

Will it be a cut-brick gable or a barge gable?

The other benefit of a gable is you have a body of masonry upon which (traditional cut roof) purlins can be supported.

Give me a gable to build any day.

 

[DevilDamo]

Yeh! And with this particular house, the existing roof is gable and having a gable on the proposed would just tie it in so much better than a hip roof hence why the client was pushing and pushing for a gable.

Gable roofs are good when it comes to building an extension up close to the boundary because like you say... for guttering/drainage so there's no overhang and they're easier to construct.

Hipe roofs are of less volume so are less bulky... granted but hip roofs don't suit all properties and even in situations where the additional volume created by a gable would result in a planning application being made, then so be it.