Loft conversion - planning permission or not?

[katatutu]

Recently had an architect draw up plans for extension which has recently been approved by planning permission. For some reason, he did not submit the loft drawings. He now says should be fine under 'permitted development'. Obviously it is ultimately my responsibility, so thought would get your advice. The existing and proposed diagrams are as below. I remember reading the dormers cannot 'wrap around' under permitted development and wondered whether this was indeed 'wrapping around'? Someone also mentioned it could affect the house sale later if there is no planning permission.

Untitled

• katatutu
• 10 Mar 2013
• 1

Untitled

• katatutu
• 10 Mar 2013
• 1

Untitled

• katatutu
• 10 Mar 2013
• 1

Untitled

• katatutu
• 10 Mar 2013
• 1

 

[noseall]

For some reason, he did not submit the loft drawings.

Hmm. Wonder why?

Maybe I'm being cynical but was this a cunning plan to deceive perhaps?

 

[Deluks]

You start by saying that planning has been approved, and then say that no plans have been submitted. A tad confusing!

I'm not sure that's a wrap around, but you will almost certainly need permission for the hip to gable part.
Which you claim you have, so what's up?

 

[noseall]

I've just looked at the piccies and can see why the lofty was omitted.

I have made my feelings clear on what i think about most lofties, which is most of 'em are downright FUGLY and the one above ain't gonna win architect of the month either.

 

[jeds]

Providing he has measured it correctly it does appear to fall within permitted development allowance.

 

[katatutu]

Sorry for the confusion. Planning permission was granted for a ground floor rear and side extension. I assumed that he was going to put the loft in the same application.

 

[jeds]

Why would he do that when it's not needed?

 

[planningjungle]

Hi katatutu,

Assuming that your property is a semi-detached house, rather than an end-of-terrace house, and assuming that your property does actually benefit from permitted development rights (etc), then the roof extension that you've shown looks ok in principle.

For most properties, there's nothing in PD legislation that prevents (in principle) a roof extension that wraps-around from the rear roof slope onto the side roof slope, whether it's a rear and side dormer, or a hip-to-gable with rear dormer.

I would definitely recommend applying for a Certificate of Lawfulness before you start works.

Thanks,
Steve

 

[noseall]

I would definitely recommend applying for a Certificate of Lawfulness before you start works.

Thanks,
Steve

Oh Lordy, wait 'till Woodfloat sees this!

 

[tony1851]

As per jeds and Steve, hip-to-gables of themselves don't need planning permission, as long as the total volume increase of the roof is<50m^3.

(Subject to not being listed; no Art. 4 direction etc).

 

[tony1851]

I would definitely recommend applying for a Certificate of Lawfulness before you start works.

Thanks,
Steve

Steve; you've previously referred to this type of conversion as a 'loophole'.
Why should he then bother with an LDC?

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

The majority of solicitors have no concept of what requires a Planning App and what doesn’t. The standard response from any surveyor is that it should be checked in respect of whether permission was required or not and like it or not, solicitors will ask for proof of permission or proof that it didn’t require permission. For some this could ultimately mean the buyer could drop out, maybe the seller has no intention of selling in the next 10 years or so, so will be immune anyway, its all about the risk. A solicitor will not just take your word for it and yes there are indemnity’s but for some that won’t rub. Yes some buyers will stick their fingers up at the lack of PP and won’t care but there are others who would have sleepless nights at the prospect. And lets hope the architect has done his sums right too.

Heck there are plenty of miss informed planners who don’t even know a hip to gable is PD let alone expecting solicitors or surveyors to know!

Certainly in this case as the architect was going through all of the effort for a planning app anyway applying for a CLD for the loft would have been no biggy and IMO should certainly have been offered to the client. Fair play he (appears) to have a good grasp of the rules and hold the attitude that it didn’t need PP so why bother with a CLD but they do have their place.

Some bloke on a forum saying it doesn’t need PP doesn’t mean FA when the sales going through and that inevitable question appears on a letter from the buyers solicitor.

 

[tony1851]

Might be missing something here but would the volume of the roof of the extension which has received p.p. have to be taken off the 50m^3 allowance for the main roof enlargement? Just wondering.

 

[noseall]

Heck there are plenty of miss informed planners who don’t even know a hip to gable is PD let alone expecting solicitors or surveyors to know!

Certainly in this case as the architect was going through all of the effort for a planning app anyway applying for a CLD for the loft would have been no biggy and IMO should certainly have been offered to the client. Fair play he (appears) to have a good grasp of the rules and hold the attitude that it didn’t need PP so why bother with a CLD but they do have their place.

Some bloke on a forum saying it doesn’t need PP doesn’t mean FA when the sales going through and that inevitable question appears on a letter from the buyers solicitor.

Acronym alert!

 

[planningjungle]

Hi Tony,

As Freddy says, mainly for peace of mind, particularly if the person subsequently decides to sell their property. I've come across quite a lot of examples over the last few years where buyers have refused to proceed with a purchase unless the owner obtains an COL. This means a retrospective application, and a delay of up to 8 weeks (or more), which in the best case is stressful and in the worst case can cause the chain to collapse. At the end of the day, even if you're 100% sure it's PD, there's still a fair chance that a buyer will require a COL, particularly with significant works such as a loft conversion.

The other issue is that it's not just a case of being 100% sure of PD legislation, it's also a case of being 100% sure of the history of the property. I've come across examples where people have erected extensions without realising that their property doesn't benefit from PD rights - maybe it's subject to an Article 4 direction, or maybe it's had its PD rights removed by a condition on a previous planning permission. As a (hypothetical) example, suppose the property was deconverted from flats into a house in the 1980s via a PP where PD rights were removed, the current owner isn't aware of this previous planning permission, and the planning history on the LPA's website only goes back to the 1990s. In such a case, it would be next to impossible for an agent to realise that the property doesn't benefit from PD rights unless he submitted an application for an COL.

Of course, the above type of example is relatively rare - so I guess it all depends on what level of risk the applicant is willing to take.

Thanks,
Steve