Loft conversion - planning permission or not?

[^woody^]

It needs to also be there to serve the needs of the all the people who are struggling for space to live in our very expensive Cities.

No regulatory system can adapt quickly or regularly to the whims and fluctuations of the property market.

The fact that certain people in certain areas can't afford certain building work is irrelevant. What happens when these families need a bigger car for their bigger families? Should they be given one for free, should they steal one under the justification of "I need to because I otherwise can't afford to"?

What individual homeowners can or can't afford is no justification for allowing poor design at the detriment to an area and other people in that area

Don't confuse the two issues

 

[indus]

It needs to also be there to serve the needs of the all the people who are struggling for space to live in our very expensive Cities.

No regulatory system can adapt quickly or regularly to the whims and fluctuations of the property market.

The fact that certain people in certain areas can't afford certain building work is irrelevant. What happens when these families need a bigger car for their bigger families? Should they be given one for free, should they steal one under the justification of "I need to because I otherwise can't afford to"?

What individual homeowners can or can't afford is no justification for allowing poor design at the detriment to an area and other people in that area

Don't confuse the two issues

I am not confused at all. And once again you use emotive and incorrect language and wrongly assume it makes your case.

You start comparing this situation to people stealing cars or being given one at the tax payers expense. Yet we are actually talking about hard working families struggling to get on in life.

I don't understand why you keep going on about people not being able to afford certain building works. It's moving house they can't afford to do, the building work they can afford.

I agree no regulatory system can fluctuate on a whim. However the housing crises and ridiculous prices of land in London didn't just happen yesterday. It's been evolving for the last twenty years, how long does the regulatory process need to catch up with the needs of the population it is meant to serve? Fifty years??

 

[^woody^]

You are confusing the purpose of the planning system, and how that system should protect the locality for the benefit of all, with your proposition that certain people can't afford to move and so this justifies their monstrous roof extensions.

 

[indus]

I'll assure you again that I'm not confused

I agree the system should protect the locality for the benefit of all. However it needs to act for all the people, not just people who like you share a certain opinion. It needs to act for those people who are struggling with accomodation.

It needs to adapt to meet these needs, the system cannot exist in isolation disconnected from the people it is meant to be serving.

Anyway, the bottom line is that the system HAS adapted. That's why these rear dormers are allowed.

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

Big dormers are a loophole the poor legislation failed to prevent, planers hate them, anyone with an ounce of sense can see they do not look good, they have not been left in the legislation as an alternative to help people without quite enough dosh to move.

 

[noseall]

Big dormers are a loophole the poor legislation failed to prevent, planers hate them, anyone with an ounce of sense can see they do not look good, they have not been left in the legislation as an alternative to help people without quite enough dosh to move.

Excellent post Fred well put.

 

[RonnyRaygun]

I don't understand this issue with rear dormers. They are at the rear of the property and as such are not detrimental to the look of the area, unless you happen to be looking towards the house in a neighbouring garden.

In an ideal world everybody would have room to build two storey extensions to the sides of their properties, but in many areas this simply isn't an option. And even if it is, you are at the mercy of the planners. Also, a side extension may well be far more detrimental to neighbours with overbearing and terracing issues.

If we want to move house it will cost us at least £20000 in fees. That pays for at least half a loft conversion. It might be the difference between spending £35000 for an extra bedroom, or spending £60000 to get an extra bedroom by moving house. In fact, where I live the difference between a three and four bedroom house is often a lot more than £60000 before fees.

There must also be benefits from increasing the square footage of existing properties, as it will mean fewer larger new houses will need to be built.

At the end of the day it's a rear dormer. I've seen many approved extensions that look far far worse

 

[indus]

Exactly Ronny.

Some people here seem to have extreme reactions to them. I don't think they look nice but can completely understand why people have them.

As you point out even though some members on here have claimed they spoil the street scene, affect amenity for neighbours etc that is not actually true.

Most aren't visible from the front and I can't see how a rear dormer can really negatively affect the amenity of a neighbour. A rear/side extension no matter how pretty it looks is more likely to have negative amenity impact on neighbours in terms of light and terracing effect etc.

 

[tony1851]

If these flat roof dormers are on the backs of the houses, does it really matter what they look like?
Why should kids have to share bedrooms, just so that the neighbours at the back don't have to look at the roof enlargement?
Proper living space for a growing family is far more important than the neighbour's aesthetic sensibilities.

 

[RonnyRaygun]

Proper living space for a growing family is far more important than the neighbour's aesthetic sensibilities.

Yes, I meant to say that Tony

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

If you can't afford a bigger house and you kids have to share then get the snip. As ever people living beyond their means.

 

[indus]

If you can't afford a bigger house and you kids have to share then get the snip. As ever people living beyond their means.

Hilarious

It's these kids that will one day be contributing to the public purse to pay for the incontinence pants and 24hr nursing you will soon be needing matey

 

[RonnyRaygun]

If you can't afford a bigger house and you kids have to share then get the snip. As ever people living beyond their means.

Personally, I've got no intention of having any more kids. And they don't have to share. And I'm not living beyond my means.

But if in the future I decide I'd like more space, maybe to turn the small bedroom into an office / guest room, I'd have no qualms whatsoever about doing a permitted rear dormer loft conversion. They're on half the houses down my street and I have no problem with them at all.

Although, I think you're trolling just a little bit Freddy

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

If you think full width permitted are acceptable, permitted or otherwise, you need the snip, if only to help preserve the gene pool.

 

[RonnyRaygun]

If you think full width permitted are acceptable, permitted or otherwise, you need the snip, if only to help preserve the gene pool.

But they are acceptable Freddy. Acceptable by current government policy, acceptable by people who have them, and acceptable by many others people, such as Indus and me.

I'm sure I'm not alone in feeling that I'd much rather have my next door neighbour build a full width dormer than an approved five or six metre kitchen extension to the rear (and I've seen a few of these on semis and terraced houses).

My genes have already been passed on thanks, and personally I think we should be giving the snip to all you arbiters of aesthetics who get a bit precious about a rear dormer.

There are worse things going on in the world