'Merging' planning and PD

[plandunce]

Hello all...

We are at building quote stage for a dormer loft conversion and a first floor infill extension. A builder has raised some concerns about the permissions we have, and now I'm worried. I have no idea what I'm doing.

Our architect advised that we can merge our PD rights with what planning have granted, and Build everything together. The builder has suggested that, on the face of it, if built, it would appear to be a breach of planning. We have no lawful development certificate to cover any PD, although I believe I'm confident in saying the loft/dormer on it's own would be PD. We have confirmed PD rights are intact at the property. The first floor infill extension would then, presumably, need separate PP in it's own.

My thinking is, at the moment, if we sold the house in a few years we have proof of planning for something that looks different to what is built, and questions could be raised.

For clarity, some drawings...
What we have now -

What we have planning for...

What the architect says we can get on with...

I'm going to seek alternative professional advice on this but wanted to try and be forearmed with more idea or where I might stand. So if anyone can help, please do.

Thanks

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

So is the only difference between what you have planning for (lets call that scheme A) and what your architect says you can build (scheme B) only that the dormer is wider in scheme B?

If so it begs the question why you didn't shown the dormer wider for the planning app.

Assuming the above is correct in anycase it looks like the scheme B dormer would still be PD as the end does not go beyond the original side wall, assuming it also ticks all the other PD criteria: volume, materials etc.

 

[plandunce]

Yes, dormer is wider and therefore allows more headroom for a small shower room and eaves storage/boiler in loft space. Obviously, ridge line is longer/looks different at the front etc, but I am certain PD and ticks all other boxes re volume etc, and is inside original walls.

We did originally apply for an even wider dormer, which was informally refused with guidance given to maintain the hipped roof with a smaller dormer (as the approved plans) which we took, and was immediately passed. Architect said take the advice and accept approved plans, then merge with PD to get the middle ground. Then the confusion started, and we were hoping to build in June.

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

Yes, dormer is wider and therefore allows more headroom for a small shower room and eaves storage/boiler in loft space. Obviously, ridge line is longer/looks different at the front etc, but I am certain PD and ticks all other boxes re volume etc, and is inside original walls.

Effectively what you're doing is a hip to gable conversion which itself would be PD. So it begs the question how do you sleep at night? If you're of a nervous imposition then you could consider putting in a non-material amendment application.

The problems can arise because planners can be awkward and obnoxious (and also don't always understand the rules), you only need a begrudged neighbour to ring them up.

 

[plandunce]

That dormer is wider, yes, but we are building the infill extension as well, hopefully at the same time. So we have two connected areas of work.

If a dispute arises, our defence is only that we 'just say' we used PD for a larger dormer, and a portion of the approved plans for the infill extension, with no paperwork to show what we did was allowed, only our approved plans which are obviously different.

Would a non-material amendment basically outline what we plan to do (via PD) so they will tell us it's ok?

I do not sit comfortably with unknown risk!

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

A non material amendment would be the submission of the scheme B elevations and a justification that the wider dormer/hip to gable would be PD anyway. But planners can be obnoxious idiots so there is that, there is also no definition of what is non-material amendment and what isn't.

 

[stevie888]

Your architct hasn't helped you much has he?

A couple of principles:
1. Generally speaking planners don't like dormers
2. Any work shown on a Planning Application can be refused even if it is of itself PD. I have had this done to be and in fairness the planner did warn me what was likely to happen, but the client decideed to go ahead anyway.
3. As soon as any work which in isolation is PD joins any other post 1946 extension then the whole of the addition is assessed against PD criteria

I would have done an LDC for hip to gable plus dormer, then gone for PP afterwards separately to avoid any such grief

As it sits now it's a bit grey whether the 2 bits actually join in a meaningful manner. What would make things clearer would be to correct the proposed rear extension so as to show a strip of roof over the new gable as the side elevation indicates,

I think they argument about this could go either way. More to the point your super duper professinal says it's ok so get on with the job but make sure he is willing to stand between you and the fan if the council play up.