Permitted Development and 200mm setting back from eaves

[Frank2010]

Hi there,

We are still wrangling with the Planning Department. Full background is in a thread further down about Permitted Development and calculating volumes. This incidentally has been put aside for the moment. It was agreed that we were over permitted allowance but it seems not enough to make a decision or the council want a thorough long rope to hang us with.

Stoking the fire and complaining that after more than half a year no decision has yet been made I've been passed on to senior level. This of course was met with even more thoroughness ....

One of the questions asked was whether the stud rear wall had been set in sufficiently. Reading up on this it mentions a min 200mm from eaves. Even this seems to be a minefield of rulings but I'll put that aside for now.

Does anyone know where the 200mm are exactly measured from? The front of the eaves, the back, the house wall, including the guttering? OK, I doubt the guttering is included but it seems rather ambiguous.
I need to find the actual point of measure so I can verify whether the plans are sloppy or if this is yet another real issue coming towards us.

Thanks!

 

[paulandfrodo]

I did a loft conversion (well, whole house) just after the new regulations 2008 came in.

I was doing a full width dorm on a traditional mid-terrace at the rear of the property.

The house is basically a L shape with the kitchen area on the ground floor and a bathroom above it - at the rear.

So, I would do the loft conversion up, over the bathroom.

I was able to make it so the outside skin on the building structure (the slate tile) was 200mm back from the gable end.

To be honest, it was a little further back than 200mm.

But keep in mind at the rear of the building you've prob got a cavity wall - so 100mm brick + 70mm cav + 100mm brick.

I even did a massive 8m x 4m kitchen extension under the same building notice. I'm amazed you can get away with so much !!

pm me if you want some pics.

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

My interpretation of the 200mm rule is that it should be 200mm behind the front of the fascia board (back of the gutter). Its not something I've ever worried about frankly as a dormer with the wall sat there would look awful.

Where have you built yours in relation to the the face of the wall and the front of the fascia?

 

[DevilDamo]

From the PP website...

• Roof extensions, apart from hip to gable ones, to be set back, as far as practicable, at least 20cm from the eaves

It also mentions this is to be measured along the roof plane.

I have "always" taken the measurement from the front of the fascia, which in its entirety... is part of the eaves.

 

[Frank2010]

Thanks guys,

The horse has already bolted and whether it looks c**p or not is no longer up for debate as the build now stands
Ours has been measured from the front of the fascia. The planning officer wants to see pictures that the new stud wall is set up 200mm from the rear wall of the property. There is no mention of eaves in her e-mail, which made me suspicious.
Our new stud wall sits virtually flush with the existing rear wall looking on sideways and 2 rows of tiles pertrude outwards to form the eaves as they existed before. Utilising the existing fascia that was there and that's a box of 13cm alone. Measuring just now (as possible) it's more like 300 if measuring from the last set of tiles forming the eaves.
Of course if the officer insists to measure from the rear wall this won't be the case.
Worth challenging

 

[DevilDamo]

Well they have definitely interpreted that part of the PD rules incorrectly as it clearly states the eaves and not the wall but you'll be fine

People will normally comply with the rules as it's "very" rare for a new (stud) wall to sit forward of the main external wall as there'd be no support and additional support would be required so the 200mm rule is not normally an issue.

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

Worth challenging

That is not something we can answer, it is (usually) test cases that go to appeal like this (if it gets that far) that sets the precedent for the rest of us. My instinct is that you would be successful as I believe mine and DD's interpretation of the rules is correct. I do recall an appeal where the definition of the eaves was up for debate although that appeal was related to height rather than set-back and in anycase if it came to the crunch and the alternative is re-building or demolition you will have little choice. The best way of forming a good defence if an Appeal was unavoidable would be to find a similar Appeal case with a 'convenient' outcome. Even then I have seen appeals go two different ways (on a different matter though).

This http://www.planningjungle.com/ is a handy site with some useful guidance and many appeals regarding permitted development listed, its a bit difficult to navigate round but may be worth a look.

Mainly the sections listed below:

A visual guide to the amended Part 1 of the GPDO:

* GPDO - Part 1 - Steve Speed - A visual guide to permitted development - Version 2.0

Summary of appeal decisions relevant to the amended Part 1 of the GPDO:

* GPDO - Part 1 - Steve Speed - Appeal Decision Summaries - Version 11.0
* Click here for the associated documents

One would hope that common sense would prevail before enforcement action was taken!

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

Our new stud wall sits virtually flush with the existing rear wall looking on sideways and 2 rows of tiles pertrude outwards to form the eaves as they existed before. Utilising the existing fascia that was there and that's a box of 13cm alone. Measuring just now (as possible) it's more like 300 if measuring from the last set of tiles forming the eaves.

So are you saying the new wall is 13cm horizontally back from the outer face of the fascia board? But 300mm up the roof slope from the leading edge of the last tile?

It also mentions this is to be measured along the roof plane.

Where does it say along the roof plane DD? I've always taken it to be 200mm horizontally from front of fascia!

 

[Frank2010]

Thank you for the reply and supplied links. I had already browsed through some of the info and found to my horror that various applications had been turned down on the basis that it would be up to the householder to show that the build couldn't have been set back further.
However for now I have ignored this due to our circumstances and have concentrated on the Planning Officers request to measure from the rear wall, which I believe to be wrong. Your comments seem to support this.

I have asked her to clarify this for me and see what her response comes back as, keep you posted.

I suspect that as we are over the the 40 cubic metre allowance they will ask for our rear wall to be moved in. This would be ~30cm to comply and bring us back into allowance. So it is questionable whether it would make any difference at all and may be worth fighting over.
However we have also been told as the build may turn out to be unlawful that the whole structure would have to be removed. This is the 'common sense' bit and I hope that they won't push further on this angle and agree worse case to simply reduce. This is still a huge job.
Of course we are still hoping that they either show discretion or allow us to legalise the build through a retrospective application. Yet that seems very questionable because of the hip to gable conversion.

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

I apreciate discussing the set back may be imaterial but what is the answer to this one?

Our new stud wall sits virtually flush with the existing rear wall looking on sideways and 2 rows of tiles pertrude outwards to form the eaves as they existed before. Utilising the existing fascia that was there and that's a box of 13cm alone. Measuring just now (as possible) it's more like 300 if measuring from the last set of tiles forming the eaves.

So are you saying the new wall is 13cm horizontally back from the outer face of the fascia board? But 300mm up the roof slope from the leading edge of the last tile?


I would be gobsmacked that if (nowadays) Planning Permission were to applied for, for a dormer extension to sit in-line with the existing wall, it would be granted!

 

[Frank2010]

So are you saying the new wall is 13cm horizontally back from the outer face of the fascia board? But 300mm up the roof slope from the leading edge of the last tile?

Sorry, pictures tell a thousand words ..... Basically if I take a ruler, put it against the back wall, measure 20cm and put a baton as a 'plumb line' I get something resulting like this .... So there is still some margin left to the outer edge of the tiles. OK, not much but still a margin

Untitled

• Frank2010
• 2 Jun 2010
• 1

Untitled

• Frank2010
• 2 Jun 2010
• 1

Untitled

• Frank2010
• 2 Jun 2010
• 1

 

[DevilDamo]

Where does it say along the roof plane DD? I've always taken it to be 200mm horizontally from front of fascia!

The Loft Conversion summary sheet...

http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/uploads/miniguides/loft/Lofts.pdf

Number 8. It should be read in conjunction with the other Loft Conversion guidance notes.

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

Well would you adam and eve it, the only place I didn't look!

 

[DevilDamo]

Hence why that guidance document and others should be read in conjunction with eachother. It's not very clever that's it not included on the actual PP website though. I'm sure PP will sort it out one day

 

[Frank2010]

Well, by the look of things it's turning into a shut case for us and we may have to concede that the rear of the build has to come off again, best case.

This was the reply from the officer:-
I can confirm that the set up is measured 200mm up from the rear wall and not from the eaves. During a previous appeal the Inspector at the time concluded that the 20cm rule is not measured from the edge of the eaves as is often argued by Architects and since then, we have been taking the same approach.

I am not really sure what to reply to this. Bar that a build opposite our house has put the loft conversion on the back wall too. I even took photos today and they finished construction a month ago. Sort of feels wrong to use this as an argument and potentially get them into trouble too. Just seems this ruling is being strictly applied to us, as I complained and perhaps not others.
I think the wording in the PD guidelines need urgent revision as this suggests they should put wall and not eaves in the document.