Permitted development dormer

[Sid1968]

Hi

In a pickle if anyone can help with advice

terraced property with a hip gable and a rear double extension which was with the original house.
converted hip to gable and built the rear dormer under PD fully finished when the planning officer turned up and stated that because the dormer is above the outrigger of the rear extension it is planning permission required.
quite confidently submitted the plans and got refused for the reason below:

1. By reason of its design, size and position the Hip to Gable Dormer conversion with chimney removal (as built and as so described in the application) adversely affects the appearance of the host dwelling house, the terrace in which it is sited and the street scene, and, would be detrimental to the character, local distinctiveness and sustainability of the area generally. This would be in conflict with policies Env6 of the Core Strategy, DM26 of the Development Management DPD and the Householder Design Guide of Hyndburn Borough Council.

No mention of the outrigger in the refusal etc

My understanding is this development comes under PD. Is this worth appealing to?

regards

 

[^woody^]

If you were confident of it being PD, then you should have applied for a Certificate of Lawful Development, not a planning application.

Things which are PD can be refused permission if applied for.

 

[wessex101]

I'm confused. How can a terraced house have a hipped roof and how can a "rear double extension" be original? Either it is an extension OR it is original. You mention an outrigger is that what you meant rather than an extension?

To the best of my knowledge you can build an L shaped dormer on the rear roof slope and outrigger roof under permitted development provided it meets all the volume, height, materials requirements.

If you submitted a retrospective planning application did you accept that the work is not permitted development? If so why are you still claiming it is PD?

 

[Sid1968]

Ah sorry my mistake.
It is a end terrraced property had a hip gable and coverted to gable end and built the dormer.
Sorry for my explanation its not a rear extension but part of the original house.

The reason for pp application that is the advice i got from the designer.
Can we still apply for certificate of lawful developement?
Now thinkimg about it we shud had stuck with PD and gone doen the PP route.

Iv read up and asked some proffessionals even took advice from a planning consultant and they have all advised shud come under PD

Im suprised the PP was refused because everything is within PD guidance. The enforcent officers argument was that the dormer is built above the outrigger. The outrigger is about 3ft about the eaves.

 

[^woody^]

Im suprised the PP was refused because everything is within PD guidance

Things which are PD can be refused permission if applied for.

 

[Sid1968]

Thanx Woody
What advice wud u give. Cetificate or Lawful or appeal?

 

[wessex101]

Iv read up and asked some proffessionals even took advice from a planning consultant and they have all advised shud come under PD

If the planning consultant says it is PD and they have seen the drawings (unlike us) then submit a lawful development certificate application.

Out of curiosity why did the designer who submitted the planning application say it wasn't PD. Simply being above the outrigger does not make it not PD, there must be something else, volume, distance from roof edge, height, windows etc.

 

[Sid1968]

The designer did the orginal PD drawings
Its only when the enforcment PP officer wrote to us that the development is built obove the outrigger and PP is required.
So its then we submitted PP application drawings. Even the designer was suprised that this is not PD

 

[^woody^]

What advice wud u give. Cetificate or Lawful or appeal?

If you appeal a planning decision then it will only get assessed on the decision in context of the local planning policies and the process followed. So even if the work is PD that may not be a relevant consideration for the inspector. There are arguments that work which would otherwise be PD should be approved, but it's not always guaranteed that argument will sway an inspector.

If you are confident that it is PD then you should apply for a CLD, as then the decision of the planners is purely one of "yes it is/no it isn't", so if it is PD, a certificate is given and the work is lawful.

I would normally say that you should follow the advice of your advisors. But if you have already been advised poorly, then that may not be best. Is your designer who advised you actually experienced in planning matters, or just someone who knocks up plans. You may want advice from someone more suitable.

 

[^woody^]

The designer did the orginal PD drawings

That's confusing. You don't have/need drawings for PD.

Are we all on the same page with terminology?

 

[Sid1968]

Hi woody

The plans wher drawn up fo PD so the contractor can follow it and for building control.
Yes yur correct the designer is not knowledgable for planning policies. Got the drawings done because it was a simple PD process

 

[wessex101]

Hi woody

The plans wher drawn up fo PD so the contractor can follow it and for building control.
Yes yur correct the designer is not knowledgable for planning policies. Got the drawings done because it was a simple PD process

If the designer drew plans to ensure the work was permitted development and it subsequently turned out that the work was not PD then the designer has got some explaining to do! I would say that he is also legally liable for any costs you incur to resolve the situation with the planners.

No professional designer would tell a client that a project is PD unless it was something very simple like a small rear single storey extension and they were 110% sure, the PD rules are far too vague and ambiguous to stick your neck out like that. Certainly not for a dormer roof extension which is usually a minefield for permitted development and the implications of getting it wrong will always be expensive as you are unlikely to get planning permission for a big ugly dormer.

But this still doesn't resolve whether or not the work actually is permitted development or not. You say you have been told by a planning consultant that it is PD but as you have chosen not to share any drawings or photos we are all in the dark. I really don't know what you expect us to say?

 

[Sid1968]

Hi Woody

Please bare with me il see if i cn get pdf drawings and some photos

 

[^woody^]

PD rules are far too vague and ambiguous to stick your neck out like that.

My card

 

[Sid1968]

Hi Woody

Please see attached proposed drawing to see what you think