Would this fail PD?

Joined
14 Oct 2020
Messages
34
Reaction score
0
Country
United Kingdom
Rear extension on bungalow
Capture.JPG

meets proposed new dormer. Any reason why this could fail PD or all good?
 
Last edited:
Sponsored Links
First of all, are you talking Planning Department or Permitted Development?

If you are talking Permitted development, you first have to make sure you have it. If you don't, then you will certainly have to go through Planning Department, and probably Building Control for permission before even digging the first sod of earth.

If you are talking Planning Department, you will need to contact them as they will be the ones making the decision.
 
Fails due to the connection.

There is a monster thread from a few years ago on this very thing.
 
First of all, are you talking Planning Department or Permitted Development?

If you are talking Permitted development, you first have to make sure you have it. If you don't, then you will certainly have to go through Planning Department, and probably Building Control for permission before even digging the first sod of earth.

If you are talking Planning Department, you will need to contact them as they will be the ones making the decision.
Under permitted development
 
Sponsored Links
Fails due to the connection.

There is a monster thread from a few years ago on this very thing.
Why? Are you saying the extension roof volume will be added to the dormer volume? If so how do you know it exceeds the total volume allowance. Also is the new dormer being done under permitted development?
I can't find it at the moment but I'm sure I've got something here that says a roof enlargement (dormer) volume calculation should only include the original roof and an extension roof that connects to the main roof should not be added to the "enlargement by additions to the roof" volume calculation.
Far too little information from the OP to make an informed decision.
 
Why? Are you saying the extension roof volume will be added to the dormer volume? If so how do you know it exceeds the total volume allowance. Also is the new dormer being done under permitted development?
I can't find it at the moment but I'm sure I've got something here that says a roof enlargement (dormer) volume calculation should only include the original roof and an extension roof that connects to the main roof should not be added to the "enlargement by additions to the roof" volume calculation.
Far too little information from the OP to make an informed decision.

Hi think after doing a bit further research is that if you link the extension and the dormer it fails as they will technically regard it as a two storey extension. I think.
 
Why? Are you saying the extension roof volume will be added to the dormer volume? If so how do you know it exceeds the total volume allowance. Also is the new dormer being done under permitted development?
I can't find it at the moment but I'm sure I've got something here that says a roof enlargement (dormer) volume calculation should only include the original roof and an extension roof that connects to the main roof should not be added to the "enlargement by additions to the roof" volume calculation.
Far too little information from the OP to make an informed decision.
It's the dormer connection to that gabled roof - the dormer no longer meets the set back from eaves requirement for PD.

IIRC, the other past thread i mentioned was a similar situation. I'll have a look for it.
 
It looks like a single storey extension to me.

I read the other thread. I'd say that council was not being reasonable. It looks like they'd decided they didn't like it for whatever reason, then went out of their way to find a nit-picking excuse, then eventually gave in anyway.

There is a procedure for officially asking the planners whether something is or isn't Permitted Development. This would probably be a good contender for that process, obviously without specifically pointing out anything that's going to get them too excited.
 
It looks like a single storey extension to me.

I read the other thread. I'd say that council was not being reasonable. It looks like they'd decided they didn't like it for whatever reason, then went out of their way to find a nit-picking excuse, then eventually gave in anyway.

There is a procedure for officially asking the planners whether something is or isn't Permitted Development. This would probably be a good contender for that process, obviously without specifically pointing out anything that's going to get them too excited.
Fair comment. We'll ask. Hoping for a helpful officer.
 
It looks like a single storey extension to me.

I read the other thread. I'd say that council was not being reasonable. It looks like they'd decided they didn't like it for whatever reason, then went out of their way to find a nit-picking excuse, then eventually gave in anyway.

There is a procedure for officially asking the planners whether something is or isn't Permitted Development. This would probably be a good contender for that process, obviously without specifically pointing out anything that's going to get them too excited.
Those are the national rules. It's not just that one council.

As for the procedure you mention, you must mean a CLD? In which case you must submit the exact details of what you want determined, and then build the to the exact details you submitted.
 
It's open to interpretation. In the other thread it appears that the council just objected to the light being blocked from the neighbours and was looking for an excuse to stop it. They looked hard enough to find one, but it seems like a pretty silly concept and they eventually gave in anyway.

I doubt that anyone is going to seriously class what's proposed here as anything other than single storey.
 
It's open to interpretation. In the other thread it appears that the council just objected to the light being blocked from the neighbours and was looking for an excuse to stop it. They looked hard enough to find one, but it seems like a pretty silly concept and they eventually gave in anyway.

I doubt that anyone is going to seriously class what's proposed here as anything other than single storey.
It's not an excuse. It's a requirement of the regulations.
 
Hi think after doing a bit further research is that if you link the extension and the dormer it fails as they will technically regard it as a two storey extension. I think.
I'm happy to be proved wrong but I do not think that is correct.
Whilst a single storey extension joined to a two storey extension can be a problem a dormer is not an extension - it is a roof enlargement which is a different class and subject to different rules. In my opinion the dormer and ground floor extension should be assessed under the separate relevant criteria for a single storey extension and a separate roof enlargement. Obviously if the loft conversion extended into the extension roof it would be a different matter but that is not the case here.
Having said that the planners often do not understand the rules themselves or deliberately choose a very obtuse interpretation to get the result they want. Sometimes you have to play them at their own game to get what you want, whether that is through permitted development or if the work is not too contentious then through a full planning application.
 

DIYnot Local

Staff member

If you need to find a tradesperson to get your job done, please try our local search below, or if you are doing it yourself you can find suppliers local to you.

Select the supplier or trade you require, enter your location to begin your search.


Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local

 
Sponsored Links
Back
Top