DIY Amendment

[A_Novice]

Hi guys,

I am still persevering with the possibility of an extension over my garage. Have received great help on here.

I have planning permission but it means the first floor was set back 1.4m. I was advised by the council to resubmit with a set back of 0.5m but change the barn hip roof to a full hip.

Unfortunately I have lost my architect so am planning to create the elevations myself.

They aren't great so don't shoot me down but needed help with the roof. I am confused on how steep the angle should be on the hip and when the ridge should flatten out to join to the gable.

Any help would be appreciated.

I have also attached a hip roof example from the planning app that has prompted me to resubmit as it has the 0.5m set back.

The first image with the 3 elevations is mine.

 

[tony1851]

You can't draw the elevations of the roof until you have drawn the plan of the roof itself.
In plan, the hips must be at 45° to the front and side elevations, and between the side and rear elevation, otherwise the slopes differ and it doesn't work. On your drawing, the side-facing slope is shown far too steep.

Your side extension looks to be more than twice as long as it is wide. Therefore as the hips should be at 45° on plan,it means you will not get a horizontal ridge.
Instead, you will have a short horizontal section against the existing side gable.
It seems odd that you are putting a hipped-roof extension on a gable roof house?

 

[A_Novice]

That is a massive help thank you.

The council insist on it being a full hip or a barn hip especially as we are going to the side boundary. It isn't ideal but better than nothing.

I was advised if I want just a 0.5m set back it would be better to go with a full hip.

These are the elevations for the 1.4m set back with a barn hip roof. (not done by me)

 

[^woody^]

Take the colours off.
Thick outline to the new work or just hatch the new work

Consider losing the corner pier "to match existing" - the extension is not going to match at all with a different roof and new bricks.

Remove that nonsense bit of flat roof on the front canopy - waste of time, hard to build and maintenance issues.
The section of roof will then be higher up the extension wall.

Submit with a gable, argue and change it afterwards if need be for the approval? Keep in contact with the planners.
Or submit semi-hip and just build a gable?
Semi-hips are fully awful. I'd suggest a full hip. But either way there is the issue of overhanging gutter and soffit to consider

I'm not sure what that B/W image is in the OP. Delete it and burn it, it hurts my eyes.

 

[tony1851]

I'm not sure what that B/W image is in the OP. Delete it and burn it, it hurts my eyes.

 

[A_Novice]

Thanks Woody.

"Consider losing the corner pier "to match existing" - the extension is not going to match at all with a different roof and new bricks."

So just have no pier and have tile to the edge then brick down the side?

"Remove that nonsense bit of flat roof on the front canopy - waste of time, hard to build and maintenance issues.
The section of roof will then be higher up the extension wall."

Do you mean just continue the porch/garage pitched roof until it meets the new extension wall?


Ideally I would like a gable but building to the boundary they are insisting on hips.

I have included a photo of my property to make it easier to visualise.

Again I appreciate everyone's help on this , thanks.

 

[tony1851]

Slightly off-topic here, but your estate seems to be of fairly modern-ish properties ('70s, '80s?) with what I would imagine are predominantly gable-end roofs rafther than hipped roofs?

If that's the case, I can't understand the planning people asking for a hipped roof, which could well be out of character with the area.
But this is just a general malaise among planning officers - particularly junior ones who are allocated domestic extensions. From my own experience of many years having to deal with these idiots, I would say their understanding of architecture - and design in general - is often abysmal.

 

[A_Novice]

Slightly off-topic here, but your estate seems to be of fairly modern-ish properties ('70s, '80s?) with what I would imagine are predominantly gable-end roofs rafther than hipped roofs?

If that's the case, I can't understand the planning people asking for a hipped roof, which could well be out of character with the area.
But this is just a general malaise among planning officers - particularly junior ones who are allocated domestic extensions. From my own experience of many years having to deal with these idiots, I would say their understanding of architecture - and design in general - is often abysmal.

I think they believe if we have a gable and go to the side boundary it would cause terracing if next door decided to do the same. The policy actually stipulates you build 1m from the side boundary but they seem to be relaxing that at the moment.

The street has gable roofs and also the roof in the below pic. This is my neighbours property.

 

[tony1851]

I think they believe if we have a gable and go to the side boundary it would cause terracing if next door decided to do the same.

That I can understand, but most councils address that by demanding a set-back. Your set-back of 0.5m is generous from your point of view; many councils where i am look for a minimum of 1 - 2m, which tends to prevent any sideways extension of the front corner bedroom.

 

[A_Novice]

Would anyone be kind enough to sketch on how a full hip would look against my gable roof?

 

[^woody^]

It was not actually clear that the front was tile hung, but even so, there is such a small area of wall that I'd just have it in brick. The canopy roof looks like it would go up to cill level

There is no merit at all in tiling it. Same for the back.

Looking at the front photo, I'd wonder if a wider frame would be better most of the way across the extension. Matching the front frames with perhaps a narrow section of while cladding either side? In this case, yes a pier would help.

 

[tony1851]

My invoice is in the post.

 

[A_Novice]

Thanks so much for that. Would be happy to pay but might be against forum rules!

I managed to get something similar. ish

 

[^woody^]

Yes that it @tony1851 , but as a design its awful. Mish-mash would be the correct planning term, but planners probably can't see that.

Can you now have a go at a chalet-style roof with the front canopy roof continuing up to a ridge and a wide dormer on the front. Thanks.

 

[A_Novice]

Yes that it @tony1851 , but as a design its awful. Mish-mash would be the correct planning term, but planners probably can't see that.

Can you now have a go at a chalet-style roof with the front canopy roof continuing up to a ridge and a wide dormer on the front. Thanks.

I agree a full hip next to a gable doesn't look great but there isn't really a choice.