Does this planning application have a dormer on?

[Ian H]

I wonder if it would be worth submitting a revised drawing to the application with the dormer included to try and get the planners to admit the dormer is permitted development without actually having to pay for the LDC application.

I've asked the council if they would waive the fee due to them not uploading the right plans. I'm 100% sure that 5B was not on there previously, I think they uploaded the e-mail chain in place of 5B here:

http://documents.rochdale.gov.uk/pav/PublicAccessProvider.ashx?action=ViewDocument

 

[Nakajo]

All that matters is which of the drawings the local authority has on file have codes corresponding to the planning permission. Very occasionally they approve the wrong drawing, which, if it benefits you to do so, you can take as a 'win'

 

[chappers]

The drawings in this case are irrelevant if the dormer is PD then it's PD or am I missing something are you saying that the application was not approved due to the dormer and that it should have been redesigned to comply and that the wrong drawings were submitted, if so that's surely his fault and should be remedied at his expense

 

[Ian H]

The first one submitted was refused because it was too big, it was wider than the original house and didn't meet the councils SPD document.



When he said he would remove and replace it he sent a picture of a smaller dormer which was (roughly) 600mm narrower then the original house. And then submitted a drawing with no dormer.

I've spoken to the couuncil Building Control Officer and he says the smaller one (top picture), still wouldn't meet the SPD.

 

[Nakajo]

The BCO would know nothing about the SPD. I doubt they even know where the planning department is. Perhaps you're thinking of the planning officer or enforcement officer.

 

[Ian H]

Your right, his e-mails say Planning Officer.

The Techological Architectural Technologist hasn't replied to the e-mail I sent for a second time on Thursday. I'm going to have a day off and go to his office.

 

[chappers]

If it isn't higher than the ridge, isn't wider than the original roof , is stepped back in 200mm and doesn't increase the volume of the roof space by over 40/50 cum. then it is PD end of.

 

[Ian H]

Good to know, thanks. We can easily meet all those, it's 2.7mtrs tall inside the loft so maybe 2.9mtrs to the ridge.

Do you know if there a 200mm limit for the ridge as well? On the SPD document it didn't quote a figure.

 

[chappers]

no just shouldn't be higher than the existing ridge. You should be fine should be able to get a head height of over 2.3m out of that

 

[Ian H]

Mind you he is likely to sting you for the Building Regs drawings if he feels aggrieved.

Seems you were right.

Yesterday we had a courtesy call from the Building Control guy, he said the time limit on their bit was due up this week and that it had been rolled over 3 time but they hadn't heard from the Archatect.

Bottom line was I pay him the money or it all goes tits up and we loose the £1000 we had spent on plans and permissions.

I'm massively ****ed off and feel cheated out of £250

But hey ho, life goes on

 

[wessex101]

One thing I've learnt from reading these forums is there are some real arseholes out their trading under the guise of "architects" or "architectural designers." I suppose you get cowboys in all walks of life.

I don't understand how they manage to keep trading as there seem to be plenty of good honest competent professionals out there (like some of the usual suspects who contribute free advice on these forums). What is it about the building industry where dodgy professionals and tradesmen seem to prosper?

I guess you just have to pay up the £250 through gritted teeth and tell all your friends to avoid him in future.

 

[Nakajo]

"we loose [sic] the £1000 we had spent on plans and permissions" - eh?

 

[Ian H]

£635 for him, £172 for building control and £180(?) for planning would be wasted if it expired.

That's almost £1000.

If I didn't give him the £250 I'd be left with a useless plan with no building regs drawings or approvals.

 

[Nakajo]

I see. Well, if £250 can resolve the matter, then I'd be tempted to pursue that route (through gritted teeth, if necessary)

 

[Ian H]

More problems.

The plan drawer and council told us that the dormer needs the certificate of lawfulness.

That cost £86 and was paid in February. Got an e-mail from the plan drawers secretary today:

Can you arrange to call into the office, the certificate of lawfulness had been knocked back by Rochdale Council...
.... because he has designed it to big, its 55cu/mtrs.

It's been over a year now for something he described as 'easy'.