Hip to gable loft extension and how it works

[DevilDamo]

I’ve also seen that in some hip to gable roof extensions, the eaves are retained for PD works.

 

[Mumblejumble]

Hi yes it was hip to gable loft conversion with rear dormer and as it was built on the wall it was not permitted as per the council who only realised when I had built this way as the rest who have built like this r all fine. Pls see docs attached and see what u think? Thanks

 

[tony1851]

Was the planning inspector who refused the appeal aware that it was originally a hipped roof?

Someone - either the council or Planning Inspectorate - has cocked up big-time. If it's a hipped roof, there is no legal requirement to maintain an eaves at the side. You have to maintain the 200mm distance from the edge of the tiles at the back, but not at the side. This is specifically allowed in the rules.
So far as I can see from the pics, as long as you are < 40m3, it is PD and the council has no say in it at all.

(The anomally is that if there is an original gable roof, then you should leave a course or two of tiles/slates to show some remaining roof, and set the dormer cheek in. But - perhaps due to poor drafting of the wording of the orginal Statutory Instrument - this does not apply if it is a hipped roof).

You need to go through Part B of the PD rules line by line and explain to your council where they are misinterpreting the rules.

 

[Mumblejumble]

Attached is the appeal dismissal. Think I should sue the architect who changed the first plans in order to obtain permission without my knowledge, had that been refused I would of appealed that and then when the council had asked what I intend to do I would of said I would bring it within PD.

 

[wessex101]

Ignoring the fact that it is one of the ugliest roof extensions I have ever seen......the flank wall of the dormer is brick and the rear wall of the dormer is tile hanging. That alone would take it outside of PD in my humble opinion. The dormer finish should be of a similar material to the roof covering.
I wonder if you could clad the brickwork flank wall in tile hanging to bring it back within PD (assuming the total volume of the dormer is OK)?

 

[DevilDamo]

Ignoring the fact that it is one of the ugliest roof extensions I have ever seen......the flank wall of the dormer is brick and the rear wall of the dormer is tile hanging. That alone would take it outside of PD in my humble opinion. The dormer finish should be of a similar material to the roof covering.
I wonder if you could clad the brickwork flank wall in tile hanging to bring it back within PD (assuming the total volume of the dormer is OK)?

I completely agree. It just doesn’t look right and I can see why the LPA have concerns. Even with a gable end, you’d retain the roof profile and then the dormer would ‘appear’ to be set in from the edge. Just some examples where they look a lot better and is something the LPA may prefer!?!

 

[Mumblejumble]

I agree with u it’s not the most pleasant looking extensions hence I’m listening to what the council r saying and going to get the brick work taken off and then it would be set in hanging with tiles and tiles going down that side. Looking like dormer. The council have allowed so many that’s issue and they still appearing even after my case but I’m not saying anything cause I wouldn’t want anyone to go through what I have. Thanks for the pics. I’ll show u loads that I’ve seen round here and these are only few the builder that did mine has done at lease 30 like mine if not more.

 

[Mumblejumble]

These are 2 I found not far from me I couldn’t fine any permissions, just out of curiosity would it be permitted?

 

[tony1851]

@Wessex and DOHa.
With respect to you both, you don't say why the side of the dormer should be set in, particularly as the rules specifically allow no set-in when doing a hip-to-gable?

(If it was an original gable roof, I agree that the cheek should be set back a tile or two, otherwise it ceases to be a 'roof enlargement' but becomes instead a second storey)

As regards the materials - yes - agreed they should match in tone. But if the existing side wall is brick, then continuing that face in brick appears compliant to me (though I agree in this particular case, the brick could have been a better match).

The tiling on the rear face is appropriate because it matches the tone of the roof.

If it then went to appeal (after making an ill-advised planning application) perhaps the inspector was not aware that it could have been PD (on account of the original hipped roof, which of course was no longer visible). But then the inspector will only adjudicate on the plans and papers before him or her.

 

[DevilDamo]

Yes I know what you saying. When does a hip to gable including a dormer become a side extension!?! To me it just doesn’t look right and I can kind of see why the LPA consider it more an extension than what you can do under PD. I’m not sure if it’s because the fascias are not visible so the gable roof profile has been lost?

 

[Mumblejumble]

This is the pic of how my roof was b4 hand the end terrace Putting all this to side and me agreeing to detach the dormer from the side.
Pls let me know if u think the council are right on asking me to set the tile hung dormer on the rear to be set in 300mm and to set the height down 200mm. As I’ve stated that they have said my development would be 33.95 so I would still have 6cubic meters remaining and there are no such conditions on PD about set in from the other side cause there’s no wall just a continuous roof from the terraces and mine is sitting on my own roof within my boundary. Also along as the roof of the dormer is not higher then the highest part of the roof why does it need setting down 200mm from the ridge?
They say my development would be permitted then put such conditions on it which are not part of the guidance. What confuses me even more is that the refusal planning permission said this:

iii) Impact on Residential Amenity (Policy 10 of the ACS)
Given the size and position of the rear dormer is considered that this would have no greater impact upon the neighbour to either side than the existing first floor windows at the rear, which currently have an outlook over the neighbouring gardens. It is noted that the windows are in similar positions to the approved scheme.
Having regard to the location of the extension, and the relationship with the site boundaries, it is considered that the proposal would have an acceptable impact on the privacy and amenity of neighbouring properties. The proposal therefore complies with Policy 10 of the Aligned Core Strategy, at least in this respect.

 

[DevilDamo]

It sounds like you submitted a formal Planning application to which the Council had concerns. They mentioned the proposal could be carried out under PD but because a formal application has been submitted, they have stated they’d like the dormer set in from the side and the roof set down (more) from the ridge. So they have applied Local Plan policies which they can for formal applications. If it was solely a CoL application for PD, then the outcome will be different because providing you adhere to the PD rules, then that’s it... PD.

 

[tony1851]

@op, it seems you may have been wrongly advised to submit a planning application in the first place.
Having said that, just because it's been refused PP, doesn't mean it cannot be PD.

Just write back to them and tell them that the Planning Application was wrongly accepted, and that you are leaving it as it is PD. Bringing the roof down 200mm would be a big cost, whereas under PD rules there is no stipulation on this, other than that it must be no higher than the ridge.

Have you applied for a LDC? I don't know the legalities of that once a Planning Application has been made, but it would put the ball firmly in the council's court because they would have to explain why they believed it not to be PD, rather than you having to prove it is.

Don't be intimidated by c r a p from planning officers; many threads on this forum over the years show that many officers don't know the PD rules as well as they should.

 

[Mumblejumble]

My lovely neighbour reported me who I asked permission from and was more then happy for me to carry out the works cause the council ain’t bothered otherwise as u can see from the pics I’ve sent u of loads like mine and more appearing. Then I got this through. So under the Nottingham City plan I can’t even build one like this only under PD so that can’t pick and choose to use different rules on me from to sources it’s either PD or it ain’t allowed simple.

 

[DevilDamo]

it’s either PD or it ain’t allowed simple.

Take your own advice as it’s you’re only option.