Is this allowed under permitted development ?

[KFC68]

Hi, below is a roof dormer being currently built under permitted development rights.

Here is a closer look, they demolished their half of the chimney (have a look at white building to compare) and seem to have extended over the party wall ! - notice how it attached and incorporated next door's chimney and goes almost half way across it.

Then there is the bottom portion where it meets the eves, I believe that under Permitted development rights, it has to be 20 cms above the original eves, as you can see they have extended past the original line of the adjoining property and now have it jutting out at the bottom.

My neighbour has just had a big loft conversion done about a year ago, and had the local council building control on his back all the way, not giving an inch !

But this roof dormer seems to break various rules, my neighbour feels like he has had a rough deal and is really p***ed off at what overlook his back yard.

Is this allowed, can he do anything about it ?

Cheers,

 

[tony1851]

What they've done is build the dormer front off the outer skin, and then added eaves to ensure that the dormer front is at least 200mm from the outer edge of the tiles, where they overhang the gutter.

This is an attempt to bring it within the pd rules (any slight encroachment over the party wall is irrelevant), so technically the dormer is not pd.
However, whether the planning department will do anything about it is another matter, and enforcement is entirely at their discretion. If I was the enforcement officer, I would not take action over that.

In a theoretical worst-case scenario for the owner, they could ultimately require him to set the dormer front back a few centimeters, but this will have zero effect on the overall look of the dormer from your side. It would cost the owner £££ and will do little to help neighbourly relations; consider the wider picture - you have to live there.

On a separate note; if your neighbour has had the council Building Control people causing him trouble, he should have used private inspectors for his dormer instead.

 

[Nakajo]

If I was the enforcement officer, I would be sorely tempted to take action on the 20cm encroachment. I have a separate issue with the width, which is that it's now nigh impossible for the neighbour to build a similar extension. I think the rules should insist rather the opposite - that the party wall be built up to the full height of the dormer.

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

If I was the enforcement officer, I would be sorely tempted to take action on the 20cm encroachment. I have a separate issue with the width, which is that it's now nigh impossible for the neighbour to build a similar extension. I think the rules should insist rather the opposite - that the party wall be built up to the full height of the dormer.

And to what would realistically be gained in taking enforcement?

 

[tony1851]

If I was the enforcement officer, I would be sorely tempted to take action on the 20cm encroachment.

But why? As fmt, if the owner re-built the front a few cm back, it would have no effect on the overall look, and would cost the owner £s.
Besides, the policy guidelines on enforcement advise LPAs that enforcement may not be appropriate for "a minor or technical breach where no harm has occured". I would say this is a minor breach, and that no harm has occured, because they could still build an almost identical dormer under pd.

 

[RichA]

AFAIK change to the chimney is also not allowed, but is pretty minor.

 

[^woody^]

Your neighbour's issues with building control, have nothing to do with planning permission on that dormer.

Even with a 200mm set back, that dormer would still look like a bag of ****e, but there is nothing that could be done.

PD has lost its way, and these monstrosities are blighting everywhere now. Very sad.

 

[KFC68]

Thank you everybody for your replies, you have demonstrated how things work in reality compared to the rules that most decent people would try to adhere to. My neighbour did everything by the book and kept to all the rules.

Some people may bend the rules a bit whilst some people are more blatant and greedy.

I feel sorry for my neighbour who has this overlooking his back yard, but he'll probably just have to get used to it.

But worse for the property owner who is attached, who will have problems if he needs to alter his chimney, have any roof work done, or wanted to build something similar.

These people used an Approved Building Control Inspector as apposed to the Local Authority one, some people say that the relationship between these private approved inspectors and the client is too close and will do more in favour of the developer, and help you get around the rules.

Lesson learnt !

Cheers

(p.s. I will update here, if there is any change to this development, which seems unlikely.)

 

[Nakajo]

Maybe. But I doubt that the LABC even knows where the planning dept is

 

[KFC68]

So true, when we enquired about this, it took them months to relpy, then passed form pillar to post, missing the question that was been asked and skirting around the issues raised.

 

[KFC68]

They can't give a straight answer !

 

[tony1851]

The rule is that an approved private inspector must give the local planning authority five days notice before inspecting building work. This makes the LPA aware that work is taking place, and to check the Planning Permission status if required.

 

[Nakajo]

I wonder... They're required to notify the local authority, not the planning department. I doubt that the notice would even reach the desk of the planning department within the 5 days - let alone that they would be able to verify that the works required, and had obtained, permission.

 

[tony1851]

I wonder... They're required to notify the local authority, not the planning department. I doubt that the notice would even reach the desk of the planning department within the 5 days - let alone that they would be able to verify that the works required, and had obtained, permission.

That's their problem!

 

[KFC68]

I have just met with the local Councillor who came round to have a look, he is on the planning committee.
He asked, how long ago were concerns raised with the council about this.
I explained that it was back in June, when I got a reply from - the Planning and Development Management Team East - "in my informal opinion, it appears that what has been built is not permitted development."
After this email the council seemed fob us off, and drag their heels, - he said that the planning department is overwhelmed, under staffed and in his 'off the record opinion' - wasn't fit for purpose !
I showed him all the legislation, rules, of which he admitted that he wasn't very expert in, and took a copies with the relevant bits highlighted.
He didn't refer to the rules, but said that it was like having a block of flats in your back garden, overbearing and out of character of the whole street, and that it could set a precedence if it was allowed.
He took some pictures and spoke to the nearby neighbours and explained that he will raise the issues in the next planning meeting on Tuesday.
Probably too little too late now.