Planning application refused for loft conversion

[LouiseSpjwlow]

Earlier this year we submitted a planning application that proposed a loft conversion with a dormer to the rear that matched our immediate neighbours dormer and at least 13 other dormers on our street. All are tastefully designed with pitched roofs and brick front work. All of these dormers were built before October 2008 and from what I understand did not need planning permission and were built as permitted developments. Our architect advised us that post Oct 2008 we could not secure the same development as a permitted development because the dormers extended right to eaves (with no set back). We thought the council would consider our application favourably as all we were trying to do was to match our neighbours dormer and several others on our street.

We we wrong. We feel that we have been unfairly treated. When I met with the planning officer she said there was little she could do because the council's guidelines are somewhat limited when it comes to dormers. The planning officer recommended that we build a similar dormer but set it back 20cm the eaves. I explained that this would cause an untidy front with gutting and flashing which could be avoided if we matched up. She suggested that I contact my local Councillor which we did. Luckily our Councillor who lives a few streets away fully supports our point of view and has recalled our application to the next planning committee next Thursday. I have 3 minutes to put my case forward and our Councillor has 5 minutes. We also have strong letters of support from neighbours.

Does anyone know why it is better to set back 20cm? It would not be so much of a problem if all the other dormers were set back. I get the feeling from the various forums that councils really don't like dormers and that the only way to get them through is by permitted development.

Any tips for success gratefully received!

Thanks

 

[DevilDamo]

Your situation is very similar to this...

//www.diynot.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=228133

Why don't you just go in for a full planning application as opposed in trying to get it under PD?

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

Why don't you just go in for a full planning application as opposed in trying to get it under PD?

From what the OP has said they applied for PP but it was refused? Not very clear tbh. If so why don't you just you appeal it? It needn't be that expensive, good (economical) Planning Consultants can be found and if the Planners have made a few booboos along the way you may even get costs awarded to you if you succeed.

 

[lpasengland]

Hi LouiseSpjwlow,

I can see why this situation is so frustrating for you, particularly as you're applying for the same dormer that your neighbours already have. However, it's not necessarily a case of the Council being unfair - it's more to do with a fundamental problem with the planning system.

In short, there are two completely different areas of planning legislation, and they really don't match up at all well ...

1 - Firstly there is the system of "permitted development", which is where your extension is automatically granted planning permission by government legislation, so long as it complies with a series of requirements. If you apply for a certificate under this system, then your Council is required by law to assess your extension strictly against the requirements of this government legislation, and all other factors outside of this legislation are irrelevant. Such an assessment is very much a "tick-box" exercise, and in theory (i.e. ignoring the ambiguities of the legislation) your Council is not meant to have any discretion. For example, one of the requirements of this legislation is that the volume of a roof extension must be less than 40m3 - this means that 39.9m3 IS permitted development and 40.1m3 is NOT permitted development, and there is absolutely no leeway. Similarly, assuming that a set-back is "practicable", then your dormer is either set-back by at least 20cm and is permitted development, or is set-back by less than this and is not permitted development. Even if every single property in your street had a rear dormer with no set-back, the Council would still be required by law to refuse an application for a certificate for a dormer with no set-back, because it does not comply with the current version of the government permitted development legislation.

2 - Secondly, there is the system of "planning applications", which is where your extension needs planning permission from your Council. This system has more discretion, because it involves assessing things such as "appearance" and "impact on neighbours", which are obviously subjective concepts. However, this discretion is still restricted by the fact that by law the Council is required to determine an application for planning in accordance with its development plan (i.e. its UDP or LDF), unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Most Council's adopted policies (UDP or LDF) and guidance (SPG or SPD) will strongly indicate that full-width dormers are normally unacceptable (for appearance reasons), either by saying so directly, or by stating that significant set-ins are required (e.g. from the ridge-line, party walls, and eaves). It's true that this system does make some allowance for exceptional cases, such as where it could be argued that there are already so many other full-width dormers that they have now become part of the character of the area, and that therefore granting another full-width dormer wouldn't be contrary to policy (or would be a sufficient material consideration to override the policy). However, if the 13 properties that have full-width dormers are still in a minority (e.g. they represent (say) 25% of the properties along the street), then in my experience it would be common for Council officers to take the view that the overall character of the street is still properties without such large dormers (e.g. the other 75% of properties), and to therefore refuse an application for such a dormer. This is not necessarily a case of Council officers being unfair - it is just an assessment that your dormer is contrary to Council policies.

In my view, a very fundamental problem with the planning system is that the above two areas of planning law don't really have much overlap - meaning that for extensions such as dormers, once you exceed the permitted development tolerances by even a slight amount, you have almost no chance of getting planning permission from the Council. Most developers and people wishing to extend would probably argue that Councils should make their policies more permissive like permitted development, and most Council officers and many neighbours of people wishing to extend would probably argue that the government should make permitted development more restrictive like Council policies. The answer is probably somewhere in the middle, but until the government changes the law to sort out the huge gulf between the two systems (and I've seen no evidence that the past or present government has even recognised this problem) then contradictory cases like yours will continue to arise on a fairly regular basis.

Thanks,
Steve

PS: Sorry all, I know my defence of Councils will probably start to sound like a stuck record soon, if it hasn't already ...

 

[DevilDamo]

the volume of a roof extension must be less than 40m3 - this means that 39.9m3 IS permitted development and 40.1m3 is NOT permitted development, and there is absolutely no leeway.

Oooh. I may even go so far as in 40 cu.m is also NOT acceptable as it has to be UNDER.

And btw, it's 40 cu.m for semi-detached/terraced houses and 50 cu.m for detached... isn't it?

 

[lpasengland]

Hi DevilDamo,

You're certainly right - there's two limits - 40m3 for terrace houses, and 50m3 for semi-detached houses and detached houses.

What I always find confusing is that for ground floor rear extensions it's 3m for terrace houses and semi-detached houses, and 4m for detached houses, meaning that for the purposes of Class A semi-detached houses are grouped with terrace houses, whilst for the purposes of Class B semi-detached houses are grouped with detached houses. It's almost as if the legislation was deliberately designed to confuse people ... !!!

Thanks,
Steve

 

[DevilDamo]

Clear as mud I think

 

[jeds]

Go to appeal. Inspectors are often far more sensible than LA planners. If it looks right and is consistent with the neighbours there's a good chance it will be approved.

 

[LouiseSpjwlow]

Thanks for all your comments and advice. We have re-submitted our application for planning and with our local Councillor's support it has be called in to the next planning committee meeting this Thursday. We have 3 minutes to show photos and present local material evidence in support of our application and our Councillor has 5 minutes. Two members of the panel came to visit our house over the weekend and we have been told to expect more visits, they seemed supportive. I have been informed that the Committee will consider the Council's recommendation for refusal but that the decision will be a 'judgement' based on the evidence provided at the meeting.

Fingers crossed!

Thanks again.

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

I have found that if you can get your neighbours to write in letters of support or emails it can (sometimes) help something get through. Even if they're written outside of the public consultation period.

 

[andymet87]

Go to appeal. Inspectors are often far more sensible than LA planners. If it looks right and is consistent with the neighbours there's a good chance it will be approved.

In this case I agree with the above... Go to appeal if it was refused. Hopefully it wasnt though!

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

Inspectors are often far more sensible than LA planners.

About as often as they are not!

 

[LouiseSpjwlow]

Just to say that the Planning Committee meeting took place last Thursday. We had our 3 minutes and our Councillor had 5 mintutes. We presented pictures of the various dormers on our street etc. Guess what!!! the committee went against the planning officers recommendation and gave us approval!!! They said that the dormer actually improved the property rather than being intrusive and detrimental.

It has restored some of my faith in the system.

Thanks for everyone's advice.

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

It has restored some of my faith in the system.

Well that's just foolish talk!

Well done though.