Southwark Planning have changed their interpretation of PD - WARNING if you want a loft conversion

[Atticus]

A number of loft conversions have been cropping up in and around East Dulwich under 'permitted development' that extends over the outrigger of the property (i.e. above the kitchen L-shaped section of a standard East Dulwich terrace property).

We are wanting to do the same thing but our application has been refused because.... according to Southwark Council this *isn't* covered under permitted development.

So all those outrigger, loft conversions in East Dulwich that have either been completed recently (since '08 when the law changed) or are in the process of being built may be unlawful?!!! Yet this is being done without contest in other London boroughs and across the country. Have Southwark Planning department got it wrong?

Does anyone have any experience of this? presumably There'll be some very unhappy residents out there when they find out they have to take it all down. Also - who's liable for that mistake? The loft conversion company or the owner?

[HAL9000]

Is this just a bizarre coincidence or is there something more to this ?atticus/loft conversion? resonance?

[first mate]

I for one would wholly support Southwark in trying to keep a handle on the proliferation of L shaped loft conversions that have been cropping up on terrace houses. For one, they really affect the light of the neighbouring property and most look horrendous too.

Some of these loft conversion companies are also very happy to play fast and loose with planning law. Perhaps they have just got away with it thus far and now, thank goodness, planning departments are beginning to crack down.

Loft conversions are lovely for the people that own them but pretty awful for the people who live next door.

[Penguin68]

Permitted development allows an extension to the overall volume of the property up to a given %age limit (with certain caveats, e.g. about not going higher than existing roof-lines etc.). However the'start' size of the property is taken to be the size at (I am guessing here, but it's broadly right) about the war period, perhaps 1950. So any extension work done post this counts towards total permitted development. If there had already been kitchen extension work done (i.e. in the 1980s) that would 'take-up' some of the permitted development allowance.

Equally where the 'outrigger' was already large, the amount of 'new' space gained by building over it may also be above the 'permitted' amount.

'Permitted' development simply means that it meets the rules and doesn't therefore need specific planning permission - i.e. to go before the planning committee. You can still apply (through the more cumbersome and costly) planning permission route for your extension.

Each house is taken at its own merits, based in part on its previous history of development. You may have been refused 'permitted' development, and someone else allowed, on the same design but with different histories (or cubic footages) being taken into account.

There were problems of interpretation when the new rules came in, some councils for instance allowed 'squared off' roofs but wouldn't allow mansard roofs, for no obvious reason - but most of these have now been overcome.

[*Bob*]

first mate Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

For one, they really affect the

> light of the neighbouring property and most look

> horrendous too.

Are you saying you don't find the look of a Victorian house with (essentially) a cheap black portacakin sitting on top aesthetically pleasing?

[first mate]

*Bob* How did you guess :)

[Saila]

i think they tried to relax the laws a bit so that people who needed more space, but couldn't afford to move, could gain space by moving up.

[Pearson]

Under permitted development you are allowed to add 50cubic meters volume to your property.

This is to include any works over and above the 'original property', so in other words if your

property already had an extension to the rear grd floor that was 20cubic mtrs, then you in theory have 30 left!

You will still need to abide to planning reg and building regs for certain aspects of the build/project.

And you should always run your proposal past the local authority in the first instance just to cover any issues

over questions like this.

[Penguin68]

Loft extension over the back of the house (i.e. the outrigger) tends to be much more sympathetic to the property than extensions over the front part, which can look weird and make the roof line unaesthetic. Although permitted developments don't need individual planning permission the planning department can now require certain conditions, including not allowing extensions where the materials planned to be used are seemed to be unsympathetic to the house being built on. And they can be very strict about roof lines.

The days of cheap black porter-cabin extensions sitting like black-death boils on the fronts or front sides of Victorian houses are now, thankfully, generally past, although there still are extant 70's versions sadly with us.

But black slate clad extensions over houses with existing slate roofs are clearly in sympathy with the original house (and I don't have one of those, in case you feel this is special pleading!).

[Penguin68]

Pearson wrote

And you should always run your proposal past the local authority in the first instance just to cover any issues

over questions like this.

I would say this is absolutely vital - if you do so, and at a fee, you will be given a Lawful Development Certificate which will confirm to any future buyer that your extension was kosher - which their solicitor will certainly require. Without it, (and the local authority records which support it) if/ when you come to sell your house you could be in real difficulties.

One caveat on what Peason said - 'original' doesn't actually mean that - there is a cut-off date (1947 I have just discovered) before which changes to the property are deemed to be 'original' - I had this issue with a 1920s built garage on an Edwardian property - because it appeared in a post-war (1951) Ordinance Survey map (but wasn't in a 1916 map, and we could show that such building had to be pre-war as just post-war all building material was devoted to repair and new build of bombed properties and thus wouldn't have been available for a garage, the garage was deemed to be 'original' for the purposes of permitted development.

I quote from an e-mail from the planning department to me:-

Although this does not date back to 1947 as legally required, we will accept this as proof of an existing addition for the purposes of your Lawful Development Certificate.

Edited for typos

[Pearson]

..Double post

[Pearson]

Thank you Penguin68.

Atticus:

What was their exact reply/ reason for the refusal?

Is it simply that you needed to make a full planning application for certain aspects?

Sorry if these questions have been answered or if i've misunderstood.

But a little more information would be really helpful.

[TJ]

The removal of automatic 'permitted development' approval is no great deal and stops unscrupulous developers. You simply apply for full planning permission so the council take longer and look at the proposals in more detail at a cost of ?75 and hopefully (if your architect did his/her job properly) bang goes the rubber stamp.

Probably for the best in the long term.

[Pearson]

^

I think half the problems here might stem from the 'quickie' do-it-all loft company who exploit the 'permitted-dev' route as a means to get the job. It is an appealing package but not without its risks.

As opposed to the traditional method - employing an Architect and submitting planning App/tender for contractors etc

[first mate]

Can I just point out that while aesthetics are important there is also the vital issue of light. Terraces are built close to each other anyhow. Building up can seriously blot the light into your neighbour's home as well as significant parts of their garden.

Aside from wanting more space many loft conversions are built to maximise light for the owner. All of us wnat as much light and space as possible. It seems very unfair that in adding light to your own property you take it from your neighbour...after they have endured months of messy and noisy building work too.

If you want more space move to a larger property.

[Penguin68]

As opposed to the traditional method - employing an Architect and submitting planning App/tender for contractors etc

Permitted development is about the amount of space that is being gained - under 50 cubic metres it doesn't need to go before the planning committee (politicians) for a decision, it is based on meeting standard requirements and is agreed by bureaucrats if it does. I went through this route with fully drawn up architect's plans, input from structural engineers etc. - all the work done by my builder that you would need for a planning application - but without the wait for it to go before a planning meeting and without the requirement for neighbours etc. to object (but I did need formal agreement from the neighbour I share a party-wall with before work could commence). If you want to get a Lawful Development Certificate you need to do this (and the planning authority did get me to change the original design as it didn't meet their requirements). If you don't have the certificate you will find selling down the line a problem. So although you can build under 'permitted development' without planning authority (but of course you must still meet building regs) you would be pretty stupid to, if you ever plan to sell your house without a lot of difficulty, as you would need to prove, retrospectively, that it was a lawful permitted development. Having that done up-front is the realistic and sensible route, and for that you need the proper paraphanalia of plans and surveys.

[James Barber]

Hi Penguin68,

Majority of planning applications are decided by council plannin officers under delegated powers and not councillors(politicians). Decicions are taken by councillors where 3 or more objections have been made or building on Metropolitan Open Land (parks) involved or if a councillor requests a 'call-in' and the planning committee chair agrees to this.

[Penguin68]

James

I knew this - but that's about devolved/ delegated powers - applications under permitted development would never go to the planning committee (as there is no mechanism for objection, inter alia). And I think that even where planning applications aren't debated they do follow the planning committee timetable (or at least, that's true for another authority which I have had dealings with).

The point I was making is that where applications for a Lawful Development Certificate are made the council officers expect to see properly drawn-up plans etc. - so that there 'permitted development' isn't a 'don't care' route to an extension build; the council officers expect to see a professional approach taken. It is possible to 'take a risk' by not involving council officers, but it is a real risk, particularly where a trouble free future sale is contemplated, and Lawful Development Certificate or no, building regs still have to followed, and building inspectors satisfied.

And if you don't do that, you may well have to re-instate the build back to where you started.

[acumenman]

*Bob* wrote:-

Are you saying you don't find the look of a Victorian house with (essentially) a cheap black portacabin sitting on top aesthetically pleasing?

Well I do, but only if it's on my property!

[helenat1970]

Atticus

Just to reply to your original question -

Southwark may (or may not) be right.

The rules for permitted development do not specifically allow or prevent the outrigger on the roof as you describe it. Therefore it is perhaps other issues in your design which have caused Southwark to reject it.

The best (and only way I would advise a homeowner, as an architect) to ensure that you have a lawful loft conversion is to obtain a Certificate of Lawful Development BEFORE the builders make a start on site. So, if you haven't engaged an architect and gone directly to the loft company, you should insist that they obtain this certificate before work starts on your behalf...

The planning portal http://www.planningportal.gov.uk publish a document called 'Permitted development for householders', which sets out the list of rules that your development must comply with. I hope this helps.

[Atticus]

We have used an architect - they are as confused as everyone else is

The original meeting with Southwark went well and we were told to expect approval but this was rejected at the next level.

Our architect was confused because other properties have done, and are doing, *exactly* the same thing in the area. But it turns out those properties had gone straight to a loft company and not received CoL etc so their projects are 'unlawful' and are being investigated (not something we meant to instigate mind)

These houses (and it's not an insignificant number) have clearly been wrongly told they can build under perm development when they can't... However, it's confusing cos it's my architect's understandign (and others i've spoken with) that the perm dev covers this sort of project. So either Southwark have got it wrong or there are a load of properties that have built unlawfully and who knows what'll happen to them?

[peterstorm1985]

Atticus - have you had your calculator out and checked through the permitted developments rules yourself to see if the design your architect came up with appears to comply? The reason that I ask is that you refer to this 'sort of' project but the permitted development rules don't refer to any standard type of extension in that way. The rules are simply a matter of dimensions from the 'existing' building. When your architect says that this sort of project is allowed under permitted development that may of course be true, because there is nothing specifically preventing that 'sort', but it may be that yours is not allowed simply because it's too big in one or more directions.

Unfortunately, Loft design companies want to sell extensions and they are perhaps not as concerned about the legalities as they should be - if you don't apply for a certificate then compliance isn't tested until you sell your property and unless you've written into the contract that they are liable to ensure compliance then they won't be too bothered (And as loft companies don't always last that long, it's safest to get the certificate).

And once one extension goes up in a street of identical houses there is an assumption that it complied and others follow.

I think this is the direct link to the document that helenat1970 refers to. Lengthy (probably too long for some professionals to wade through) but simple enough for mere mortals to understand.

Permitted Dev document

By the way, have you asked Southwark to explain what was wrong with your plan? It would be good to know what their objection was.

[Atticus]

OK - i'm only just beginning to understand this myself so bear with me...

The reason ours has been refused appears to be down to Southwark's specific interpretation of the new legislation which is different to that of other London boroughs. Hence the confusion and reason why these loft companies are going ahead with the unlawful building works in East Dulwich (Southwark)

... so Southwark assumes that the outrigger roof is a separate roof from the main house roof and therefore in order to get the head height of the outrigger you have to increase the height of the wall running along the spine of the outrigger. This is seen as a 'new storey' and not an extension of the existing roof.

Doesn't matter what the m3 are as anything along the outrigger is unlawful according to Southwark

edit to say - In terms of 'who's liable' - it's the owners who'll have to pay for the work to be dismantled and then they'd haveto sue the loft conversion company apparently.

[*Bob*]

acumenman Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> *Bob* wrote:-

> Are you saying you don't find the look of a

> Victorian house with (essentially) a cheap black

> portacabin sitting on top aesthetically pleasing?

>

>

> Well I do, but only if it's on my property!

Well of course.. they sure do look great - from the inside.

It's only when all the other houses - the backs of which you can see from your house - get their own lovely black portakabins attached - it's only then that you realise what an eyesore yours has been all along.

I can't wait to do mine! I'm gonna make sure it looks really, really horrible.

[Penguin68]

Doesn't matter what the m3 are as anything along the outrigger is unlawful according to Southwark

I don't think this is correct. I think that the problem was that, in order to get a working room height, it would have been necessary to raise the height of your outrigger roof line (in an earlier post I noted that permitted development assumed no change to the roof line). So the problem was not that it was an outrigger, but that it was a relatively low outrigger with insufficient clearance to offer workable room heights. The outrigger roof is clearly separate from the main roof and has its own roof line height.

Taller outriggers would have been OK for development, as there would have been no need to raise their height further. I think that, because of its height, anything along your outrigger would have been unlawful. I know this as I have a Certificate of Lawful Development from Southwark on an outrigger extension. But I did have a particularly tall roof line on the outrigger, according to my architect and builder.