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

[Atticus]

Unfortuantely most people dont have tall outriggers and a number of developments that have gone up (in fact all the ones that have been pointed out as a "precendent" to Southwark when my architect was talking to them) are unlawful...

[peterstorm1985]

What penguin68 says makes perfect sense. When I suggested a calculator I didn't just mean for volumetric purposes. I'm afraid the Permitted Development rules are very clearly more than a matter of cubic metres. It really is worth sitting down with a (Very large) glass of something and reading through the document. Changes of roof line are a definite no no.

Out of interest, how do you know that other councils interpret the rules differently? It may not be a matter of interpretation; perhaps there is an additional local planning relaxation (perhaps due to a greater shortage of family housing etc).

[Atticus]

completely agree

btw - it's not that i (and all loft conv companies and architects) don't understand that Southwark views an outrigger roof as a completely separate roof. The issue is that unfortunatley there are a number of loft conversions which are unlawful out there and some are being built as we speak. Southwark are aware of where/who they are and have informed my architect that they are unlawful

i only know information that my architect and loft companies have shared with me (all of whom appear on this forum and are used time and time again) regarding the fact that other boroughs have interpreted the law as meaning that each property has one roof height and that is the roof height you can build up to.

I think my plan is to just wait and see what happens

either Southwark will reverse their orginal interpretation and bring it in line wtih that of other boroughs OR those poor folk who have gone ahead with the unlawful builds will have to dismantle their work....

I'll just go ahead with the smaller version once this has all been resolved.

[tiddles]

the other problem is that often the planning officer will say one thing, but then get over-ruled by their boss - who may not even 'get' the proposed work and common sense is over-ruled . Also there is the dreadful confusion about the 'new legislation' and how to interpret it as mentioned above - there are some even worse stories from lambeth so just thank your lucky stars you don't live there.

Lastly the planners are supposed to respond to an application within a given time frame - they are often overstretched and rather than admit that and miss their targets, they refuse based on silly niggles (the plans aren't quite the right scale) and so. Sorry to sound so quite so negative but I don't have the alot of confidence in planning departments.

[Pearson]

tiddles Wrote:

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

> Lastly the planners are supposed to respond to an

> application within a given time frame

8 weeks

- they are

> often overstretched and rather than admit that and

> miss their targets, they refuse based on silly

> niggles (the plans aren't quite the right scale)

> and so. Sorry to sound so quite so negative but I

> don't have the alot of confidence in planning

> departments.

As you say, it does boil down to the individual dealing with your application.Get them on your side!

they can be complete pests but if you want to get something approved and it's a little contentious then they are your only real hope without having to get legal.

[Atticus]

it does feel a bit like 'one rule' for one person and another for the next....

... the above example as a case in point

surely it's just down right unfair that some developments are allowed and others aren't - in the same street? perhaps because a planning officer 'liked' the client?

[Pearson]

It is entirely justifiable to argue that X property has set a precedence.

In most cases this should work in your favour.

That said, i've noticed of late that planners tend to come out with the

'well since 2004 we've changed the rules regarding that aspect bla bla bla'

and of course you're left reeling and it's hard to counter that.

It is not an exact science unfortunately.

[Atticus]

i agree - and there are a lot of precedents out there...

.. hence my OP

[Pearson]

:( sorry i can't offer much further advice.

You do have an Architect working for you i gather which should help.

But they need to be quite pushy when it come to situations like this!

All too often architect tend to be a bit too passive with planners!!

I have a lot of experience with contentious planning issues.

Ie i have a client who doesn't give a hoot and i am left having

to fight their case all too often!!

[Atticus]

there's a family who have recently appealed and failed.. not sure what else you can do other than appeal?

it just seems the more i learn about this the more if feels like quite a big issue.

the ramifications for those who have done this are pretty big and the knock on effect (loft conversion companies) could mean they have huge legal issues/costs...

... Southwark had better be right cos there's a lot of money riding on all this

[Pearson]

Atticus, I empathize with you.

Sadly it's a little bit like putting a legal case together.

Buy that i mean you really need to know the history and exact details and processes you have been through

to get to where you are now. I don't have a clear picture of your case.

PM me if you like and i'll see if i can offer any further help, but really need more information.

P/

[Atticus]

thanks - i'll pm you now

things is - i'm fine cos i've not done the development - it's the poor s*ds who're sitting in an unlawful property that we should feel for

[sambobia]

Surely, Southwark have got it wrong. The technical guidance is quite explicit (p32): 'the highest part of the roof will be the height of the ridge line of the main roof'. The main roof, not a secondary, lower roof:

http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/uploads/100806_PDforhouseholders_TechnicalGuidance.pdf

Additions and alterations made to a roof to enlarge a house (e.g. a loft conversion or

the replacement of an existing flat roof with a pitched roof) will only be permitted

development if no part of the house once enlarged exceeds the height of the highest

part of the roof of the existing house. If it does, planning permission will be required.

The highest part of the roof of the existing dwelling house will be the height of the

ridge line of the main roof (even though there may be other ridge lines at a lower

level) or the height of the highest roof where roofs on a building are flat.

[Atticus]

sambobia Wrote:

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

> Surely, Southwark have got it wrong. The technical

> guidance is quite explicit (p32): 'the highest

> part of the roof will be the height of the ridge

> line of the main roof'. The main roof, not a

> secondary, lower roof:

>

> http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/uploads/100806_PD

> forhouseholders_TechnicalGuidance.pdf

>

> Additions and alterations made to a roof to

> enlarge a house (e.g. a loft conversion or

> the replacement of an existing flat roof with a

> pitched roof) will only be permitted

> development if no part of the house once enlarged

> exceeds the height of the highest

> part of the roof of the existing house. If it

> does, planning permission will be required.

>

> The highest part of the roof of the existing

> dwelling house will be the height of the

> ridge line of the main roof (even though there may

> be other ridge lines at a lower

> level) or the height of the highest roof where

> roofs on a building are flat.

Exactly... the rest of the london boroughs agree with your interpretation.

What's clear is that if you do things 'by the book' and go through Southwark you won't be allowed to do this

Yet, most have just gone ahead (probably in good faith cos of this confusion) and now have their larger loft extension...

Hardly an incentive to do things 'by the book'...

[Jeremy]

Atticus, you should consider yourself lucky. If you lived in a flat, they wouldn't even let you put up a dormer across the back.

[architectsimon]

Atticus,

As your architect on this matter, I think it could be time to set a few things straight here! Southwark Council's view on this has been formed by the following appeal decision against a property in the area:

"In my opinion this advice is clearly relevant to the matter before me in the

appeal. It is common ground that the scheme satisfies Class B. However,

criterion (g) of Class A cannot be satisfied since the enlarged part of the

dwellinghouse is within two metres of the boundary and is greater than three

metres in height. Page 21 of the document states that "where any part of an

extension to a house is within two metres of the boundary of the land

surrounding the property, then the maximum height of the eaves that is

allowed for all parts of the proposal is three metres". I therefore conclude

that the proposed development is not permitted by the Order and requires

planning permission. The appeal must accordingly fail."

We have questioned this every step of the way. As a local resident of East Dulwich, there are lots of people having this work done by building companies as they are not fully up to speed on the regualations. A friend of my wife's, 6 doors down, has fallen for it through a local loft comapany.

I have spoken with the case officer at Southwark Council and this is their stance. The head of planning would not take my call.....

[ianr]

The appeal decision referred to is, I presume, this one [PDF, 84kB].

What's the actual status of the Technical Guidance document? Is there anything in statute or regulation that says that the SoS may publish such guidance, which shall be given due regard or whatever? What is there, in other words, to say that it is anything more than opinion?

That said, I don't, as an ignoramus in building matters, see any reason why the extension in that case shouldn't be considered within Class A. Does anyone argue that there could be one?

And is there any evidence that other LAs have come to diffferent decisions in similar cases?

[Shankley]

If I understand it correctly (and I probably don't!) the reason it has to be considered under Class A in addition to class B is because of the fact that the flat Roof on the rear addition (loft) joins onto the roof of the main house, correct?

Don't these L shaped conversions step down at the back and the rear flat roof meets the rear wall of the main building and therefore doesn't "join onto the main roof"

If this is the case then surely it is wrong to consider the build under Class A?

[peterstorm1985]

Shankley Wrote:

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

> If I understand it correctly (and I probably

> don't!) the reason it has to be considered under

> Class A in addition to class B is because of the

> fact that the flat Roof on the rear addition

> (loft) joins onto the roof of the main house,

> correct?

I think you may be reading this the wrong way round. Class B relates to additions and alterations to the roofs which Southwark agree is complied with. Class A is for extensions to the house (which Southwark consider includes any additional roof). It doesn't matter whether the roof on the rear return joins on to the main roof or not, it will still be part of the house which is subject to Class A.

[Shankley]

Well if that is the case then surely no loft conversion would be granted under permitted development because they would be within 2 meters of the boundary (if terraced) or over 3 meters high?

Getting more confused!!

[peterstorm1985]

Shankley Wrote:

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

> Well if that is the case then surely no loft

> conversion would be granted under permitted

> development because they would be within 2 meters

> of the boundary (if terraced) or over 3 meters

> high?

> Getting more confused!!

There is nothing to restrict a loft conversion where the roof is already high enough, which is why there are loads of legal loft conversions in ED. If you look at the pictures in the guidance notes you will see that in this type of extension the eaves are unchanged (so they won't be subject to any restriction - it's only what you change that needs to be considered.)

The problem arises where a separate section of roof is at a much lower level.

The row of houses behind me is terraced and all have the rear return. I've looked at all the loft conversions and I think I approve of Southwark's stance. The (six) extensions that I can see solely in the main roof don't have any significant effect on the neighbours. But there is one portakabin type on the return (that I assume to be illegal, as the original roof was much lower) that must block the light to the window of the upper storey of the adjacent house as the sun moves round during the day. It's also hideous.

[sambobia]

Like Shankley (and Atticus), now thoroughly confused. Atticus's case (as I understand it) concerns an extension to the original dwelling and a loft conversion (therefore, Classes a and b). I can find no part of the technical guidance which prohibits a loft conversion on a side return built as part of the original dwelling, even if this means raising the height of that (side return) roof.

Specifically, Class B, Technical Guidance:

'This provides permitted development rights for the enlargement of a house

consisting of an addition or alteration to its roof.'

And, again, Class B:

'Additions and alterations made to a roof to enlarge a house (e.g. a loft conversion or

the replacement of an existing flat roof with a pitched roof) will only be permitted

development if no part of the house once enlarged exceeds the height of the highest

part of the roof of the existing house.'

'The highest part of the roof of the existing house.' Confused? Er, yeah....

[Administrator]

Moving this to the Lounge as it is not East Dulwich specific any more

Edited: To add "any more"

[Atticus]

-- moved topic --

[Atticus]

highly confusing - no wonder there are a number of properties... in East Dulwich ... which are unlawful