What do you think? It's a bit funny quaint looking on this front corner. :)
It is a bit odd isn't it - he's obviously (almost) converted a hip roof to a gable-end (if that's the correct vernacular) - I can't imagine why he didn't follow it through to the front wall of the house?
Maybe getting round some planning stipulation that the front elevation of the property wouldn't be altered at all? I wouldn't mind betting that the plans submitted for Planning Permission are slightly different to the final result!
David
It only went for building control whatsists - not planning permission
- permitted development...
You can still do a hipped to gable conversion without needing PP.
A cost saving dormer?
There is probably a purlin across the front of the house. This method saved it having to be replaced and also no living space was lost.
Adam
Interesting. Our council guidance says permitted development does not allow a hip to gable conversion, since it affects the roofline. However, I still see them being done around the place. but I assumed not without planning permission. Of course, since you make up your own mind whether planning is required, I guess some people just get away with it. Apparently there is such a thing as a lawful development certificate, but my council denied such a thing existed ! One thing I have never been clear about is what is nationally decreed and what's local. And don't lets even get started with the local planning committee ! Simon.
Well to be fair, when I did mine (in 2004) PP was not required, but they have "simplified" the planning process since then so that many loft conversions now require PP where they did not before. So it may be that part of the rules have changed.
The guidance at the time I did mine said you could not affect the front elevation, or change the roofline without PP, however they did not count changing a hip to a gable as a change in roofline oddly.
Interesting again, since it patently does change the roof line ! I want to do a loft conversion after my extension is finished, and I will need planning due to the permitted development volume being taken up (good thing I got in on the extension, its 4 metres, now only 3m allowed on permitted development !).
The other thing I previously noticed from your excellent loft website, is you built the dormer right up to the back wall of the house, leaving no roof showing below the dormer. This is another no-no in my area. 1m roof slope is required to prevent overlooking of neighbours. I've seen such "complete" dormers where the houses were smaller and otherwise if would not be feasible, but this was a few years ago, and no idea if they got or needed planning permission. Your house looks about the same size as mine, i.e. a "complete" dormer just gives you more space, and in your case made 2 rooms feasible. But no loft conversions near me are like this, so I doubt I would get permission. This means I'm much more likely to need a steel to support the dormer wall (unless I can support the wall on bulked-up "floor" joists). Also BCOs apparently now frown on floor joists being cut at an angle at the ends to fit under the eaves.
The other thing the permitted development rules say is 1m roof above the dormer required, and 0.7m from the property side walls. 1m above would make for a rather low ceiling, but the dormers near me all go up higher than this, and I hope to get permission for this. But I get the feeling that the planners have to feel they have "won", so I'll probably have to let them have something. Maybe tactics are required here, i.e. first apply for something meeting the guidelines (which will pass), then alter it to something beyond what I required (which will fail), then "agree" to let something go.
Another thing, I always thought is was a strange idea that people find they don't need planning permission (according to volume rules) and then build almost anything, ignoring the other permitted development rules. These rules were intended to allow you to build things that would have got planning permission anyway. I think people often get away with things, but I don't think I would take the risk on my own project.
Cheers, Simon.
Well yes it does. I think the change they were concerned about was one that would change the height of the ridge, or introduce anything the protruded above it.
Well sort of - it was in line with the back wall, but we included a few rows of tiles below it so that the overhang at the eves continued along. But maximising space was the main consideration with mine:
Having a dormer to the rear wall does not really afford any more view of the neighbours than is available from the existing rear windows. You can see much further across the gardens etc, but that is really just a factor of the extra height.
I think the aforementioned simplification introduced the 1m boundary bit - it also introduced this as 1m from the ridge (which when you think about it would preclude most lofts without PP). However I have a vague feeling that last bit might have been relaxed.
Well, you may find that its simply a case of most people go with what is permitted without PP and hence they end up with much the same as each other. Its possible that they would not object if asked for something a bit different.
Depends on the spans... I have also seen it done use a flitch beam for the rafters to the side of the dormer - transferring the dormer load to the roof rather than the floor directly.
I wonder why?
Yup - this was the new "easier" permitted development bit. Kind of pointless in most lofts.
Alternatively - apply for more than you want so that you can then trim it back to what you actually want. That way you can compromise to keep them happy ;-)
I suppose most people are only really aware of the volume and size specs (after all that is all that gets discussed in many places you find advice), and after that will be guided by the building regs.
Wasn't 'permitted volume' removed from the latest PP rules? I'm hoping a planned conservatory won't need PP as it would under the old rules (permitted volume already fully used).
You must be like my next-door neighbour, filling all the available space around the house with building-things. Total over-development, I call it ;-) First he built a conservatory at the back, then a porch at the front, later a side extension; now he's knocked down the conservatory and is building a sun-lounge in its place. For the builders to get access to gain access to the rear, now that the side extension is in place (there's no access through the extension), he's had to negotiate with his neighbours in the next street to dismantle part of the fence - what a mess! Actually planning guidelines say that there ought to be access through or past a side extension but somehow he's got around that - the only means of access or egress to his property is via the front door :-)
There's only him and his wife living there...
I can't understand why folk will do that. The next thing will be a shed in the front garden because he can't get the mower or wheelbarrow through the doors!
The one I posted the pic of has no slope at the back - it's all a flat roof and then straight down.
Yeh. I certainly see them being done around the place. Maybe I'll apply for a whole roof conversion, and see what they say. I get the impression they are more fussy in my area than others, but I guess I'll find out ! Simon.
Probably did on on "permitted development".
My rear extension is going up less than full width to leave a passage up the side for side access. Also means I can build it without going onto the neighbours. But several local have blocked up their side access, for the sake of an extra metre. I bet they rue the day they built it as the kids are cycling down the hallway ! I also had to build a cunning right angled double gate in order to sensibly use the side access. A wheelbarrow is a lot longer than you realise ! Now I just have to invent a catch to lock it - at present it is secured with a spax screw. Simon.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.