Atticus

Yeh Brum, you're right his sincerity should win the day, seems like a nice guy after all. I'd like to buy this guy a pint.

The final vinyl, that's when you know it's over. Time for the old Prisoner Cell Block H theme tune.

Great description but I'd say that he's more calculated than that, he's just twisted everything.

Ego on overdrive, us men are quite fond of ourselves sometimes!

This sounds quite utopian in essence but unfortunately for me, 'big society' is a mask for 'big savings'. These big savings will hit the most vulnerable. 'Big society' my arse. Now we are getting a real glimpse of what cameron et al are all about. I'd like to think that neighbourly behaviour such as clearing paths of ice should be gesture of good will, rather than law.

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

-- moved topic --

That said, not quite as crisp as Sinclair's.

That goal was a product of the school of science.

misty

you sound like my kind of guy/gal fyvum!

Dear Admin, is this your full-time job?

Imagine what a vacuous place culturally the country would be without the 'North'. Southerners = pretenders. Get over your inept selves, football, music = north.

Many thanks, the folks are over. What a better way to spend the day!

Apologies for starting a thread just on this (admin pls do what you've got to do) but their website is down and I need a quick answer. Anyone know if they are playing at home tom?

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'...

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

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

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

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?

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.

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...

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.

Agreed on that really surprised he hasn't been snapped up by a wealthier club, arsenal?

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?