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

[RobMiller]

Or maybe not unlawful. Strange indeed. Atticus, have you asked James Barber for some help? I saw in another post that he had his loft converted relatively recently. He may be able to shed some light...?

http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?30,422825,613130#msg-613130

[peterstorm1985]

I think what seems to be confusing some is the idea that you can consider just one of the Classes and not the others. There is more than one hurdle to cross.

Like a lot of legislation it is made up of parts, each of which needs to be addressed. The reason that the law is written in this way is so that it can be applied to a wider variety of circumstances.

Consequently, a detached house with exactly the same dimensions (but where all parts of the building are more than 2 metres from a boundary) would pass class B - requirements for extensions and alterations to roofs (assuming the existing roof height does not need to be increased) and also Class A -extensions to the dwelling house.

But where the building is a terrace or semi detached, and the side return has a low roof that would need to be lifted, the side return is not 2 metres from the boundary so gets caught out by class A.

It doesn't matter that the main roof is less than 2m from the boundary because the eaves* level remains unchanged. (these permitted development rules only apply to changes).

There will be some side return extensions that are legal simply because the roof of the original building was already at the right height (probably the same as the main roof) so no changes to the eaves were necessary.

In essence, you cannot choose to comply with Class B and ignore Class A as the latter applies to the whole dwellinghouse and that includes the roof.

*Just in case anyone doesn't realise, the eaves are the lowest part of the roof than project over the side of the building - see pictures in the guidance notes showing where the existing eaves remain intact where the roof height is already sufficient.

[Shankley]

Can Atticus confirm whether they were, as stated in the appeal , applying for a new 2 Storey Extension at the rear of the house in addition to a new loft?

If this is the case, then clearly it would need to comply with Class A and Class B

and consequently, if an L shaped loft conversion was NOT being being built on a new 2 story extension but the main original building, then it would only need to satisfy Class B . Therefore not all L shaped loft convesions need to comply with Class A & B ???

[Atticus]

hello

i just applied for a loft conversion and a little bit over the outrigger for a bathroom. only about 9 foot into the outrigger. The top of the outrigger would have to be built up by about a meter i guess?

sorry for lack of lingo - perhaps simon can help with the right language?

i dont' really understand the class a/b stuff - sorry

Edit to say: we would use whatever materials it'd take. I'm not sure that was the issue

[Shankley]

it would also depend i think on the materials that were being used. Were you intending to use brickwork on the flanking walls or would the construction over the rear addition be slate or tile and in keeping with the cirrent roof?

if you were using brickwork, again, that would then ned to comply with Class A

[peterstorm1985]

Shankley Wrote:

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

> and consequently, if an L shaped loft conversion

> was NOT being being built on a new 2 story

> extension but the main original building, then it

> would only need to satisfy Class B . Therefore not

> all L shaped loft convesions need to comply with

> Class A & B ???

I don't agree with this statement. Whilst it is much clearer in the guidance notes that a new 2 storey extension would need to comply with Class A, I can find nothing in the guidance notes (or the legislation itself) to say that you can ignore any classes.

I note also that the term used in the legislation is the 'enlarged part', rather than simply the 'enlargement', or the 'extension', and there is no different treatment for an additional storey or a new extension from ground up.

Of course, as said already, if all the eaves of the existing building are unchanged - which would be the case if there was sufficient head height in the return - then Class A would not be breached, as it can only apply to a change.

There are conditions to use similar materials but I can't see any way that carrying slates/tiles down the side will suddenly make a wall gain roof status as Shankley seems to be suggesting (although it's an amusing idea).

I'm signing out of this discussion now but here's a link to the relevant bit of the legislation.

Legislation

TO explain the amendments made at this date you may also find this interesting

Parliamentary paper

[Shankley]

"I note also that the term used in the legislation is the 'enlarged part', rather than simply the 'enlargement', or the 'extension', and there is no different treatment for an additional storey or a new extension from ground up."

well that can be right otherwise all single story rear extensions on terraced houses would fail becAuse they are less than 2 mtrs from the boundary?

I think I'll bow out now too. Seek legal advice is the answer!

[Pearson]

Why has no-one mentioned good old fashioned Planning permission as a means to gain LA approval?

[Atticus]

Yup and we are now going down that route.

The irony is that I was told the new legislation was meant to make things simpler all round

If we need legal advice to work out the new legislation it's clearly failed at the first hurdle...

[Pearson]

Good luck with your submission Atticus.

Just don't forget to share your proposals with local

residents before you put in formal submission.

Enough objections will spoil it before you even start.

[Pearson]

For sure permitted dev. was set up to help speed up the process under certain restricted circumstances.

But it is not designed to cover every residential development proposal as a quickie solution!

Planning permission is and always has been the recognized route to obtaining permission to develop

your property. PD is a quickie under certain circumstances but not all. Some of us seem to forget this fact.

Partly due to pushy loft companies and IMO opportunist Architects.

Anyhow, that's my tuppence worth for this evening.

[fyvum]

I suppose bynotmaking the rules clearer the architects, planners, solicitors, and possibly others whom I'm

unfamiliar with can all take a bite out of your hard earned,

or is that a cynical view point?

[Pearson]

^No. In my opinion it their job as a professionals to know the rules no matter how complicated.

They should not be 'learning the rules' at your expense!

[damzel]

architectsimon Wrote:

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

> 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.....

I've read and re-read this and I can't quite get my head around it:

"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" - 1) is the difference between the current height of the existing eaves and the height of the eaves after the renovation?

"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" - 2) is this referring to the eaves on the original roof as well as the eaves on the outrigger? 3) "max height... is three metres" 3 metres from what??

Atticus - you suggested on a later post that your outrigger would only be raised by 1 metre. I don't understand how you could gain another bathroom on top of your existing bathroom (I assume they are both bathrooms) if you are only increasing the height of the existing eaves on the outrigger by 1 metre?

Clearly I'm missing something here but would love to understand as we are looking to doing something similar. A number of my neighbours have completed the same extentions recently and after reading this post, I checked the Southwark planning site and they are listed and were approved. One even quotes the above criteria and states that it passes.

[Atticus]

i dont know the dimensions - sorry i should check - it's whatever heights needed in addition to the height already there from the sloping roof - can't be that much higher - hope that makes sense.... pm me and i can refer you to my application on southwark planning website which may answer some of your questions?

if the applications were before 2008 then i think they're ok? it's post that that's the problem i think?

[architectsimon]

Hi Atticus

For the benefit of 'Pearson' and 'fyvum', it might be worth mentioning the theme of our first meeting and email exchanges about the possible outrigger works. Blaming professional advisors over the shortcomings of the Local Authorities is not too good!

[Atticus]

absolutely - all the risks were explained but i decided to go ahead with it

plus - i've just seen *another* application (in East Dulwich) that was approved that's exactly the same under CoL (PD)... so it's clearly highly unpredictable as to whether you get approval or not.

i cna't see how architect's can second guess inconsistencies at the Southwark Planning department

[coopsy76]

Here is a link to a property in ED on Southwark planning site that was granted a cert of Lawfulness for a roof extension with dormer over main roof and over outrigger roof.

http://planningonline.southwarksites.com/planningonline2/AcolNetCGI.exe?ACTION=UNWRAP&RIPNAME=Root.PgeResultDetail&TheSystemkey=9533043

[Atticus]

Southwark Planning Department are getting back to us as to why this was approved and not the others (one has since appealed and been refused). I'll post what their reponse is - should hear back within a couple of weeks?

This approval was approved *prior* to the appeal which was refused... so something's changed since then in terms of policy

[coopsy76]

sounds like different interpretations of the rules by different people within the council. Surely by a similar build being approved a precedent has been set?

[Atticus]

equally a precedent (more recent) has been set by the refusal... let's see what they say

edit to say: one development is currently being investigated by Southwark planning, which is the same as Landells (shown in the above link) another we know of has stopped work and there are a number out there (in East Dul) who have completed work with no CoL from Southwark planning at all....

[coopsy76]

It appears yours and the other one failed because it didnt satisfy Class A , but the council have approved this one because they decided it was only relevent to Class B. Its a joke!

[Atticus]

exactly - which is why i started this thread as it's helpful for everyone to get together and compare notes

.... either Southwark will have to 'reconsider their refusals' *or* they're going to have to enforce certain households to pull down the work already carried out (!) which is ridiculous especially if landells et al stays???!!

[ianr]

I'm not sure that anyone's yet focused here on the specific reasons given for Southwark's refusal of the Archdale Road application number 09/AP/2497, where the applicant appealed but lost. It failed only on Class A, condition (g) -- the not more than three metres high one. The reason given for considering it as a house extension, rather than a roof one, is here. Does it illuminate or confuse?

[Atticus]

Southwark council have said that the reason Landells got approval and Archdale didn't is because sometime during 2010(?), Southwark's interpretation of the rules changed

"55 Landells Road, was made under a former and different interpretation of the General Permitted Development Order 2008"