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

[sambobia]

Atticus Wrote:

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

> 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"

That would account for the confusion. There are plenty of other cases, in addition to Landells, where a loft extension over the rear outrigger has been approved, in circumstances identical to Archdale.

Archdale have resubmitted their application, so it will be interesting to see what happens. Having made and adhered to one interpretation of the rules, Southwark would need a very strong case for switching to a different interpretation, thereby creating the inconsistencies mentioned above.

[Atticus]

perhaps if Archdale then appeal the *second* application they have put in, then a different planning inspectorate will examine their case and the chances are they will interpret it the correct (eh hem) way...?

just a guess like ;)

[Saila]

there's a program about taking on council planning departments - about to begin on Channel 4, called Planning Outlaws

[snowboarder]

Atticus - any update on this? I'm just about to launch into the world of loft conversions...

[Jeremy]

And while we're on the subject, has anybody had a loft conversion done on a flat recently? We were told that there is no PD for flats, so it's only possible to build a small dormer at the back. But a flat on my road is in the process of having a full-width dormer built. So I'm a bit puzzled (and rather pissed off).

[RobMiller]

Snowboarder, this recent appeal looks promising: http://planningonline.southwarksites.com/planningonline2/AcolNetCGI.exe?

ACTION=UNWRAP&RIPNAME=Root.PgeDocs&TheSystemkey=9536966 it suggests that Southwark aren't getting support for their interpretation of the permitted development rules.

Jeremy, I'd read that flats are treated differently. Probably wise to take specialist advice.

Rob

[snowboarder]

Flats don't benefit from pd rights generally.

I need to sit down and read these regs properly I think. Hmm are the loft companies aware of the current issues I wonder? Got someone coming tomorrow so we will see....

[RobMiller]

Huw at classic lofts seems to have a pretty firm grip on the planning stuff. We are very happy with the work they did for us. Happy to recommend them.

Rob

[snowboarder]

Thanks rob - will look them up. Did they apply for (and receive) a certificate of lawfulness for you before starting on site? Or did you do that yourselves?

[Atticus]

No update from me - i decided that we'd wait and see what the outcome was re Southwark's inconsistencies. There must be a resolution as their actions make no sense.

So it's just a waiting - we are in no rush, but i dont want to take any risks either.

Rob - what is that link? i can't make it work. What makes you think things are going the right way? Have you heard anythign on Archdale?

Fingers xed!

[Siduhe]

Atticus Wrote:

> Rob - what is that link? i can't make it work.

> What makes you think things are going the right

> way? Have you heard anythign on Archdale?

>

> Fingers xed!

Try http://planningonline.southwarksites.com/planningonline2/AcolNetCGI.exe?ACTION=UNWRAP&RIPNAME=Root.pgedocs&TheSystemkey=9536966 (takes a while to load)

Or look up the documents/appeal decision from application 10/AP/2327. It relates to a property in SE15 (edited to correct location - not Archdale - don't know where I got that from) which got a cert of lawful development on appeal.

[damzel]

We are just starting out on this minefield. Have seen 3 loft companies so far and are "on hold" waiting to see how other peoples appeals work out first rather than throw another one on top.

One of the loft companies told me that they won't even bother quoting for the rear dormer as they know that Southwark are refusing them. Another has one on appeal currently and the last one said that you don't actually need a cert of lawfulness, you just need to ensure the loft extension is inside of the guidelines. If it is built and undisputed for 4 years, it's automatically approved anyway. I'm not comfortable with this approach personanlly but there are at least 8 similar extensions on my street which do not appear in the Southwark planning search pages so must have taken this stance. One of them was refused twice last year, then built the thing and has made another application to get it approved retrospectively!

News of that appeal being recommended for success is very good! Does this mean if we put ours in now, it will be approved or will we still need to jump through some hoops?

[Atticus]

exactly right Damzel - basically this confusion and inconsistency is pushing people to *not* do things through the proper channels... Those of us who want to do things 'by the book', get refused. Not a great outcome.

[snowboarder]

I'm not sure, but imagine NOT having a certificate of lawfulness when you come to sell your house will not be a good thing.

Loft companies it seems are aware of the current issues. I think we will go for the L shape extension and see how we go..will update if/when we have any news! I'm off to trawl through the guidance now...

[Atticus]

as long as you sell after 4 yrs you're fine... but i agree - if you sell before 4 years then you'd be in trouble!

[Crokes]

Hi

Has anyone heard any news on this? We've been told that in the last month or so Southwark has relaxed their view on the 'double dormer' (apologies if incorrect terminology) and agrees with other London boroughs that it falls within permitted development (assuming other criteria is satisfied). Is this just hearsay or does anyone have any recent experience they can share?

Many thanks.

(edited for typo)

[Saila]

not hearsay

if you look on Southwark planning website you can see they've u-turned (again) so they are now being consistent with other boroughs

perhaps arrange a mtg with someone first before putting in an application to verify their latest stance?

[bels123]

I know this is an old thread but have found it difficult to find anything up-to-date on Southwark's planning website regarding double dormers/L shaped. Is there anyone with an expert view who can provide the latest thoughts on whether there's any issues with them falling under permited development to update this thread?

Much appreciated.

[Saila]

hi

yes - unless something has changed (again) it appears that it is allowed under PD

mine was approved - no problem

[Jeremy]

Pretty sure it depends upon the percentage increase of space. So if the rear section is very long, it might not get approved.

[red devil]

It used to be a percentage but now there are specific volume limits - 50m3 for detached and semi-detached houses, and 40m3 for terraced houses. There are also other limits to adhere to, e.g. you can build no higher than the highest point of the existing roof. The Gov is currently looking at potential changes to PD rights, so it could all change again in the near future...