Jump to content

loft conversion - has anyone extended above height of roof for a dormer?


Recommended Posts

Hi there - we have a loft room with a low ceiling height (I can stand in the middle right below the top of the roof but everywhere else i have to crouch down). Its already been converted into a room as part of the rest of the loft conversion but at the moment not able to be used as much aside from perhaps a playroom for the kids due to head height. it is a big space in terms of floor though so would easily be a double bedroom if there was a dormer to the back.


We could lower the height of the below bedroom but i want to avoid that if possible (because the bedroom so i was thinking about perhaps giving a dormer conversion a sloping roof upwards from the apex of the roof (or perhaps flat from the apex, eventually going higher (to avoid being able to see it from the front (for the planners). I know this means i would need planning as doesnt qualify under permitted development but i was wondering if anyone had ever done this or (for any local architects) if the planning people would just laugh at me.


If its a function of impact to neighbours, its worth noting that the dormer would be adjacent to a neighbour whose house is higher than us (they have a cellar and we dont so effectively almost a storey higher) so we would be nowhere near their roof height/overhang. I guess there would be some impact on them sunlight given our houses face east south east but there also wouldnt be any on the neighbours the other direction who have a roof height the same as us.


Sorry its turned into a bit of a ramble. Nothing urgent, but with a growing family who love the area, I am looking at options! any experience or views from professionals very much appreciated.


Lockers

If you can stand at the highest point would a dormer not extend from that point?

We are in the middle of a loft conversion the height in the centre of the room is the same as the height in the dormer... it is still quite low at 1.85m but luckily that is higher than we are tall.

"If its a function of impact to neighbours, its worth noting that the dormer would be adjacent to a neighbour whose house is higher than us (they have a cellar and we dont so effectively almost a storey higher"


Don't think it works like that, height of house is measured from street level, not from the lowest point within the property.

If you're raising the roof - is that not then a mansard roof (even if for less than a full storey)? I think Southwark have historically been quite "anti" raising roof levels in the area. If your neighbours roof line is higher than yours (I.e. Their roof is currently higher in altitude than yours) or there is another property on your road with a raised roof line then you may have a more successful outcome.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Hi, I went to the council's planning portal to look at the application, and I encourage others to look at it. It looks like a pleasant building, with thoughtful landscaping. as Pugwash said, the big oak would be retained, only two smaller trees are supposed to be cut, one of which is already dead according to the Tree Survey. It sounds like 38 people in great need of it will gain supported housing thanks to this development, a very positive change. Of course a solution has to be found for the 3 who will need to find other accommodation during the works, but that doesn't seem enough of a reason to oppose the development. The current building is 4 stories, so I would be surprised if one extra storey was considered objectionable, especially considering the big oak stands between the building and the neighbours' back gardens and the fact that the neighbours it's backing onto are all 5 stories houses themselves or only have blank walls facing the building. Personally I've never seen a less objectionable planning request
    • I also wonder if all this, recently events and so many u turns is going to also be the end of Kier Starmer.
    • And I replied: Mandelson and Trump have much in common. They are both shallow, vulgar and vain. They both fetishise wealth and power, irrespective of who holds it or how it was accumulated. They were both close friends and associates of the late Jeffrey Epstein and have moved in the same circles, as Ghislaine Maxwell’s address book allegedly confirms. Recognising another who is utterly transactional and lacking in a moral compass, there’s every chance of “Petie” fitting right in Mar-a-Largo. That Starmer couldn’t anticipate that Mandelson’s past behaviour would be problematic just proves how inept this government is.
    • Can't agree with that because he is a superb communicator - a really smart and  smooth talker. He studied PPE at Oxford and was communications director for Labour for many years.  Setting aside the "minor"  indiscretions during his time in government he has all the smoothness and ability to flatter Trump without appearing obsequious. Plus he can manage and exploit  Trump’s ego. He is highly polished socially, comfortable in elite circles, skilled at making personal connections. He can flatter and disarm, which is a useful tactic with Trump, who responds well to personal respect and praise. As a former EU Trade Commissioner and Cabinet minister, Mandelson understands international relations, trade, and diplomacy. He knows how to frame issues in terms of “wins” that Trump could claim credit for. I honestly hope that he survives.  
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...