Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Hi - I have been looking into doing a loft conversion on my one bed flat in East Dulwich - not a conservation area - and it seems difficult to know what it is possible to do. Some builders offer inspiring ideas and others exercise caution as to what it is possible to do....so any past experiences with this that you can share would be fab!

Thanks!

I've done a loft conversion in a flat.


First thing, there is no such thing as "permitted development" in a flat, so the plans will need to be submitted for full planning permission if there are to be any external changes (i.e. a dormer).


Second thing, most builders will tell you that the council is unlikely to grant planning permission for a full width dormer, and will suggest building a smaller 2-3m dormer instead. They may well be right... but on the other hand it could be worth using a local architect to draw up plans and submit them, as they may be more willing to try their luck. And if you are only able to get permission for the smaller extension, then the architect should be more adept at making the best use of the available space.


You also need to check that you definitely own the loft - if you're a lease holder, your landlord might insist that you buy it from them.

Jeremy is correct. As it is a flat it will definitely require planning. Southwark shouldn't refuse planning with flats and you shouldn't have an issue with a full dormer. Just stick to the usual guidelines


1. Don't exceed the ridge.

2. Don't exceed the general permitted development m3.

3. Maintain the fabric of your build in keeping with the existing.

4. No dormer to the front.


Its a very easy process if your current roof pitch is suitable.


Best of Luck

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

    • But actually, replacing council housing, or more accurately adding to housing stock and doing so via expanding council estates was precisely what we should have been doing, financed by selling off old housing stock. As the population grows adding to housing built by councils is surely the right thing to do, and financing it through sales is a good model, it's the one commercial house builders follow for instance. In the end the issue is about having the right volumes of the appropriate sort of housing to meet national needs. Thatcher stopped that by forbidding councils to use sales revenues to increase housing stock. That was the error. 
    • Had council stock not been sold off then it wouldn't have needed replacing. Whilst I agree that the prohibition on spending revenue from sales on new council housing was a contributory factor, where, in places where building land is scarce and expensive such as London, would these replacement homes have been built. Don't mention infill land! The whole right to buy issue made me so angry when it was introduced and I'm still fuming 40 odd years later. If I could see it was just creating problems for the future, how come Thatcher didn't. I suspect though she did, was more interested in buying votes, and just didn't care about a scarcity of housing impacting the next generations.
    • Actually I don't think so. What caused the problem was the ban on councils using the revenues from sales to build more houses. Had councils been able to reinvest in more housing then we would have had a boom in building. And councils would have been relieved, through the sales, of the cost of maintaining old housing stock. Thatcher believed that council tenants didn't vote Conservative, and home owners did. Which may have been, at the time a correct assumption. But it was the ban on councils building more from the sales revenues which was the real killer here. Not the sales themselves. 
    • I agree with Jenjenjen. Guarantees are provided for works and services actually carried out; they are not an insurance policy for leaks anywhere else on the roof. Assuming that the rendering at the chimney stopped the leak that you asked the roofer to repair, then the guarantee will cover that rendering work. Indeed, if at some time in the future it leaked again at that exact same spot but by another cause, that would not be covered. Failure of rendering around a chimney is pretty common so, if re-rendering did resolve that leak, there is no particular reason to link it to the holes in the felt elsewhere across the roof. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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