Ridge Height.

Going Demented

Applied for Planning Permission for a bungalow with a 40 degree pitch and ridge height of 6.8.
Planning have come back with further information, one part about percolation.

They have asked for revised drawings with the ridge height down to 6.2. Our architect didn't expect the roof to be an issue as he felt he could of put it at over 7m but only applied for 6.8. In laws house which would be the nearest house further up the road in a rural area is a two story on an elevated site. We are down very low.
I only got to speak to the architect briefly as i had a hospital appointment the day the letter arrived to him and won't get to speak to him until Monday. He has been trying to contact the planner in relation to the roof height. He said at 6.2 that there would be no chance of ever converting.
Converting is not on the agenda for me. I have lived my entire life in a bungalow and have a fear of fire from getting trapped as a child. However my better half wants the option to do it (i know he wants to do down the line, not just the option to) as we have two young children and the bungalow is 3 bedroom and he would like the option to convert above if we have more children. I however would love an attic for storage only.

Is 6.2 a no go for ever converting?
If we tried to push for 6.5 even would that still be unsuitable?
Do we need to push for 6.8 like on the original plans?

Thank you in advance.

Poor Uncle Tom

You have to put your arguments to the planners before making a formal submission of FI. If you can make a good enough case there may be no reason for not keeping 6.8m. Planners do not consider "I might convert eventually" as being a valid reason for keeping the height, if you need the height for storage at this stage, that's a different matter, but you will probably need to provide a floor plan of the storage area and you may be charged contributions on it, or have a condition attached to you permission not to use the area for habitable purposes.

Going Demented

Thank you.

Do you think we would be best off going back and putting in a whole plan for the top as habitable space. Our architect at the start thought that was what we wanted and had plans for a story and a half originally as he had only spoke to himself. Then when he met me it went back to a bungalow. If we put in new drawings for space up there but with no windows to the front and velux to the back would we have to start from scratch again? Also if he does go into the roof i want a window in the gable ends to be able to get out of it in emergency.
And pay the contributions. It would add on an extra 3.5k approx.

Or should we submit it as storage and if there is a condition put on it so be it.

Or leave it as it is. I work it out as a 36 degree pitch when at 6.2m. It was 40 at 6.8m.

Poor Uncle Tom

Simple,

If you NEED the space include it, if you don't NEED it don't include it.

sydthebeat

its quite possible if you include attic space at this stage you will need to readvertise in the newspaper.... or you may even be requested to withdraw the application as it could be viewed as substantially different from the original application ie a single storey house now has two storeys.

personally i wouldnt go that route... i would try to find what the planners issue is with the height... and then try to deal with those issues with information such as site sections, proposed screen planting, etc

yellow50HX

It would be interesting to see if the planners have a real problem with the roof or if hey are just being awkward. Have found that some planners just want you to change because of their own personal views or because they like power trips (not all planner are like this but you be unlucky). Also any objections they have need to be backed up ask them for a justification for their answer and work from there. If they don't give a real answer then take it to the supervisor.

Neighbour over the road had awful issues with planner as she kept moving the goal posts.

woodoo

Planners seem to always want to tweak things. If you had put in for 9 meters they prob would have told you to make it 8m. They make it up as they go. They would drive you up the wall.

Going Demented

Is the planners request that it be put down final? I presumed it would be. If she wanted it down for whatever reason, even if she doesn't have a valid reason, it would be final. The architect has been trying to get in contact with her since during the week but appears she has been on holidays and meant to be back but no one can pin her down to her whereabouts.

A different planner left our friends house about a mile away with scenic views go to 8m with no request for further info on anything. We aren't breaking the skyline. Not sure what the issue could be. I'd say she might be ensuring its not used for space down the line.

I do not want to go back to the scratch. We are living with in laws right now and really wanted to get this doing in 2 months time. We had no objections. It's not a big house. Bog standard rectangle, simple roof. We did everything to make sure there was nothing in the design to be further info'd or refused on.

Oh well. I will let you know what happens. The further information will be going back in next week once the percolation guy can see what her issue was. He never told us the trial holes had to be covered with plastic. They were left blocked off and open. She said it should have been covered.
Our architect put a borewell or something too close to the percolation area although he feels it wasn't. Let them sort it out between them now because we know nothing about this stuff.

If they insist on 6.2m with a 36degree pitch would there be any hope of any space up there.

Finally all thank you very much for your information.

Going Demented

Another thing was to provide a land registry map detailing the holding.
We got the land registry maps from father in law and all were already sent in with the planning application. Not sure what extra she wants as she has the full extent of the land holding.

yellow50HX

If you are getting problems with the planning get a copy of the planning dept regulations. The dept can't intervene in individual cases but if the planners are not adhereing to the dept guide lines then you can do something.

You should read the guidelines so you can see what you can and can't do.

muffler

yellow50HX wrote: »

If you are getting problems with the planning get a copy of the planning dept regulations. The dept can't intervene in individual cases but if the planners are not adhereing to the dept guide lines then you can do something.

You should read the guidelines so you can see what you can and can't do.

Can you explain this please. You're talking about regulations and guidelines so which is it and where exactly do you think these regulations or guidelines can be sourced?

Going Demented

I have read the development plans. There is nothing about design on roof pitch. Just about windows etc.

I will just have to wait and see what her reasons are for wanting the roof dropped. It's nothing major in the grand scheme of things, for me anyway, partner is disappointed. I am more concerned that we may have got a further information request and still be knocked then have to resubmit on another site and wait again. Friend of mine got a straight out refusal the day after us. He still thinks he will get planning. I am nervous we won't at all.

I will come back with the reason when i know, hopefully on Monday. On our application online there is the letter for the FI but there is no FI Planning Report like on others who got a FI request that week.

muffler

I wouldn't worry too much about it. At the end of the day getting planning to build a house is much more important than the roof height. The positive thing in all of this is that the planner must be considering granting permission if the couple of issues in the FI request can be addressed.

Get your architect to check compliance with building regs in relation to a 36 degree pitch. Depending on the span of the roof it may still be possible to have rooms in the attic area at a later date.

Going Demented

Thanks Muffler. He said there'd be no point at what the planning want it cut to. The main section of the house (theres a sitting room/sun room added on with a lower roof) is 16m x 10m. On the section part it has 2.5 up to around where the roof would start.

Like you said it's not the end of the world. It would actually suit me never to have a bedroom up there. My other half doesn't understand my fear of fire but then he wasn't pulled out of a fire by a fireman when he was a child. I would just love to have enough space to have a room for clothes/storage and himself put his office up there. He would like a bathroom and two bedrooms. It would be a long way down the road anyway if it was possible. There is already the wider hall for space for stairs if it was to go ahead.

The other issue is the percolation area, not the results of the test, the placement of it in relation to borewell and dwelling. She doesn't think it is possible. Our architect says he doesn't know what she is on about, all the distances are correct. So god knows what will happen there. She also said to cover the holes as if the percolation area is to stay in the same general area she will be revisiting them. Is that with plastic or what do you cover them with? If we do have to move the house further up the field will that be another application? Entrance would stay the same. The well can be moved anywhere, or not at all, we could also add to the existing water supply on the farm if that would suit her more.

The percolation was the only real issue on it.
The roof so be it, not a worry.
Have the land registry.

There was nothing else.

muffler

If you want to PM me the county and reference number of the application I can have a look online if you wish and reply by PM.

Dont worry, I wont be offended if you wish to retain your anonymity

yellow50HX

muffler wrote: »

Can you explain this please. You're talking about regulations and guidelines so which is it and where exactly do you think these regulations or guidelines can be sourced?

The dept of the environment put together a guide line book for planning regulations.

http://www.environ.ie/en/DevelopmentHousing/PlanningDevelopment/Planning/PlanningGuidance/

Going Demented

Thanks muffler for that. I have PMed you,

Thank you to the above poster for the link. I will have a read of that now

muffler

yellow50HX wrote: »

The dept of the environment put together a guide line book for planning regulations.

http://www.environ.ie/en/DevelopmentHousing/PlanningDevelopment/Planning/PlanningGuidance/

Not trying to be pedantic but you mentioned "regulations" in a previous post and most of us would have thought you were referring to the planning department of the local authority as opposed the Dept. of Environment.

The link you posted is good for the pubic to get an insight into the disparities in the planning acts and regs where the DoE feel the need to issue guidelines to Planning Authorities in an attempt to have them apply the regulations in a similar fashion throughout the country.

Anyhow thats a topic for another day

Going Demented

I read it all anyway as i have nothing better to be doing.

I think he will just have to suck it up and leave the roof the way they want it. I don't want to annoy the planner over the height. Thank you muffler for your advice and i will be taking heed of it. Really appreciate everyones help. Thanks again,.

yellow50HX

Sorry for any confusion. A buddy told me of issues he had with planning. Some councils have their own guide book.

He was not happy with the excuses he got from the planner and was relising that he had to pay even more money. so got in touch with his local TD who put him in touch with the dept of environment. They told him to review the feedback from the council against the dept guidelines. None of the excuses they got from the council were backed up so when he challenged the council with this info the council relented. It seems that many people are not aware of these and the council will do what they like.

Going Demented

The planner has advised there will be no budge on the roof height whatsoever.

yellow50HX

Did they give a reason? And a proper reason that that. You should chech to see what the local houses are like. Sometimes they come up with a reason that houses need to be the same as the other in the area. So if they have a higher ridge height then there is no reason why you can't have one. Get her reasoning in writing that way if you do reapply you can counter any new rejection.

Going Demented

They said it was breaking the skyline. It's not as we are basically in a hole. But they want us to move a bit up onto the slope taking us up a little bit out of the whole so will be making it worse on the skyline. House on the same side of the road is in laws on elevated sight and two stories. On the other side our friend has a house not lived in, it is single story on higher ground than us. Actually its an old cottage with open bedroom in the attic, like a loft thing.

It doesn't matter anyway. Leaving it go. Roof does kind of look a bit odd to be honest.

Thanks for the advice everybody.

Resubmitting as soon as percolation is sorted out hopefully in the next few days so fingers crossed we get it right. Will update in 5/6 weeks.

Thanks again everyone, much appreciated.

I have learned loads in a day with all the reading online. Pity i didn't learn it 8 weeks ago eh
Thank you.

muffler

Keep us updated and the best of luck with it.

Going Demented

Updated to say the planning permission was approved.
And to thank everyone for their answers and replies