Dormer extension-planning?

ruskin

Hi there,
I have an end of terrace house that has an attic I want to extend (dormer to the back). Does this require planning? Someone told me that once its towards the back I do not need planning.

Gumbo

ruskin wrote: »

Hi there,
I have an end of terrace house that has an attic I want to extend (dormer to the back). Does this require planning? Someone told me that once its towards the back I do not need planning.

You need Planning Permission, no discussion!
You will also need to comply with the Building Regulations with regards to 3 storey houses assuming you have a standard 2 storey at present.

DOCARCH

As above...you need planning permission.

Bracken81

Planning permission.........100% required unfortunately

Angry bird

Per Section 4-1-h of the Planning Act 2000 the relevant question is 'would the development not materially affect the external appearance of the structure so as to render the appearance inconsistent with the character of the structure or of neighbouring structures?'

The answer to that is not black and white, it depends. You can seek a declaration from the Council to get an official response if you think it may not need planning.

DOCARCH

Angry bird wrote: »

Per Section 4-1-h of the Planning Act 2000 the relevant question is 'would the development not materially affect the external appearance of the structure so as to render the appearance inconsistent with the character of the structure or of neighbouring structures?

Very tenuous...to say the least. If you Section 5 it, I am positive you would be told that planning permission is required.

Angry bird

DOCARCH wrote: »

Very tenuous...to say the least. If you Section 5 it, I am positive you would be told that planning permission is required.

Assuming it's not a protected structure or other such thats what the decision will be based on by a council if they receive a declaration for exemption. If neighbouring dwellings have such dormer style extensions then more likely that it would be exempt. In short not a black and white answer and that section generally covers minor works.

sydthebeat

a section 5 application is of course a possibility, but a waste of time in my opinion.

the character of the structure is definitely being altered

Angry bird

sydthebeat wrote: »

a section 5 application is of course a possibility, but a waste of time in my opinion.

the character of the structure is definitely being altered

It's a 4 week turn around, fee of 80 bills with minimum paperwork to be submitted and may be worth a shot. I would agree that it seems likely that planning permission is needed but I would need to have inspected the site, viewed neighbouring properties and checked out relevant on site planning objectives, if any, to come to an informed view, which is what the Council would do if they received a declaration. There is also the issue of have the Council granted or refused similar declarations in the past.

Poor Uncle Tom

The proposal needs planning permission.

The proposal shown above would seem to contravene the following.....

4. (a) Where the rear wall of the house does not include a gable, the height of the walls of any such extension shall not exceed the height of the rear wall of the house.

Gumbo

Angry bird wrote: »

Per Section 4-1-h of the Planning Act 2000 the relevant question is 'would the development not materially affect the external appearance of the structure so as to render the appearance inconsistent with the character of the structure or of neighbouring structures?'

The answer to that is not black and white, it depends. You can seek a declaration from the Council to get an official response if you think it may not need planning.

Part 5 application will be a waste of time and money. The roof profile is being altered so planning will be required. Even if the adjoining properties have the dormer, they would most likely have benefited from planning in the first instance.


If that was the case, sure we could wait for next door to go for planning for the nice two storey extension and all the bells and whistles, then when they get granted I can just build and claim 41H, not feasible tbh.

I work with enough planners and planning enforcement officers to know that they would laugh a section 5 application out.

Angry bird

Poor Uncle Tom wrote: »

The proposal needs planning permission.

The proposal shown above would seem to contravene the following.....

Except that it's a dormer window that's proposed or alteration to the rear roof, not an extension.

Angry bird

kceire wrote: »

Part 5 application will be a waste of time and money. The roof profile is being altered so planning will be required. Even if the adjoining properties have the dormer, they would most likely have benefited from planning in the first instance.


If that was the case, sure we could wait for next door to go for planning for the nice two storey extension and all the bells and whistles, then when they get granted I can just build and claim 41H, not feasible tbh.

I work with enough planners and planning enforcement officers to know that they would laugh a section 5 application out.

Not this planner who has worked on umpteen declarations of exemption, including advice on enforcement cases for the past ten years. Again it probably needs planning but it may not and that is in my professional experience.

Poor Uncle Tom

Angry bird wrote: »

Except that it's a dormer window that's proposed or alteration to the rear roof, not an extension.

Does the proposal include a rear facing gable? Whether glazed or containing a window or not.

Gumbo

Angry bird wrote: »

Not this planner who has worked on umpteen declarations of exemption, including advice on enforcement cases for the past ten years. Again it probably needs planning but it may not and that is in my professional experience.

I agree. It needs planning.

Angry bird

Poor Uncle Tom wrote: »

Does the proposal include a rear facing gable? Whether glazed or containing a window or not.

It's a window with a frame of some sort around it, not the rear wall of the house. If he's raising the wall up over the roof profile and sticking a window somewhere, dormer or otherwise, then the section 4-a restriction would kick in.

Angry bird

kceire wrote: »

I agree. It needs planning.

Probably, but I can't say that 100%. Why? Because in some cases a dormer window would be exempt and in other cases it would not be exempt, it depends, which is what I've been saying all along.

Poor Uncle Tom

Angry bird wrote: »

It's a window with a frame of some sort around it, not the rear wall of the house. If he's raising the wall up over the roof profile and sticking a window somewhere, dormer or otherwise, then the section 4-a restriction would kick in.

I disagree with your interpretation.

A standard dormer window construction contains two cheek walls and a gable wall containing a window. Therefore it comes under 4(a), imo.

Also the diagram shows the proposed rear facing element continuing the rear wall upwards.

Gumbo

Angry bird wrote: »

Probably, but I can't say that 100%. Why? Because in some cases a dormer window would be exempt and in other cases it would not be exempt, it depends, which is what I've been saying all along.

I have never seen a former window been exempt. Can you point us to one please. I'll happily admit I'm wrong if I am but again, I have never once during my private sector days and current local authority position came across a former window that was exempt from planning.

Angry bird

Poor Uncle Tom wrote: »

I disagree with your interpretation.

A standard dormer window construction contains two cheek walls and a gable wall containing a window. Therefore it comes under 4(a), imo.

Also the diagram shows the proposed rear facing element continuing the rear wall upwards.

Agreed, it is interpretation and if that was a court case who knows what way a judge would rule. In any event the more works proposed the more likely that 4-1-h would not apply.

Angry bird

kceire wrote: »

I have never seen a former window been exempt. Can you point us to one please. I'll happily admit I'm wrong if I am but again, I have never once during my private sector days and current local authority position came across a former window that was exempt from planning.

ok lets break 4-1-h down: would the development materially affect the external appearance of the structure so as to render the appearance inconsistent with:
a) the character of the structure or
b) of neighbouring structures

a) character of structure generally refers to the front and generally refers to it not being readily visible from public view
b) do neighbouring structures have similar dormer windows?

So if rear dormer window, not readily visible from public view, and neighbours have similar such rear dormer windows, I see no reason why a dormer window could not be exempt per 4-1-h. It's down to site specifics, therefore other examples are of limited value, and interpretation of what the legislation says.

On the other hand if we're talking about more a lot more work than a dormer window, that is visible from public view and no neighbouring structures have such rear dormer, then 4-1-h could not apply and must apply for planning