Question on TGD Part B

Zardaz

An associate of mine is purchasing a second hand mid-terrace house (built about 20 years ago)

A surveyor's report was obtained, and that has raised several issues, one of which is a potentially significant planning compliance issue.
The issue is that the front upstairs bedroom window is in breach of 1.5.6 (c):

(c) In the case of a dormer window or rooflight, the
distance from the eaves to the bottom of the
opening section of the rooflight, or, where the
window is vertical, the vertical plane of the
window, should not exceed 1.7 m measured
along the slope of the roof.


The actual measurement is 2.1m

However, I think that the window in question is not actually a dormer window, since that although it has a triangle eave over it, and a sloped roof below it, it is fully below the eaves of the main roof, and the lower roof in question is just a roof over the protruding sitting room window.

i.e. it doesn't meet the definition of a dormer (at least from wikipedia):

A dormer is a roofed structure, often containing a window, that projects vertically beyond the plane of a pitched roof. A dormer window (also called dormer) is a form of roof window.


Therefore subsection (c) would not apply, and only (d)(ii) would be relevant here:

(ii) Where there is a roof, balcony or canopy
below a window, it should be structurally
adequate to support those using the window
for escape or rescue.


Now, I'm not a registered surveyor, so what I think doesn't formally hold much weight, but before I get the purchaser to raise the issue with the surveyor (who's already been paid), I'd like to see what people on here think...

I won't attach an actual picture of the house in question, to preserve anonymity of those involved, but here is a reasonably similar example:

Gumbo

Zardaz wrote: »

An associate of mine is purchasing a second hand mid-terrace house (built about 20 years ago)

A surveyor's report was obtained, and that has raised several issues, one of which is a potentially significant planning compliance issue.
The issue is that the front upstairs bedroom window is in breach of 1.5.6 (c):

(c) In the case of a dormer window or rooflight, the
distance from the eaves to the bottom of the
opening section of the rooflight, or, where the
window is vertical, the vertical plane of the
window, should not exceed 1.7 m measured
along the slope of the roof.


The actual measurement is 2.1m

However, I think that the window in question is not actually a dormer window, since that although it has a triangle eave over it, and a sloped roof below it, it is fully below the eaves of the main roof, and the lower roof in question is just a roof over the protruding sitting room window.

i.e. it doesn't meet the definition of a dormer (at least from wikipedia):

A dormer is a roofed structure, often containing a window, that projects vertically beyond the plane of a pitched roof. A dormer window (also called dormer) is a form of roof window.


Therefore subsection (c) would not apply, and only (d)(ii) would be relevant here:

(ii) Where there is a roof, balcony or canopy
below a window, it should be structurally
adequate to support those using the window
for escape or rescue.


Now, I'm not a registered surveyor, so what I think doesn't formally hold much weight, but before I get the purchaser to raise the issue with the surveyor (who's already been paid), I'd like to see what people on here think...

I won't attach an actual picture of the house in question, to preserve anonymity of those involved, but here is a reasonably similar example:

The surveyor has totally misinterpreted the technical requirements of windows for means of escape or rescue purposes.

I’m assuming, based on your post, the surveyor is attempting to measure the distance from the eaves at ground floor canopy to the window at first floor. Totally inappropriate.

muffler

What Gumbo is trying to say is your friend should tell the surveyor to f... off and and learn how to shave .... he is obviously young and hasnt a clue

These would be dormer windows (in the roof)

BryanF

Gumbo was a tad more diplomatic ..

Gumbo

BryanF wrote: »

Gumbo was a tad more diplomatic ..

Sometimes diplomacy is not enough though

muffler

BryanF wrote: »

Gumbo was a tad more diplomatic ..

That would be Plan A

Gumbo wrote: »

Sometimes diplomacy is not enough though

That would be Plan B