Thanks ^Woody^. I haven't actually modified the new structure yet to fix council objections. Are you saying that I should apply under s.192 after making the change? I am basically trying to avoid the situation where council says that the new structure is not compliant.
Council Objection to 20cm eaves rule for Dormer
Assuming that the wall at the moment does not comply with PD.....
What you need to do, is set the wall back to comply with PD and then apply under s191 - as such an application is based solely on what exists at the time of the application.
But your plan drawer should really be advising as he knows all the details.
Perhaps run this by the planner first and confirm that it is the appropriate method to apply.
What you need to do, is set the wall back to comply with PD and then apply under s191 - as such an application is based solely on what exists at the time of the application.
But your plan drawer should really be advising as he knows all the details.
Perhaps run this by the planner first and confirm that it is the appropriate method to apply.
The way I read it the OP wanted a lawful development certificate for the proposed smaller dormer, not the existing larger non-compliant dormer.
This should be doable and can be appealed if the planners reject it. However, I suspect it is just a misunderstanding, the drawings are not great and I can see how the confusion has arisen.
This should be doable and can be appealed if the planners reject it. However, I suspect it is just a misunderstanding, the drawings are not great and I can see how the confusion has arisen.
I can not see any objection to that; you've got the 200mm required set-back, and the cheeks seem to be in a little from the party walls.
You are good to go.
You are good to go.
I don't think he's done the 20cm set back yet though has he? And if that's the case you can hardly get a LDC for something that should be PD when its not PD yet.
But then I've not really read the whole thread properly.
Question for you
1. who chose the Architect for plans? was it you or your builder?
2. Did your Architect came and measured up and then did the drawings. Did he then submitted with the council for planning approval?
3. Or was the whole construction done as a all in one package so you didn't have to worry to find an Architect and Structural Eng.?
It looks like the Architectural Drawings did not show the 200mm set back, so they do not comply with the Newham Councils Planning requirements of leaving 200mm set back, the builder simply followed the Architect's drawings, I am pretty sure those drawings would have been submitted for approval at some stage by your Architect and Newham Council would have pointed out this, so you need to find out if your Architect submitted the drawings for planning and BC, or if your builders chose independent Building Control Inspectors, did they make site visits and (I assume they did and so after completion they notified Newham Council) so it seems like the Architect did not submit plans to planning and the plans did not meet the set back requirement in Newham.
Two of my friends are also having their Dormer done, in surrounding boroughs, and I have been involved to some extent, in choosing Architects and Structural Engineer for them as well as having sent to them 3 different builders to give them quotes.
1. who chose the Architect for plans? was it you or your builder?
2. Did your Architect came and measured up and then did the drawings. Did he then submitted with the council for planning approval?
3. Or was the whole construction done as a all in one package so you didn't have to worry to find an Architect and Structural Eng.?
It looks like the Architectural Drawings did not show the 200mm set back, so they do not comply with the Newham Councils Planning requirements of leaving 200mm set back, the builder simply followed the Architect's drawings, I am pretty sure those drawings would have been submitted for approval at some stage by your Architect and Newham Council would have pointed out this, so you need to find out if your Architect submitted the drawings for planning and BC, or if your builders chose independent Building Control Inspectors, did they make site visits and (I assume they did and so after completion they notified Newham Council) so it seems like the Architect did not submit plans to planning and the plans did not meet the set back requirement in Newham.
Two of my friends are also having their Dormer done, in surrounding boroughs, and I have been involved to some extent, in choosing Architects and Structural Engineer for them as well as having sent to them 3 different builders to give them quotes.
You are forgiven, you were very quick to point my mistak, but there is no mistake, don't seem to have checked his first set of plans with which his builders constructed his dormer. have a good look at his original plans, it does not show any set back, you are showing his new altered drawings to obtain council's approval., New drawings after a cock up was made by his Architect and builder.
And it does look like the Architect did not show the 200mm set back, have a look at the original construction drawings (existing ) (only snag is I can't figure out how to enlarge the image)
And it does look like the Architect did not show the 200mm set back, have a look at the original construction drawings (existing ) (only snag is I can't figure out how to enlarge the image)
Last edited:
see page 34 of http://webarchive.nationalarchives....00806_pdforhouseholders_technicalguidance.pdf
quoted from above:
Under the permitted development rules, This 20cm set back will be required unless it can be demonstrated that this is not possible due to practical or structural considerations. One circumstance where it will not prove practical to maintain this 20cm distance will be where a dormer on a side extension of a house joins an existing, or proposed, dormer on the main roof of the house. The enlarged part of the roof must not extend beyond the outer face of any wall of the original house if it is to qualify as permitted development. An interpretative provision at paragraph B.4 of Class B clarifies that for these purposes any roof tiles, guttering, fascias, barge boards or other minor roof details which overhang the outer face of the wall should not to be considered part of the roof enlargement. (c) any window inserted on a wall or roof slope forming a side elevation
You could appeal with the Council if you know how to, they need good convincing reasoning, as your circumstances falls within the above rule. trouble is can anyone understand what the above rule really means? hence you need a good Architect to take it up with them. Remember the words used in that rule, it says "One Circumstance where it will not prove practical....." and that is just one circumstance, it really means it is not the only circumstance, so other circumstances can also be used to prove, so you need someone who can convince the planners that what has been carried out meets the rules. I am sure this wouldn't be as complex a negotiation as Brexit.
quoted from above:
Under the permitted development rules, This 20cm set back will be required unless it can be demonstrated that this is not possible due to practical or structural considerations. One circumstance where it will not prove practical to maintain this 20cm distance will be where a dormer on a side extension of a house joins an existing, or proposed, dormer on the main roof of the house. The enlarged part of the roof must not extend beyond the outer face of any wall of the original house if it is to qualify as permitted development. An interpretative provision at paragraph B.4 of Class B clarifies that for these purposes any roof tiles, guttering, fascias, barge boards or other minor roof details which overhang the outer face of the wall should not to be considered part of the roof enlargement. (c) any window inserted on a wall or roof slope forming a side elevation
You could appeal with the Council if you know how to, they need good convincing reasoning, as your circumstances falls within the above rule. trouble is can anyone understand what the above rule really means? hence you need a good Architect to take it up with them. Remember the words used in that rule, it says "One Circumstance where it will not prove practical....." and that is just one circumstance, it really means it is not the only circumstance, so other circumstances can also be used to prove, so you need someone who can convince the planners that what has been carried out meets the rules. I am sure this wouldn't be as complex a negotiation as Brexit.
Last edited:
The dormer had been constructed contrary to the PD rules. That's the first set of plans. The OP is applying for a LDC for the corrected dormer - the second set with the set back.
Yes I got that he or his builder/architect drew plans that may or may not have contravened PD rules, (The chances are they didn't) he wouldn't have known this until he tried getting LDC, however, in certain circumstances as indicated in my above post, it may not be practical or possible so if an appeal is made on certain grounds, and accepted by the council, he can get is LDC as is without having to part demolish and rebuild 20cm set back, though i know Newham Council are very strict, but if you can put your reasons forward and say it was not possible to have that set back and TBH, it is not really needed on a side extension as such, so if you put your argument on the bases of structural or other circumstances, they may eventually be persuaded to accept as is. It is worth a try since no one really knows why they require this set back of 20cm on dormer being build on side extensions, on main part yes, is to do with rain water deflection, but where the roof slops to side and the rear most wall does not even come anywhere close to roof eves. Eves are on a side wall on a rear extension, and not on the rear wall of the rear extension. It may be hard to comprehend this in the head, so i will try to draw a picture later on to explain, and many council planners themselves don't know the rules or interpret them wrongly.
(technically speaking Eves of a roof is at the lowest part of the roof, where rain water gutter is attached to facia board, therefore on a rear side extension, the slop of the roof either runs left to right or right to left, and not from front to back or back to front, so the rule says that any wall of the Dormer should be set back 20cm from the eves, his rear extension does not have eves at the rear wall, but at the side walls, so as long as his dormer's side wall has an offset of 20cm, he does not have to have a 20cm offset from his rear most wall, it all about how you interpret rules and one can argue on those bases and appeal)
(technically speaking Eves of a roof is at the lowest part of the roof, where rain water gutter is attached to facia board, therefore on a rear side extension, the slop of the roof either runs left to right or right to left, and not from front to back or back to front, so the rule says that any wall of the Dormer should be set back 20cm from the eves, his rear extension does not have eves at the rear wall, but at the side walls, so as long as his dormer's side wall has an offset of 20cm, he does not have to have a 20cm offset from his rear most wall, it all about how you interpret rules and one can argue on those bases and appeal)
Last edited:
The issue is not the PD rules, but the application for the LDC.
The OP's application has been declined under s192 as the dormer is already built. s192 is for proposed development not existing.
Existing development is applied for under s191, so the OP should apply/should have applied under that.
Tricky one this. The LDC can only be done under sect.192 as the proposed smaller dormer is only a proposal, it hasn't been built yet. A sect. 191 would apply to the existing larger non-compliant dormer but as it has been there for less than 4 years it would automatically fail.
It is a matter of explaining the fact that the larger non-compliant dormer will be "removed" and the LDC sect. 192 is for a proposed smaller dormer to replace it.
Or go with with Mike London's suggestion of sticking with the original dormer and taking it to appeal.
It is a matter of explaining the fact that the larger non-compliant dormer will be "removed" and the LDC sect. 192 is for a proposed smaller dormer to replace it.
Or go with with Mike London's suggestion of sticking with the original dormer and taking it to appeal.
I totally agree what you said, however, as it is already constructed, his dormer does not meet the required 20cm set back from the eves of his main roof, but since he has already build it above the rear wall, with no offset, it is for him to convince otherwise that it was the only way structurally, as indicated in the his earlier plans, in which case the Council may take an exception and approve his LDC certificate, if they don 't then he will have to part demolish and rebuild with 20cm set back. With new plans submitted under appropriate section. (S. 191)
On the other hand, what if, so please answer with honesty, what if he erects a fake off set using roof tiles extending 20cm from the point of his original eve, and fix a gutters and facia to it, would that not serve the same purpose, as I understand the principle reason for this is such that any rain water deflected from the walls of hios dormer (made of tiles) don't splash about and mis a gutter and so this 20cm ridge catches any rain water and directs it into the gutter, there could also be another reason to do with load not being allowed on rear walls but to taken to side walls by means of Steel RSJ across. Does any one know the real purpose of this 20cm minimum set back? surely it must be for a reason why they ask for this.
On the other hand, what if, so please answer with honesty, what if he erects a fake off set using roof tiles extending 20cm from the point of his original eve, and fix a gutters and facia to it, would that not serve the same purpose, as I understand the principle reason for this is such that any rain water deflected from the walls of hios dormer (made of tiles) don't splash about and mis a gutter and so this 20cm ridge catches any rain water and directs it into the gutter, there could also be another reason to do with load not being allowed on rear walls but to taken to side walls by means of Steel RSJ across. Does any one know the real purpose of this 20cm minimum set back? surely it must be for a reason why they ask for this.
Last edited: