http://img136.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dormertw3.jpg
I've mentioned this a couple of times - I think it looks a bit funny
tbh - the back of it is all flat down across the full width.
I think it's his boiler outflow pipe across the front.
The front small bedroom is now stairs and boiler room ...

What do you think? It's a bit funny quaint looking on this front
corner.
--
http://www.freedeliveryuk.co.uk
http://www.holidayunder100.co.uk

mogga wrote:
http://img136.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dormertw3.jpg
I've mentioned this a couple of times - I think it looks a bit funny
tbh - the back of it is all flat down across the full width.
I think it's his boiler outflow pipe across the front.
The front small bedroom is now stairs and boiler room ...

What do you think? It's a bit funny quaint looking on this front
corner.

It is a bit odd isn't it - he's obviously (almost) converted a hip roof
to a gable-end (if that's the correct vernacular) - I can't imagine why
he didn't follow it through to the front wall of the house?

Maybe getting round some planning stipulation that the front elevation
of the property wouldn't be altered at all? I wouldn't mind betting
that the plans submitted for Planning Permission are slightly different
to the final result!

David

mogga wrote:
http://img136.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dormertw3.jpg

nothing there but spam for a poker site
--
Phil L
RSRL Tipster Of The Year 2008

Phil L wrote:
mogga wrote:
http://img136.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dormertw3.jpg

nothing there but spam for a poker site
My browser blocks the poker ad and shows the picture???

On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 16:20:48 +0000, Lobster
wrote:

mogga wrote:
http://img136.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dormertw3.jpg
I've mentioned this a couple of times - I think it looks a bit funny
tbh - the back of it is all flat down across the full width.
I think it's his boiler outflow pipe across the front.
The front small bedroom is now stairs and boiler room ...

What do you think? It's a bit funny quaint looking on this front
corner.

It is a bit odd isn't it - he's obviously (almost) converted a hip roof
to a gable-end (if that's the correct vernacular) - I can't imagine why
he didn't follow it through to the front wall of the house?

Maybe getting round some planning stipulation that the front elevation
of the property wouldn't be altered at all? I wouldn't mind betting
that the plans submitted for Planning Permission are slightly different
to the final result!

David

It only went for building control whatsists - not planning permission
- permitted development...
--
http://www.freedeliveryuk.co.uk
http://www.holidayunder100.co.uk

mogga wrote:
On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 16:20:48 +0000, Lobster
wrote:

mogga wrote:
http://img136.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dormertw3.jpg
I've mentioned this a couple of times - I think it looks a bit funny
tbh - the back of it is all flat down across the full width.
I think it's his boiler outflow pipe across the front.
The front small bedroom is now stairs and boiler room ...

What do you think? It's a bit funny quaint looking on this front
corner.
It is a bit odd isn't it - he's obviously (almost) converted a hip roof
to a gable-end (if that's the correct vernacular) - I can't imagine why
he didn't follow it through to the front wall of the house?

Maybe getting round some planning stipulation that the front elevation
of the property wouldn't be altered at all? I wouldn't mind betting
that the plans submitted for Planning Permission are slightly different
to the final result!

David

It only went for building control whatsists - not planning permission
- permitted development...

You can still do a hipped to gable conversion without needing PP.

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

"John Rumm" wrote in message
et...
mogga wrote:
On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 16:20:48 +0000, Lobster
wrote:

mogga wrote:
http://img136.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dormertw3.jpg
I've mentioned this a couple of times - I think it looks a bit funny
tbh - the back of it is all flat down across the full width.
I think it's his boiler outflow pipe across the front.
The front small bedroom is now stairs and boiler room ...

What do you think? It's a bit funny quaint looking on this front
corner.
It is a bit odd isn't it - he's obviously (almost) converted a hip roof
to a gable-end (if that's the correct vernacular) - I can't imagine why
he didn't follow it through to the front wall of the house?

Maybe getting round some planning stipulation that the front elevation
of the property wouldn't be altered at all? I wouldn't mind betting
that the plans submitted for Planning Permission are slightly different
to the final result!

David

It only went for building control whatsists - not planning permission
- permitted development...

You can still do a hipped to gable conversion without needing PP.

--
Cheers,

John.

A cost saving dormer?

There is probably a purlin across the front of the house. This method saved
it having to be replaced and also no living space was lost.

Adam

On 15 Dec, 11:15, John Rumm wrote:
mogga wrote:
On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 16:20:48 +0000, Lobster
wrote:

mogga wrote:
http://img136.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dormertw3.jpg
I've mentioned this a couple of times - I think it looks a bit funny
tbh - the back of it is all flat down across the full width.
I think it's his boiler outflow pipe across the front.
The front small bedroom is now stairs and boiler room ...

What do you think? It's a bit funny quaint looking on this front
corner.
It is a bit odd isn't it - he's obviously (almost) converted a hip roof
to a gable-end (if that's the correct vernacular) - I can't imagine why
he didn't follow it through to the front wall of the house?

Maybe getting round some planning stipulation that the front elevation
of the property wouldn't be altered at all? I wouldn't mind betting
that the plans submitted for Planning Permission are slightly different
to the final result!

David

It only went for building control whatsists - not planning permission
- permitted development...

You can still do a hipped to gable conversion without needing PP.

--
Interesting. Our council guidance says permitted development does not
allow a hip to gable conversion, since it affects the roofline.
However, I still see them being done around the place. but I assumed
not without planning permission. Of course, since you make up your own
mind whether planning is required, I guess some people just get away
with it. Apparently there is such a thing as a lawful development
certificate, but my council denied such a thing existed !
One thing I have never been clear about is what is nationally decreed
and what's local.
And don't lets even get started with the local planning committee !
Simon.

sm_jamieson wrote:

Interesting. Our council guidance says permitted development does not
allow a hip to gable conversion, since it affects the roofline.

Well to be fair, when I did mine (in 2004) PP was not required, but they
have "simplified" the planning process since then so that many loft
conversions now require PP where they did not before. So it may be that
part of the rules have changed.

The guidance at the time I did mine said you could not affect the front
elevation, or change the roofline without PP, however they did not count
changing a hip to a gable as a change in roofline oddly.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 18 Dec, 03:09, John Rumm wrote:
sm_jamieson wrote:
Interesting. Our council guidance says permitted development does not
allow a hip to gable conversion, since it affects the roofline.

Well to be fair, when I did mine (in 2004) PP was not required, but they
have "simplified" the planning process since then so that many loft
conversions now require PP where they did not before. So it may be that
part of the rules have changed.

The guidance at the time I did mine said you could not affect the front
elevation, or change the roofline without PP, however they did not count
changing a hip to a gable as a change in roofline oddly.

--
Interesting again, since it patently does change the roof line !
I want to do a loft conversion after my extension is finished, and I
will need planning due to the permitted development volume being taken
up (good thing I got in on the extension, its 4 metres, now only 3m
allowed on permitted development !).

The other thing I previously noticed from your excellent loft website,
is you built the dormer right up to the back wall of the house,
leaving no roof showing below the dormer.
This is another no-no in my area. 1m roof slope is required to prevent
overlooking of neighbours.
I've seen such "complete" dormers where the houses were smaller and
otherwise if would not be feasible, but this was a few years ago, and
no idea if they got or needed planning permission.
Your house looks about the same size as mine, i.e. a "complete" dormer
just gives you more space, and in your case made 2 rooms feasible. But
no loft conversions near me are like this, so I doubt I would get
permission.
This means I'm much more likely to need a steel to support the dormer
wall (unless I can support the wall on bulked-up "floor" joists). Also
BCOs apparently now frown on floor joists being cut at an angle at the
ends to fit under the eaves.

The other thing the permitted development rules say is 1m roof above
the dormer required, and 0.7m from the property side walls. 1m above
would make for a rather low ceiling, but the dormers near me all go up
higher than this, and I hope to get permission for this.
But I get the feeling that the planners have to feel they have "won",
so I'll probably have to let them have something. Maybe tactics are
required here, i.e. first apply for something meeting the guidelines
(which will pass), then alter it to something beyond what I required
(which will fail), then "agree" to let something go.

Another thing, I always thought is was a strange idea that people find
they don't need planning permission (according to volume rules) and
then build almost anything, ignoring the other permitted development
rules. These rules were intended to allow you to build things that
would have got planning permission anyway. I think people often get
away with things, but I don't think I would take the risk on my own
project.

Cheers,
Simon.

On Dec 14, 10:02*pm, "Phil L" wrote:
mogga wrote:
http://img136.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dormertw3.jpg

nothing there but spam for a poker site

And the picture referred to. I suggest you look to your browser.

MBQ

sm_jamieson wrote:

Interesting again, since it patently does change the roof line !

Well yes it does. I think the change they were concerned about was one
that would change the height of the ridge, or introduce anything the
protruded above it.

The other thing I previously noticed from your excellent loft website,
is you built the dormer right up to the back wall of the house,
leaving no roof showing below the dormer.

Well sort of - it was in line with the back wall, but we included a few
rows of tiles below it so that the overhang at the eves continued along.
But maximising space was the main consideration with mine:

http://www.internode.co.uk/loft/images/paintback.jpg

This is another no-no in my area. 1m roof slope is required to prevent
overlooking of neighbours.

Having a dormer to the rear wall does not really afford any more view of
the neighbours than is available from the existing rear windows. You can
see much further across the gardens etc, but that is really just a
factor of the extra height.

I think the aforementioned simplification introduced the 1m boundary bit
- it also introduced this as 1m from the ridge (which when you think
about it would preclude most lofts without PP). However I have a vague
feeling that last bit might have been relaxed.

I've seen such "complete" dormers where the houses were smaller and
otherwise if would not be feasible, but this was a few years ago, and
no idea if they got or needed planning permission.
Your house looks about the same size as mine, i.e. a "complete" dormer
just gives you more space, and in your case made 2 rooms feasible. But
no loft conversions near me are like this, so I doubt I would get
permission.

Well, you may find that its simply a case of most people go with what is
permitted without PP and hence they end up with much the same as each
other. Its possible that they would not object if asked for something a
bit different.

This means I'm much more likely to need a steel to support the dormer
wall (unless I can support the wall on bulked-up "floor" joists). Also

Depends on the spans... I have also seen it done use a flitch beam for
the rafters to the side of the dormer - transferring the dormer load to
the roof rather than the floor directly.

BCOs apparently now frown on floor joists being cut at an angle at the
ends to fit under the eaves.

I wonder why?

The other thing the permitted development rules say is 1m roof above
the dormer required, and 0.7m from the property side walls. 1m above
would make for a rather low ceiling, but the dormers near me all go up
higher than this, and I hope to get permission for this.

Yup - this was the new "easier" permitted development bit. Kind of
pointless in most lofts.

But I get the feeling that the planners have to feel they have "won",
so I'll probably have to let them have something. Maybe tactics are
required here, i.e. first apply for something meeting the guidelines
(which will pass), then alter it to something beyond what I required
(which will fail), then "agree" to let something go.

Alternatively - apply for more than you want so that you can then trim
it back to what you actually want. That way you can compromise to keep
them happy ;-)

Another thing, I always thought is was a strange idea that people find
they don't need planning permission (according to volume rules) and
then build almost anything, ignoring the other permitted development
rules. These rules were intended to allow you to build things that
would have got planning permission anyway. I think people often get
away with things, but I don't think I would take the risk on my own
project.

I suppose most people are only really aware of the volume and size specs
(after all that is all that gets discussed in many places you find
advice), and after that will be guided by the building regs.

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 22:19:48 GMT, wrote:

Wasn't 'permitted volume' removed from the latest PP rules? I'm hoping a
planned conservatory won't need PP as it would under the old rules (permitted
volume already fully used).

You must be like my next-door neighbour, filling all the available
space around the house with building-things. Total over-development, I
call it ;-)
First he built a conservatory at the back, then a porch at the front,
later a side extension; now he's knocked down the conservatory and is
building a sun-lounge in its place.
For the builders to get access to gain access to the rear, now that
the side extension is in place (there's no access through the
extension), he's had to negotiate with his neighbours in the next
street to dismantle part of the fence - what a mess!
Actually planning guidelines say that there ought to be access through
or past a side extension but somehow he's got around that - the only
means of access or egress to his property is via the front door :-)

There's only him and his wife living there...

--
Frank Erskine

Frank Erskine wrote:
On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 22:19:48 GMT, wrote:

Wasn't 'permitted volume' removed from the latest PP rules? I'm
hoping a planned conservatory won't need PP as it would under the
old rules (permitted volume already fully used).

You must be like my next-door neighbour, filling all the available
space around the house with building-things. Total over-development, I
call it ;-)
First he built a conservatory at the back, then a porch at the front,
later a side extension; now he's knocked down the conservatory and is
building a sun-lounge in its place.
For the builders to get access to gain access to the rear, now that
the side extension is in place (there's no access through the
extension), he's had to negotiate with his neighbours in the next
street to dismantle part of the fence - what a mess!
Actually planning guidelines say that there ought to be access through
or past a side extension but somehow he's got around that - the only
means of access or egress to his property is via the front door :-)

There's only him and his wife living there...

I can't understand why folk will do that. The next thing will be a shed in
the front garden because he can't get the mower or wheelbarrow through the
doors!

On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 01:59:52 -0800 (PST), sm_jamieson
wrote:

On 18 Dec, 03:09, John Rumm wrote:
sm_jamieson wrote:
Interesting. Our council guidance says permitted development does not
allow a hip to gable conversion, since it affects the roofline.

Well to be fair, when I did mine (in 2004) PP was not required, but they
have "simplified" the planning process since then so that many loft
conversions now require PP where they did not before. So it may be that
part of the rules have changed.

The guidance at the time I did mine said you could not affect the front
elevation, or change the roofline without PP, however they did not count
changing a hip to a gable as a change in roofline oddly.

--
Interesting again, since it patently does change the roof line !
I want to do a loft conversion after my extension is finished, and I
will need planning due to the permitted development volume being taken
up (good thing I got in on the extension, its 4 metres, now only 3m
allowed on permitted development !).

The other thing I previously noticed from your excellent loft website,
is you built the dormer right up to the back wall of the house,
leaving no roof showing below the dormer.
This is another no-no in my area. 1m roof slope is required to prevent
overlooking of neighbours.

The one I posted the pic of has no slope at the back - it's all a flat
roof and then straight down.


I've seen such "complete" dormers where the houses were smaller and
otherwise if would not be feasible, but this was a few years ago, and
no idea if they got or needed planning permission.
Your house looks about the same size as mine, i.e. a "complete" dormer
just gives you more space, and in your case made 2 rooms feasible. But
no loft conversions near me are like this, so I doubt I would get
permission.
This means I'm much more likely to need a steel to support the dormer
wall (unless I can support the wall on bulked-up "floor" joists). Also
BCOs apparently now frown on floor joists being cut at an angle at the
ends to fit under the eaves.

The other thing the permitted development rules say is 1m roof above
the dormer required, and 0.7m from the property side walls. 1m above
would make for a rather low ceiling, but the dormers near me all go up
higher than this, and I hope to get permission for this.
But I get the feeling that the planners have to feel they have "won",
so I'll probably have to let them have something. Maybe tactics are
required here, i.e. first apply for something meeting the guidelines
(which will pass), then alter it to something beyond what I required
(which will fail), then "agree" to let something go.

Another thing, I always thought is was a strange idea that people find
they don't need planning permission (according to volume rules) and
then build almost anything, ignoring the other permitted development
rules. These rules were intended to allow you to build things that
would have got planning permission anyway. I think people often get
away with things, but I don't think I would take the risk on my own
project.

Cheers,
Simon.
--
http://www.freedeliveryuk.co.uk
http://www.holidayunder100.co.uk

On 19 Dec, 09:09, mogga wrote:
On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 01:59:52 -0800 (PST), sm_jamieson



wrote:
On 18 Dec, 03:09, John Rumm wrote:
sm_jamieson wrote:
Interesting. Our council guidance says permitted development does not
allow a hip to gable conversion, since it affects the roofline.

Well to be fair, when I did mine (in 2004) PP was not required, but they
have "simplified" the planning process since then so that many loft
conversions now require PP where they did not before. So it may be that
part of the rules have changed.

The guidance at the time I did mine said you could not affect the front
elevation, or change the roofline without PP, however they did not count
changing a hip to a gable as a change in roofline oddly.

--
Interesting again, since it patently does change the roof line !
I want to do a loft conversion after my extension is finished, and I
will need planning due to the permitted development volume being taken
up (good thing I got in on the extension, its 4 metres, now only 3m
allowed on permitted development !).

The other thing I previously noticed from your excellent loft website,
is you built the dormer right up to the back wall of the house,
leaving no roof showing below the dormer.
This is another no-no in my area. 1m roof slope is required to prevent
overlooking of neighbours.

The one I posted the pic of has no slope at the back - it's all a flat
roof and then straight down.


Yeh. I certainly see them being done around the place.
Maybe I'll apply for a whole roof conversion, and see what they say.
I get the impression they are more fussy in my area than others,
but I guess I'll find out !
Simon.

On 18 Dec, 23:05, "Clot" wrote:
Frank Erskine wrote:
On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 22:19:48 GMT, wrote:

Wasn't 'permitted volume' removed from the latest PP rules? I'm
hoping a planned conservatory won't need PP as it would under the
old rules (permitted volume already fully used).

You must be like my next-door neighbour, filling all the available
space around the house with building-things. Total over-development, I
call it *;-)
First he built a conservatory at the back, then a porch at the front,
later a side extension; now he's knocked down the conservatory and is
building a sun-lounge in its place.
For the builders to get access to gain access to the rear, now that
the side extension is in place (there's no access through the
extension), he's had to negotiate with his neighbours in the next
street to dismantle part of the fence - what a mess!
Actually planning guidelines say that there ought to be access through
or past a side extension but somehow he's got around that - the only
means of access or egress to his property is via the front door :-)

Probably did on on "permitted development".


There's only him and his wife living there...

I can't understand why folk will do that. The next thing will be a shed in
the front garden because he can't get the mower or wheelbarrow through the
doors!

My rear extension is going up less than full width to leave a passage
up the side for
side access. Also means I can build it without going onto the
neighbours. But several local have blocked up their side access, for
the sake of an extra metre. I bet they rue the day they built it as
the kids are cycling down the hallway !
I also had to build a cunning right angled double gate in order to
sensibly use the side access.
A wheelbarrow is a lot longer than you realise !
Now I just have to invent a catch to lock it - at present it is
secured with a spax screw.
Simon.