Deep Singh

Wondering if anybody could help?

Asking on behalf of someone.

Friend has had plans passed for a loft conversion under new permitted planning rules, has been given a certificate of lawfulness. Under these rules he is allowed to increase the volume of the roof space by 50m3.

Had a builder come around to give a quote, when he measured up he says the plans are a little inaccurate. The dormer which on the plan looks like it should come out 3.5m will actually come out 4m. This will increase the volume to about 54m3.

Now, its building regs who will be coming to keep an eye on the construction, and they aren't actually concerned with planning issues. They would however, I'm sure, inform planning if they thought something was not in order.

So the question is, if he did go ahead and build it to the original plans, and the council realised it was 54m3 rather than 50m3 would that be enough of an error to push them to make him rectify it? Or would they take that as a margin of error? If 4m3 is too much of a margin, how much would they accept?

Thanks

Timwinner

iTrader: (3)

The long and short of it is the dont have to accept any margin of error. It would be very unlikely anyone will notice but your friend will have to go into it with open eyes. Meaning that there is a chance after the build is completed when it comes to signing off time they do have the right to tell him to change it. He can then enter an appeal processes and see if he can get it overturned.

I would just submit new plans with the new dimensions on. Might push him back 6 to 8 weeks but at least he know there is nothing to worry about.

Deep Singh

Thanks. He doesn't have to submit new plans, he will just have to build it so that the dormer only comes out 3.5m rather than 4, ie it will not extend all the way to the edge of the roof boundary. It means that the room will not be as big as he was led to believe looking at the plans, so a little disappointing.

I take your point that they don't have to accept any margin, but if he went out say 3.7m rather than 3.5m, and so the total volume was 52m3 rather than the allowed 50m3, would they really make him tear it down?

LG John

As you perhaps recall I was a planning officer of 7 years before giving it up to play poker for a living.

Generally Building Control and Planning don't communicate too well with one another and are unlikely to expose minor deviations to one another. I'd be surprised if the building control officer even noticed that difference when signing the work off, let alone inform planning. Nevertheless, I'd recommend keeping everything 'by the book' with building control for Building Warrant purposes.

As regards to planning, they'd probably allow the minor variation to be dealt with by way of a letter with revised drawings thereby saving you from having to re-apply for planning permission. There is no guarantee however, and they might view it as a material change that requires a fresh application and, of course, could choose to refuse that application.

Personally, I'd just wing it and I'd expect that nobody would notice. If they do, they are likely to require you to simply tidy up the paper work rather than forcing you to make any physical changes.

However, everything I advise you is based on what you've told us. It should be obvious, but if the finalised project is an abortion of a thing that is radically different from the approved plans then somebody will probably notice and have something to say about it.

LG John

Just read the above. From what you describe the difference between 3.5m and 4m is that the upper figure will cause the dormer to perfectly align with another part of the house. This is the sort of thing that anyone that's seen the plan would probably notice at a glance. If you have dormer neatly in the middle of a roof it's hard to tell if it's slightly bigger or smaller than approved or not. However, as soon as you break a new 'line' or 'boundary' or perfectly align with something that isn't shown on the plans the human eye will be far more easily drawn to it. From what you describe I'd maybe go for around 37m like you suggest leaving a sliver between the dormer and the roof boundary so that anybody viewing the dormer won't be so readily drawn to the 'mistake'

Hope that makes sense. I couldn't really say much more without seeing the actual elevation plans.

PaulC72

If in doubt phone them up and discuss it with them, if they say he is ok get it in writing and he is covered if they say not, then build tothe correct size and he is covered.

If he builds outside the agrred dimensions and tells the wrong person someone may report him and they could come and take a look, that is if they don't spot it when they visit.

No matter which option he chooses he should be prepared for the given outcome.

Deep Singh

I think I may not have been clear.

1) Its been done under what's called permitted planning/development rules that came out in Oct 2008. Basically if you follow certain rules you don't need actual permission. For example, volume not to exceed 50m3, no dormer to the front, side windows all to be obscured etc.
These plans were then submitted to council who agree that we are within the rules of permitted development and certificate of lawfulness given (this is not mandatory, but gives peace of mind)

2) On this plan, and on the building regs plan, the dormer is shown projecting from a point after the ridge to the very boundary of the roof. This dimension is marked as 3.5m and is used for the volume calc. However when you measure inside the loft its obvious that to extend to the boundary the dormer will have to be 4m outwards. This will push the volume calc from 50 to 54m3.

So, there are two choices.

a) either only go out 3.5m with the dormer and stay within the 50m3, but then have a room smaller than he thought he was going to have.

b) go out 4m so the dormer reaches the edge as shown on the diagram, which then exceeds the allowed 50m3 and in effect breaches the permitted planning rules if detected.

Or I suppose the third option is somewhere in the middle, ie come out 3.7m, so you get a room a little smaller than you planned and only breach planning by a little, which they may forgive?

Hope that makes sense?

PaulC72

a breach is a breach TBH so the second and third options are the same.

If the new rules state 50m2 then he needs to discuss the matter with a proffessional at the office IMO.

just to be safe of course

LG John

Ah, I'm with you now. I'm a) not up to speed with current permitted development allowances and b) in scotland we never used volume based calculations.

Personally when the volume difference is so slight I'd probably just risk it to save the hassle of having to get planning permission, etc. However, there are a number of obvious risks so it's really down to whether your mate wants to tick all the boxes, so to speak, and play it safe, or, take a slight gamble that nobody notices.

pacenote

Thats a bit gung-ho from a (ex ) planner

Deep, I would recommend your friend to keep to 50 m3. If there is any likely hood of that figure increasing I would speak to the planners about it. You would be surprised what people can notice and it really isn't worth the risk, ( bear in mind in the current climate the officers will probably be quiet workwise and need something to do )
HTH

LG John

Gung-ho maybe. However, I worked in the system and know that generally speaking a little bit of 'variance' here and there is seldom even noticed or acted upon. The problem is that if you contact planning and ask for an answer or advice then they will be bound to give the 'correct' answer to cover their own backs. In short, if you ask if it's ok to stretch by a few metres you'll simply be told that you need to submit an application.

It's like everything in life really. Do you sit at 70mph religiously on a 300 mile journey or do you cruise at 85 and risk 3 points and a fine? Do you declare the extra £2000 you made over the year from cash n' hand weekend labour or do you pocket it and never tell the tax man? Do you bang that incredibly hot blonde and risk getting ****-rot or do you say, "no thanks love...no johnny = no action"?

You get the idea

pacenote

Yes mate I do but I would never dream of comparing a planning issue with a traffic offence, the black economy and safe sex

PaulC72

what about doing a hot blonde while doing 85mph on the motorway knowing she is costing you 2k?

Clarebabes

You and your friend are both having a loft conversion (as per thread in DIY), you should be experts by now

nik52wrx

From my experience i would just build it. I had an extension built a few years ago that was slightly bigger than the plans submitted and i had it passed no problem.
The sign off guy was more concerned that the windows and ventillation were up to spec, he didnt measure the structural dimensions internally or externally.
He didn't even notice we hadn't even connected the rain water down pipe
(which is now connected)
Nik.

Deep Singh

Thanks for the advice. I would like to know more about the hot blonde though, pics would be especially helpful....

Seriously though, its a calculated risk I suppose, plain and simple, as stated

Deep Singh

Are you stalking me again, or is it another 'glitch'?

Terminator X

iTrader: (7)

Why not just get the planners to sign it off slightly bigger? What's he got to lose ... if they say no then just build it below 50m3.

TX.

Clarebabes

I was soooo bored with NSR last night, I thought I'd go for a wander into some of the other firums and up popped a thread about your loft conversion. What can I say? I am observant I put 2 and 2 together and came up with 5....