January 21, 20206 yr https://www.aol.co.uk/news/2020/01/20/couple-forced-to-tear-down-bungalow-roof-extension-because-its/?ncid=webmail
January 21, 20206 yr The problem is that if they get away with it, then others can do the same as a precedence has been set. This drop in roofline was explained to me as a “timeline”, a demarcation in the two indicating it has been altered. I don’t believe this is necessary unless on a Listed building though. Just shows this couple didn’t do their homework and abide by the rules.
January 21, 20206 yr Author a good word of caution for those not adhering exactly to the approved building conditons . they should consider them selves lucky as it would seem planers are not going to insist on width being altered back to 2/3rds of exsisiting building.just altering the roof
January 21, 20206 yr 3 minutes ago, scottishjohn said: as it would seem planers are not going to insist on width being altered back to 2/3rds of exsisiting building.just altering the roof in that case I think the planners are very reasonable
January 21, 20206 yr Council being entirely reasonable. They thought they could ignore the rules do to an alleged technical constraint which they chose not to discuss when it arose. Lesson hopefully learnt.
January 21, 20206 yr Why do extensions need to be subservient? Surely it would be better if they blended into the existing house rather than looking like an add on?
January 21, 20206 yr 1 hour ago, newhome said: Why do extensions need to be subservient? Surely it would be better if they blended into the existing house rather than looking like an add on? when I did a loft conversion on my house in Bristol I wanted dormers and the ridge of the dormer had to be 300mm below the house ridge, yes “subservient” Was the word the planners used. This did not give me enough head room within the loft and flat roofed dormers look c##p in my opinion. I got round it and built dormers as I wanted and stayed within the regs by using a cunning plan ?. Yes planners want additions to look like additions, the “timeline” argument. Edited January 21, 20206 yr by joe90
January 21, 20206 yr The whole thing looks a right pig's ear, to me. Having the ridge not quite match the original like that looks badly thought out. It results in everything being out of kilter, and bodged, and makes me think there will be a stack of other problems we can't see. The original facia board seems to be continued along the extension, but the gutters don't quite align. The perpendicular line of the pantiles is askew, which implies the roof may not be square, and because of this it looks like there isn't enough room to tuck the bottom pantile under the original, so flashing has been used instead of a tile. And what's going on in the bottom right corner of the roof? It looks like the hip does a dog's leg. Then look at the far right corner of the wall, with its projecting corner bricks - another sign that things aren't square. And there's that narrow Velux squeezed in next to the dormer, and no real attempt to match the original bricks. It looks badly planned and badly executed.
January 21, 20206 yr We did a similar thing when we extended our 1930's semi. The council wanted the wall of the extension stepped back, AND the roof. Well we stepped the wall back, a bit, not much. But the roof line we kept the same. I think it looked better for it, rather than trying to step back a hipped roof. It helped that the builder sourced some reclaimed roof tiles that were identical as well. I guess the planners could have forced me to change that. I just thought I was making it look better.
January 25, 20206 yr On 21/01/2020 at 11:50, newhome said: Why do extensions need to be subservient? Surely it would be better if they blended into the existing house rather than looking like an add on? The general principle is good ... prevents streets turning into a terraced appearance etc.
Create an account or sign in to comment