Planning are insistent on a dormer

[Fallowfields]

All new to this, and already frustrated. Got our dream plot with the ugliest broken down house on it and i have submitted a design which is different to the 1970s house here. The Hamlet is not particularly thought out planning wise and as the village dates back to domesday I thought it would be nice to insert an appropriately proportioned 17century farmhouse design. Well, they want a dormer and I dont want one as its not in keeping with the farmhouse of 17 century, apart from losing floor space and the blooming maintenance, that together with there is not one dormer in the road. What on earth?? Architect says we will have to give them one. Well thats like hanging a chandelier in a toilet cubicle, it just isnt right. Can they insist, it seems mean given this house is falling down and trust me its ugly and 70s and yet they seem to want another eyes sore to replace the already hated house in the hamlet by the natives.

 

Any tips how I can stop this silliness?

 

TIA FF

[Pocster]

Strange they want a dormer !

I’m sure a tasteful one could be designed though .

If that’s the only planning condition I’d go with it imho 

Edited September 8, 2023 by Pocster

[ProDave]

How do they define a "dormer"?

 

I hate the things, difficult to detail correctly, and you lose headroom.

 

So this was my solution instead, "gable ends"

 

 

One at the front ant 2 at the back.

 

Full unrestricted headroom. much easier to detail in all respects compared to a traditional dormer.

 

See if your planners would accept something like that?

[Blooda]

Have you seen the actual correspondence from the planning stating this and in what context ?  

How does the ridge height compare with the existing building?

 

2 hours ago, Fallowfields said:

ign. Well, they want a dormer and I dont want one as its not in keeping with the farmhouse of 17 century, apart from losing floor space and the blooming maintenance, that together with there is not one dormer in the road. What on earth?? Architect says we will have to give them one. Well thats like hanging a chandelier in a toilet cubicle, it just isnt right. Can they insist, it seems mean given this house is falling down and trust me its ugly and 70s and yet they seem to want another eyes

 

[joe90]

Having fought planners a few times I don’t see why they want a dormer, apart from the existing house is room in roof with a flat roofed dormer, as @ProDave says dormers are difficult to detail, and to give enough insulation to meet regs the cheeks are ugly thick. (I used to like dormers but I am better now 🤷‍♂️). Don’t be afraid to fight the planners and even go to appeal like I did. Going to appeal I found easier than dealing with planners. Part of my appeal was photos of surrounding houses creating a “street scene”. If you compromise too soon you may never forgive yourself.

Edited September 8, 2023 by joe90

[saveasteading]

2 hours ago, Fallowfields said:

Architect says we will have to give them one

Architect should be able to write flowery stuff about the "local vernacular."

[Dave Jones]

you want a planning consultant not an architect.

 

You already have the first hurdle jumped, planning in principle so its down to plans. 

 

Find a good consultant to look over the plans, they will know the local planning inside and out (probably worked there as well). May be the case of put in what you want and appeal it. You are in the position of having 2 bites of the cake so refusal isnt a show stopper. If the appeal is unsuccessful you havent lost anything apart from some time.

[Pocster]

15 minutes ago, saveasteading said:

Architect should be able to write flowery stuff about the "local vernacular."

Ahhhh “ local vernacular “ , “ detrimental to the local amenity “ , “ you are not factually incorrect ( because they can’t say a definite like ‘yes’ )” .Brings back memories of much BS - but OP’s is in the bag 👍

[Fallowfields]

2 hours ago, ProDave said:

How do they define a "dormer"?

 

I hate the things, difficult to detail correctly, and you lose headroom.

 

So this was my solution instead, "gable ends"

 

 

One at the front ant 2 at the back.

 

Full unrestricted headroom. much easier to detail in all respects compared to a traditional dormer.

 

See if your planners would accept something like that?

Oh cracking, i like this idea 😊 Although I thought they might say it is a gable, def better than what I thought as a gable and less onward maintenance and loss of heat.

[Fallowfields]

1 hour ago, Blooda said:

Have you seen the actual correspondence from the planning stating this and in what context ?  

How does the ridge height compare with the existing building?

 

 

We have lowered the ridge height to what they want, the reason, only reason is to retain its original character, Have you seen its character, you couldnt make it up😂😂 

[Bonner]

Maybe share plans for the replacement dwelling might help identify some improvement or line of defence. The existing house clearly lacks any merit, why would the planners want something similar?!

[Big Jimbo]

Find out if your planning officer is married. If he is, a hooker, some coke, and a photo. He will let you have whatever you want. Works every time.

[joe90]

34 minutes ago, Bonner said:

Maybe share plans for the replacement dwelling

+1, lots of knowledge here on planning applications, also photos of surrounding houses to see what the “street scene” is like.

[Pocster]

9 minutes ago, Big Jimbo said:

hooker, some coke, and a photo.

F me ! That’s my tactic ! . Not for the twat officer - but for me !!

[FuerteStu]

Planning specified a traditional looking dormer only on my loft conversion.. 

 

After a few back and forths, they accepted a full width Dormer on my bungalow, front and back. 

 

In reality, it's entirely new warm deck box on top on my bungalow with a artificial (non structural) ridge and a row of tiles down the sides. 

 

I had to adjust the pitch of the gables to accommodate the raised ceiling height, but planning went with it, because it 'looks'. Like a traditional dormer loft. 

[FuerteStu]

Mine, for reference.. 

 

 

[Temp]

On 08/09/2023 at 09:29, Fallowfields said:

We have lowered the ridge height to what they want, the reason, only reason is to retain its original character, Have you seen its character, you couldnt make it up😂😂 

 

If you have achieved the ridge height they want without a dormer I would just formally submit the application and fight at appeal if necessary.

 

I recommend including images of what the house will look like with examples of other similar house in the area done in the same media, for example Pen and watercolor. Using the same media helps make your design blend in better. An artist might charge a few hundred for this or you might be able to use SketchUp. I think that can turn line drawings into pen and ink style using styles.

[Gus Potter]

On 08/09/2023 at 13:31, Fallowfields said:

Any tips how I can stop this silliness?

Post some photos of what you have round about and your proposed front elevation.

 

They may be getting hung up on what we call massing.. the roof area looks too dominating and they want it broken up.. but are not actually telling you what their issue is... and this is really common.

 

Once you understand why they are pushing back you can look at your options.

 

You may find that down the road there is the odd Dutch hipped roof.. that softens the angular shape and the massing effect.

 

Also do you have a chimney? these can be used to break up a roof... even if a false one... I know you want something simple and not prone to leaking. but just a thought.

[Kelvin]

I’m not a massive fan of dormers either and have ended up with one as it was the only way to get a big enough bathroom to accommodate a bath and shower while keeping the upstairs floor layout the way we wanted it. In hindsight I would have removed it completely and just made the upstairs layout work but was overruled. That said, it’s detailed well I think and is a nice contrast of shapes and colours. However as Gus says planning did hint about massing when I briefly spoke with them early on about no dormer especially given the big garage roof. There are loads of dormers a bit like this in rural Scotland so it’s a common look. 
 

The flat roof still needs to be finished. 
 

 

 

Edited September 9, 2023 by Kelvin

[Gus Potter]

On 08/09/2023 at 13:31, Fallowfields said:

All new to this, and already frustrated.

Ok to go back to the original post and what @Kelvin is discussing.

 

The process at our design end is logical.

 

Your starting point when you encounter problems is to review what you are doing. You look again at what is within you permitted development rights and identify where you are breaching those.

 

You make a list of the breaches. I know it is a new build we are discussing but I always go back to the very beginning on every project and review what we know and PD rights form part of that review.

 

Next you look at what is round about in terms of what has been built. If you live out in the country it's different from being in a town... but you still can't have a crap design that looks bad.

 

Ignore the technicallities for now, just look at what you see and how different things have been introduced to the built environment. Use your eyes and remember / photograph what you see. This is important as it will form the basis of a planning application... it will also help you to not build a house that does not fit in.. think .. who wants to buy a house that does not fit in? Think about when you come to sell. Is a surveyor going to clock that too and reduce the value?

 

I mentioned massing earlier (too much of one building element for example that dominates the overall look) but there is another aspect to this which is proportion. The different elements need to be propotional to the rest of the building.. your common sense will help you a lot here. If you think about it.. at the moment you want to maximise space / reduce complexity.. but in a couple of years time you may come home and realise that your house looks ugly.

 

Another thing is how you use and introduce different materials. You could for example build a new house that has a part traditional farmhouse look and then add on an "annex" with say a Zinc roof and timber cladding. You may find examples of this locally where you have old 17 centuary houses that have modern parts added to them. Here what we do is to say.. we have the old and "a distinctly different but complimentary style". What we do here is to say.. we are appreciating the traditional design but adding something more contemporary but sympathetic to the 17 centuary ethos.

 

I think you need to do more work on this and look at it in the round as your forever home? If you do this then there is a good chance you'll get what you want within you budget.

 

Now if you can satisfy the above or something along these lines then you stand a good chance of getting the planners to agree.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[joe90]

7 minutes ago, Gus Potter said:

I mentioned massing earlier (too much of one building element for example that dominates the overall look)

With my appeal it went down well with the inspector that rather than have dormers I designed a double hip roof (no gables) to reduce the mass of the build.

[Gus Potter]

1 hour ago, joe90 said:

With my appeal it went down well with the inspector that rather than have dormers I designed a double hip roof (no gables) to reduce the mass of the build.

Yes that can work. If you do hips.. it does soften the roof. Well done you sorting that out.

 

You can do a Dutch type hip.. but sometime SE wise they are "hard to do".. but there are work arounds if you want to preseve the floor space in the roof.. you can do some cranked steels for example if you have a big house and have plenty money... that said it works fine in say in Surrey ( added property value ) but less often in regional parts of Scotland or Wales.

[Fallowfields]

On 08/09/2023 at 19:23, Big Jimbo said:

Find out if your planning officer is married. If he is, a hooker, some coke, and a photo. He will let you have whatever you want. Works every time.

She looks very prim, double barrel name and about 12 years of age 😑 Must be just following the text book

[Fallowfields]

On 10/09/2023 at 01:13, Gus Potter said:

Ok to go back to the original post and what @Kelvin is discussing.

 

The process at our design end is logical.

 

Your starting point when you encounter problems is to review what you are doing. You look again at what is within you permitted development rights and identify where you are breaching those.

 

You make a list of the breaches. I know it is a new build we are discussing but I always go back to the very beginning on every project and review what we know and PD rights form part of that review.

 

Next you look at what is round about in terms of what has been built. If you live out in the country it's different from being in a town... but you still can't have a crap design that looks bad.

 

Ignore the technicallities for now, just look at what you see and how different things have been introduced to the built environment. Use your eyes and remember / photograph what you see. This is important as it will form the basis of a planning application... it will also help you to not build a house that does not fit in.. think .. who wants to buy a house that does not fit in? Think about when you come to sell. Is a surveyor going to clock that too and reduce the value?

 

I mentioned massing earlier (too much of one building element for example that dominates the overall look) but there is another aspect to this which is proportion. The different elements need to be propotional to the rest of the building.. your common sense will help you a lot here. If you think about it.. at the moment you want to maximise space / reduce complexity.. but in a couple of years time you may come home and realise that your house looks ugly.

 

Another thing is how you use and introduce different materials. You could for example build a new house that has a part traditional farmhouse look and then add on an "annex" with say a Zinc roof and timber cladding. You may find examples of this locally where you have old 17 centuary houses that have modern parts added to them. Here what we do is to say.. we have the old and "a distinctly different but complimentary style". What we do here is to say.. we are appreciating the traditional design but adding something more contemporary but sympathetic to the 17 centuary ethos.

 

I think you need to do more work on this and look at it in the round as your forever home? If you do this then there is a good chance you'll get what you want within you budget.

 

Now if you can satisfy the above or something along these lines then you stand a good chance of getting the planners to agree.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thank you very helpful. Ive spoken with the Architect who has managed to drop the house by 1M. My effort to compromise on the dormer they so want and I hate, ive looked at the catslide dormer which is of the 17c I believe, so its not the housing development eyesore which perched on a stylish farmhouse design. it kind of works well as it looks like the roof has been lifted rather than hideously plonked on. Going to try to get away with just the side extension only so it will be the ensuite only affected. Fingers crossed!!

[Fallowfields]

On 09/09/2023 at 19:16, Temp said:

 

If you have achieved the ridge height they want without a dormer I would just formally submit the application and fight at appeal if necessary.

 

I recommend including images of what the house will look like with examples of other similar house in the area done in the same media, for example Pen and watercolor. Using the same media helps make your design blend in better. An artist might charge a few hundred for this or you might be able to use SketchUp. I think that can turn line drawings into pen and ink style using styles.

Like this idea, i tried a kind of copy and paste over to see it blend with the neighbour, not sure thats techy enough for the planners but I will look into this, thank you