Hip roof required???

Padtier

Hi All,

I intend to build an extension to the rear of my semi detached bungalow (located within an housing estate) and hope to do so without the need for planning permission.

I believe I will meet all these requirements ( less than 40m squared etc) however I am unsure on one thing, is there a need for me to use a hip finish to the roof of the extension??

I am hoping that I don't need to have a hip roof finish due to the design of the extension but I really do want to avoid the hassle of going through the planning permission process.

Regards,
Pad

mickdw

If there are no gables to the rear of the existing house, you cannot build rear gable on the extension without planning - on a single storey property

Gumbo

The roof design bears no relevance on the exempted regulations.
The heights of the structure cannot exceed the eaves level of the existing house so on a bungalow that means that a single storey extension may require planning.

Probably why you see a lot of flat roof extensions to bungalows.

BryanF

Section 5 is the way I'd go.

mickdw

kceire wrote: »

The roof design bears no relevance on the exempted regulations.
The heights of the structure cannot exceed the eaves level of the existing house so on a bungalow that means that a single storey extension may require planning.

Probably why you see a lot of flat roof extensions to bungalows.

I don't think you are correct there.
Where a pitched roof is proposed, walls are limited to eaves level with roof limited to existing roof height.

Bonzo Delaney

Is the extension 1 story or 2 story
If it's one there's loads of extensions with a gable end once it doesn't interfere with any Windows upstairs i was always under the assumption you need planning for a two story extension due to blocking natural light to neighbouring property.

Angry bird

Yes OP, it's either a flat roof or a hipped roof to avoid planning permission, something I disagree with as I fail to see the purpose of that limitation on exempt extensions.

Gumbo

mickdw wrote: »

I don't think you are correct there.
Where a pitched roof is proposed, walls are limited to eaves level with roof limited to existing roof height.

I was always under the impression that the height of any structure cannot exceed the eaves. Generally with two storey I don't come across it much as it would require planning in an urban setting anyway but the single storey always throws a spanner in the works.

Open to correction and happy to be corrected also.

sydthebeat

I have never come across a situation where it's "flat or hipped".... A gable extension is commonly considered exempt in my area of work.

If it was "hipped only" then there would be no need for the differentiation between clauses 4a and 4b.

As the difference exists in the regulations, in my opinion that means that a gable is allowed which doesn't exceed the existing gable height.

Gumbo

Looking back on this (without the wine) I think Mick may be correct. Block work to existing eaves level and the ridge line cannot exceed the existing ridge line.

I can confirm with Planning Enforcement on Monday if required

Poor Uncle Tom

The offending guiding text:

4. (a) Where the rear wall of the house does not include a gable, the height of the walls of any such extension shall not exceed the height of the rear wall of the house.

(b) Where the rear wall of the house includes a gable, the height of the walls of any such extension shall not exceed the height of the side walls of the house.

(c) The height of the highest part of the roof of any such extension shall not exceed, in the case of a flat roofed extension, the height of the eaves or parapet, as may be appropriate, or, in any other case, shall not exceed the height of the highest part of the roof of the dwelling.

For a single storey rectangular cottage with eaves height of say 2.6m with no existing rear facing gables. If I want to put up on an exempted extension of 35m2 to the rear, under the wording given above I cannot build the walls of my extension higher than 2.6m (no gable) however I can put a hipped roof.

So in this particular case, flat roof or hip, no gable, or am I missing something?

Angry bird

sydthebeat wrote: »

I have never come across a situation where it's "flat or hipped".... A gable extension is commonly considered exempt in my area of work.

If it was "hipped only" then there would be no need for the differentiation between clauses 4a and 4b.

As the difference exists in the regulations, in my opinion that means that a gable is allowed which doesn't exceed the existing gable height.

4. (a) Where the rear wall of the house does
not include a gable, the height of the
walls of any such extension shall not
exceed the height of the rear wall of
the house.
(b) Where the rear wall of the house
includes a gable, the height of the
walls of any such extension shall not
exceed the height of the side walls of
the house.
(c) The height of the highest part of the
roof of any such extension shall not
exceed, in the case of a flat roofed
extension, the height of the eaves or
parapet, as may be appropriate, or, in
any other case, shall not exceed the
height of the highest part of the roof
of the dwelling.

I have Syd, and have recommended a refusal on several declaration of exemptions because the architect/engineer/technician did not clearly read the various limitations. From this in practice, is why I say, flat or hipped roof. Sure there will be exceptions, but I am willing to bet they are very few and far between.

Edit: the OP's semi-detached bungalow has a side gable with standard pitched roof to front and rear, so an extension with a gable is not exempt as it falls foul of 4 (a) above (and even it it does not have a side gable but a hipped side, same difference re 4(a). Only of there is an existing rear and side gable that has planning permission, can a new rear gable extension be exempt.

sydthebeat

there will be different interpretations on the regs, as opinions differ.

and as i said, rear gables are accepted as exempt in all the ares i work in, i have never had a planner or fellow professional claim otherwise. i believe the spirit of the regs should read..
"if the dwellings hipped, the extension should be hipped, if the dwellings gabled, the extension can be gabled" but typically the scribes of the regs fecked the wording up, as they have a habit of doing.

when they refer to 'rear wall', i believe they mean 'rear elevation'.

Padtier

Thank you all for your comments.

The side of my semi-detached bungalow has a standard gable end finish but the rear of the house does not have an existing gable so it looks like I might be caught under the section 4(a) mentioned above.

The only thing to add is that nearly all my neighbours, to the side of me and rear, have built rear extensions with gable end finishes. ( I don't know if they had to apply for planning as I am new to the estate ).

Perhaps a naive question but if I had to apply for planning is there a ball park turn around time for applications?? ( Perhaps it is unique to the location and planning authority involved )

Angry bird

12 weeks turnaround for planning, assuming no objections or further information requests. If estate is not in charge by the council, site notice at estate entrance, and at your entrance. If in charge, just at your entrance.

mickdw

Angry bird wrote: »

12 weeks turnaround for planning, assuming no objections or further information requests. If estate is not in charge by the council, site notice at estate entrance, and at your entrance. If in charge, just at your entrance.

Plus time to prepare application and 14 days minimum for commencement after final grant before works can start.