Planning Application 17/05961/CP
Application for a Lawful Development Certificate for a proposed use or development - Loft Conversion.
We are concerned to see yet another house being extended in the roof by the addition of flat roof saddle dormers. This is a trend which is reaching almost epidemic proportions within the Bishopston area and is having a detrimental impact on the appearance and character of our streets. It stems from the inadequacy of Government planning legislation for Permitted Development, i.e. the building work which can be carried out without full planning permission, so long as it complies with certain criteria. P.D. guidance is clear that only roof dormers which are on the rear slope, i.e. not visible from the street, can be carried out under without planning permission. It is similarly clear that dormers to the front slope, i.e. visible from the street, do require full planning permission. Unfortunately, Government P.D. rules fall silent on what applies to houses where the roof is at 90 deg. to the street, which applies to much of Bishopston, and the matter remains open to interpretation. It seems clear from the above that if saddle dormers are visible from the street, then they should be subject to full planning permission.
The preferred method for creating an additional floor when the roof is at 90 deg. to the street is to raise the main roof approx. 1.3m, which creates attractive room-in-the-roof space. Nos. 23,38 and 40 Egerton Road are excellent examples and look as if the houses were built originally built like that. This works particularly well in Egerton Road where the houses are all different, side by side.
The only saving grace with this current application is that the dormers have been set back from the front wall of the house, so as to be less obviously visible from the street. Whilst this helps slightly it does not solve the problem. Examples like 95 Berkeley Road clearly demonstrate that, unless the dormers are set back at least 2.5/3.0m, then they are still visible from the street.
Whilst we understand that this is only a Lawfulness Certificate application, we object to it in principle and consider that the application should be subject to the scrutiny of a full planning application.