This "extension" was brought to the attention of TDC in July 2008, who decided it needed planning permission. It was not until January 2009 that TDC persuaded the owner to apply for planning permission. This was refused in February 2009. The reasons were that it failed to relate to any of the existing roof forms, in terms of slope or proportion. The guide for dormers is they should be no deeper than half the depth of the roof space, this one goes right to the edge, both sides.
In June 2009 the applicant appealed and this was dismissed by the Inspectorate in December 2009 for much the same reasons as TDC did. TDC were then looking at ways for the extension to comply and looked at reducing the roof height but concluded this was not possible as it was already on the limit of the recommended floor to ceiling height.
The enforcement notice was not served until August 2010. Now for some reason TDC are struggling to explain why with minor changes it is now classified permitted redevelopment, albeit it still above the original ridge height. Now TDC have allowed another extension at ground / lower ground floor level.
Jesus!
ReplyDeleteNo divine intevention i'm afraid, only council whitewash.
ReplyDeleteThis "extension" was brought to the attention of TDC in July 2008, who decided it needed planning permission. It was not until January 2009 that TDC persuaded the owner to apply for planning permission. This was refused in February 2009. The reasons were that it failed to relate to any of the existing roof forms, in terms of slope or proportion. The guide for dormers is they should be no deeper than half the depth of the roof space, this one goes right to the edge, both sides.
ReplyDeleteIn June 2009 the applicant appealed and this was dismissed by the Inspectorate in December 2009 for much the same reasons as TDC did. TDC were then looking at ways for the extension to comply and looked at reducing the roof height but concluded this was not possible as it was already on the limit of the recommended floor to ceiling height.
The enforcement notice was not served until August 2010. Now for some reason TDC are struggling to explain why with minor changes it is now classified permitted redevelopment, albeit it still above the original ridge height. Now TDC have allowed another extension at ground / lower ground floor level.