Is A Romney Building Considered To Be Dual Pitched Roof ?
Discussion
The actual wording/definition in the GDPO is that the height allowance of 4m. applies only to ridgedroofs.
Romney buildings have a continuous arc, of course, so there is no ridge.
My interpretation would therefore be that the lower limit of 3m. height would apply. An individual Officer or LPA might think more generously, but in that case I'd suggest that you seek an LDC, so that you have proof of their judgement in writing.
Romney buildings have a continuous arc, of course, so there is no ridge.
My interpretation would therefore be that the lower limit of 3m. height would apply. An individual Officer or LPA might think more generously, but in that case I'd suggest that you seek an LDC, so that you have proof of their judgement in writing.
V8RX7 said:
Green belt and I'd want around 8m wide by 10m long so I suspect I'd have no chance.
In those sorts of circumstances, Planning Officers are supposed to take into account what would be allowed under PD, and measure any application in terms of the additional harm caused. You can remind them of this in a Design Statement.That's not to say that they wouldn't regard a Romney hut as a carbuncle, where a more traditional built form would not be, but they certainly shouldn't rule it out altogether, just because of footprint size, where a building of similar footprint is possible under PD.
Equus said:
That's not to say that they wouldn't regard a Romney hut as a carbuncle
Possibly but there are a few visible in the local area - I've always liked their lines.Whilst a traditional shape will cost more it would be easier to later convert to residential should it go that way
I have considered a few small ones as garages
https://www.worldwidebuildings.co.uk/copy-of-porta...
Top left - 5mx5m so you could easily store two sports cars in there
V8RX7 said:
I could stick a trim on to act as a ridge
It never ceases to amaze me, the chicanery some people will go, and the design compromises they will accept, to in order to avoid submitting a simple householder planning application.If you've got any good reason to be scared of the Planners, it's probably 'cos it's a shonky idea in the first place.
Equus said:
It never ceases to amaze me, the chicanery some people will go, and the design compromises they will accept, to in order to avoid submitting a simple householder planning application.
If you've got any good reason to be scared of the Planners, it's probably 'cos it's a shonky idea in the first place.
Solihull Council are a nightmare.If you've got any good reason to be scared of the Planners, it's probably 'cos it's a shonky idea in the first place.
They may as well have a machine that says "No"
Obviously it takes at least 8 weeks to do so.
I had a house rejected as "there wasn't enough space" despite sending in a plan of the nearest 20 homes demonstrating that there was more space than 18 of them !
Won on Appeal around a year later.
V8RX7 said:
Solihull Council are a nightmare.
You need a Planning Consultant who knows their arse from their elbow. 
I've worked with Solihull before. Their committee were a bunch of clowns, when I last worked with them (the Officer was having to explain to Planning Committee members the very basics of interpreting application drawings), but their Officers are no worse or better than anywhere else.
Equus said:
I've worked with Solihull before. Their committee were a bunch of clowns, when I last worked with them (the Officer was having to explain to Planning Committee members the very basics of interpreting application drawings), but their MALE Officers are no worse or better than anywhere else.
I've added in the keywordThe two women I've dealt with were awful - as an example never returning letters nor calls - for the entire 8 week period
Not being able to see / read a scale, one drawing was 1:50 another 1:100 that cost me 2 weeks until I pointed out her mistake
Gassing Station | Homes, Gardens and DIY | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff