We're having an single story extension on the back of the house and due to cost we're limited with design options.
Due to the need for a 15 degree slope on the planned single pitch roof the architect identified the upper floor window would intere with the butress and has come back with the below design.....I find it a little bizarre as the roofline will come above the window line and potentially overshadow next doors conservatory.
[img] 
[/img]
Who'd just get a flat roof? if not, why not?
why not just slope away from the house?
what is the roof covering going to be? - make sure it works with such a low pitch and windows (are they going to open?)
our architect designed for tiles - but they wouldnt guarantee waterproofness for roof lights and the low pitch and even then the veluxes had to go in upstands which ruins the outwardy appearance but looks good inside
fortunately our builder was clued in and we have a funky resin roof instead of tiles
We'd planned for tiles which apparently (our price point) need a 15 degree slope
why not just slope away from the house?
If we slope towards the house (at 15 degrees) the roof would stop 25cm above the window sill, make sense?
Oink, what company did your roof?
before anyone says it, flat roofs are now fine and will last the life of a normal pitched roof *provided there installed properly* suggest you look at the trocal website as ive specc'd several of these and they work well
ensure the architect details the abutment well, as where the lead flashing will be next to the first floor window looks tight
lead flashing is going to clash with your bedroom window frame
are two roof lights actually necessary for the size of extension? maybe cheaper to have one large one instead
[i]25cm above the window sill[/i]
drop the garden a bit 😉
the roof lights are mainly because the extension will reduce natural light in the current room at the rear so we want to minimise this.
Keep the comments coming as their all valuable
IMO it is aesthetically unsatisfactory. Would a V shape pitch running front to rear interfere with the window?
IMO it is aesthetically unsatisfactory.
Exactly
These are the architects comments on flat roofs
"In terms of life cycle costs a pitched roof should certainly work out cheaper in the long run, but initial outlay would probably be cheaper for the flat roof. So no, I don't think there would be a 'significant' cost saving. A pitched roof is more likely to get planning, and another issue with flat is your building insurance (sometimes push up premiums), despite technology being a lot better than the old felt roofs. Also house appreciation is likely to be greater with a traditional pitched roof."
Why would a a pitched roof be more likely to get planning in a back garden?
Which way does the house face? That's a big slab of wall for your neighbour to look at. Is there any scope to go full width but not as far back? Might even fall under permitted development then.
An apex roof could work but its all about the budget
I'd wait and save up a bit more cash.
If I were spending a fair chunk of cash on it I'd want to pleased with the outcome. In 5 years time I'd not remember waiting an extra 6 months but I'd keep being annoyed if there was some aspect of the extension that I knew should have been done differently.
BTW why the balustrade on the exterior wall? It the balustrade's 1100mm then it looks like there's a 450mm drop at most so it's not officially required. And I'd at least push the wall on the back door side out so it's in line with the house wall and increase the width of the path on the back so you can put something on it and still walk past.
An architect proposed that? Are you serious! 😯
Not knowing what the house layout is....
Can you take the extension out to the full width of the house, create new window on gable end (to compensate for loss of window next to back door. Then ridge of roof can go between the two upstairs windows with hip ends at other end. If that makes sense?
No to a flat roof, at some point it will need replaced.
I'd have made it shallower but the full house width & sloping away from the house. And ditto the above re: flat roofs if it has to be that shape. My neighbours have had their garage done, one big sheet over the whole roof so no seams. Very tidy job.
whats your budget?
It's not clear from your picture, is it a semi? Does the side of the extension abut the boundary.
Parents neighbours tried to get something similar through planning, planning said no chance.
BenHouldsworth - MemberOink, what company did your roof?
Our builder just brought everyone in that he needed, so dont know who the roofer was. But he was http://www.gcbuildingltd.co.uk/
It is a semi and while we get on with the neighbours I can see issues with a 10 foot wall overshadowing their conservatory.
The reason we cannot go full width is the angle of the drive next to the house, the extension is to house a kitchen so wider with less depth (while not doable anyway) wouldn't give us the layout we want.
Budget is ideally £30K but that includes the kitchen and also an chimney breast and internal wall knocking out.
Got something very similar (although better looking :lol:) done to ours last year.
My original plans had to be scraped due to new building regs (the 60? rule*) meaning I had to alter my plans to suit. Ended up with moving the extension to a similar place to yours, which required knocking through the old kitchen and budgeting for a new one (which in turn meant the size had to be reduced to fall within budget). Ours lines up with the right hand edge in your pic with a V shaped vaulted ceiling with 2 skylights. Size 15'x12'. Budget was 20k and this included a new kitchen + fitting. Came in under (due to paying cash) and shopping about. Some quotes were almost twice what we paid.
* 60 degree rule: draw an imaginary 60? line from the middle your neighbours closest window. Where this crosses your property is the furthest you can extend. Worked out to be something like 5' in my case.
If you went for a single ply membrane flat roof it gives a 30-40 year guarantee- got to be a better solution than that effort- you will regret it if you go with that I would suggest- alternatively cant you just raise the window cill a smidge to achieve the roof falling from the building?
s the roofline will come above the window line and potentially overshadow next doors conservatory.
You won't get planning on that, your neighbours have a right to light
The pitch makes it effectively more than a single storey extension, also how far back does it go? I'm guessing if a pitched roof imposes on your upper windows its fairly big, anything over about 3.5m from back wall of house would be frowned on by the planners in this sort of situation
Have first hand experience of this with our neighbours and our conservatory, we objected to their plans but planning officer said it wouldn't have mattered it would be refused anyway.
Some good comments above, and whilst not wanting to pass comment on a fellow professional, this is not a great effort.
For that sort of money you could be getting something more elegant, with more generosity, a modern aesthetic and better daylight.
I'd be looking at a good flat roof system contained by a low parapet, with a single, generous rooflight, opening up one wall with sliding glazed doors onto a deck.
We had similar neighbour concerns and a wish for a lot of light.
So we had a clearstory window and offset pitched roof. Suggested by our architect.
The setting sun comes through beautifully leaving orange patterns on the wall.
I can fully recommedn our architect if you are not happy with yours
Oh yeah, the 60 degree (aka 45degree) rule is a funny one, doesn't get applied in our borough although other odd polanning regs do.
PLanning departments are a funny bunch, make sure your architect will work with them.
[url= http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2489/5710587046_7c3be76e8e.jp g" target="_blank">
[url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/evilgoat/5710587046/ ]Garden Room[/url] by [url= http://www.flickr.com/people/evilgoat/ ]Evil Goat[/url], on Flickr
[url= http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3334/5710019715_ca177e1bcb.jp g" target="_blank">
[url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/evilgoat/5710019715/ ]clearstory and velux[/url] by [url= http://www.flickr.com/people/evilgoat/ ]Evil Goat[/url], on Flickr
I hope it was a year out student doing that. Looks horrendous. You could pitch towards the house but you would need something like a leaded flat section under the window which would look equally pap. Can't quite tell if you have a neighbour but why does it need to be mono pitch? Can't it be duo pitch and use the full height of the roof space internally? What is the room for? Kitchen? Dining? Do you have any views down the garden? If you went duo pitch you could put in a larger window going into the apex and get rid of the velux's. Is cost a major driver? If you want mono pitch then use alternative roof materials like zinc standing seam. You could go to 10degree and avoid the window etc.
not ideal but given that a connie will be behind it i cant see an option ( i have seen connies built 4 inches apart recently..
light is king so for me i'd add another window beside the extension door and have the kitchen and wall units etc alongside the connie facing wall this would create space and light base units could be then used under both windows leaving those wall free.
i assume that the wall taking down will be the wall between the extension and house? if so building works to first fix would be 12k max
block work is minimal and simple layout, services water electricity waste should be no issue.. where is the gas supply?
build so internal dimensions are suitable to fit std kitchen base and wall unit sizes to minimise costs further and no probs. it might even encourage next door to have thier connie down and build similar back to back with you.
Not a great solution, in my opinion.
Isn't the mimimum angle for a tiled roof more than 20 degrees, rather than the 15 specified? Too low and water can get in.
Aesthetically your drawings look a bit of a state, tbh, and I don't think your neighbours will be overly impressed either. It may even fall foul of planning, given the full-length height of the ridge.
We faced the same problem - too hard to get the necessary angle on a pitched roof without either having a very sharp double pitch or a weird wedge like in your picture. Our solution was a very low angled green roof sloping away from the rear wall. Effectively it's a flat roof construction, lower profile, but with the advantage that it doesn't interfere with the upstairs windows, present an ugly block to the neighbours, and also catches more light through the rooflights because they're not entirely level.
Could do better.
An image to show the impact on the next door conservatory would have been useful as indeed would a compass.
have you got the floor plans so I can see whats going on internally and see where your boundary/next door is? For 30k I think you could achieve something a lot more asthetically pleasing than that but need to understand your requirements first and see how it ties in with existing
If I spent £30k and ended up with [i]that[/i] I'd be more than disappointed !
Utterly terrible looking. Form and function have their place. I'd get another architect on board.
Not everyone's taste, I know, but I like this mix of old and new.
[img] 
[/img]
Have a Google for extension designs, find a concept you like, then get a architect or surveyor to draw up the plans to your budget.
[img] 
[/img]
Floor plans above.
The extension will sit where we currently have a conseratory (3x3) and will be approx 4x4.
The adjoining neighbours conservatory has privacy glass on the boundary side and the sun travels east to west over the house, the site of the extension losing sunlight at around 3 pm; there would be no shadowing caused by the build but like everyone says the current design F*****G awful.
I spoke to the project manager this morning and it turns out the architect is actually an architectural technologist ????? from the preacticem, hence the lack of imagination.
We've paid no money or sign no contracts yet so not overly concerned at this point.
Aside from the neighbours upper bedroom window and the other neighbours shared drive it will not be overlooked by anyone.
Budget is an issue and as there will be internal remodelling going on that is limiting the spend on the roof design.
oh right next door's boundry is a lot closer than the first image suggested. The house is a bit smaller than I anticipated too. I think the proportions of the 3D image is also missleading which would make it look worse than it is. I think you could squeeze in a dual pitched roof at around 30 degrees but you may have to reduce height of the eaves. I dont think thats the complete solution although it's a start.
A more modern design as above could also be an option
The design you currently have is terrible, is there any way you could afford something like supersessions9-2? With a design like that you could push the outside wall to run up the outside wall of the house without blocking out too much light from the neighbiurs.
That current design looks like the architect couldn't give a monkies.
It looks like the architect has just selected "Generic room bolt-on" from their CAD package and dragged it onto the side of your house
File->Print.
Job done.
😆
[cough] please note that the OP isn't actually using an architect, but actually what is known as a "plan drawer".
Shows, doesn't it?
I'd look at using a flat roof with lightweight green roof over, rooflights could be something like sun pipes, and it'd be nice to have a bit more imagination with the windows.
Actually, passing yourself off as an architect could result in a large fine from the ARB, please can you tell us who they are so I can report them.
Ap he's just said he's an architectural technologist. Doesn't mean he's passing off as an architect. The technologist is just as capable of designing as an architect but in general terms is more practical!!
If you have that amount of windows that wall insulation will need to be beefed up under Part L
If you have that amount of windows that wall insulation will need to be beefed up under Part L
And/or beefing up the windows?
aP's right. I could design a better extension, and I'm not an architect. In fact I'm a complete idiot! 😀
That's a shockingly lazy piece of 'design'. That it involves velux windows instead of considering other ways of making use of natural light shows how poor it is. Velux windows should be used as a last resort, not a first option. In Supersessions' example, there is no choice but to use roof windows to get light in really. But I am disturbed by the amount of wall and lack of windows in the OP's 'design'. Personally, I'd be making at least one wall mostly glass, maybe with sliding/folding door type things so you could open up one side sort of like a verandah type thing.
I like this mix of old and new.
Yeah, but you're probbly one of those weirdos who like to walk around in the nudd with no curtains, full knowing all your neighbours can see in in fact that's why you do it. Pervert. Deviant! 😡
he's just said he's an architectural technologist
A [i]what[/i]? That's one of those ponced-up terms try to make it sound more important, like Horticultural Engineer, or Educational Catering Facilitator or something....
I'd get aP in to sort it out. He designed the London Underground you know.
You'll get 1.1w/m2k relatively easily and cheaply but under is going to start tipping the balance cost wise
Yeah, but you're probbly one of those weirdos who like to walk around in the nudd with no curtains, full knowing all your neighbours can see in in fact that's why you do it. Pervert. Deviant!
As they say in L'Oreal land, it's because I'm worth it! 😈 And they shouldn't be looking anyway.
Light wise, these [url= http://www.solatube.com/residential/index.php ]skytubes[/url], or whatever you want to call them, look quite interesting (to me anyway).
A what? That's one of those ponced-up terms try to make it sound more important, like Horticultural Engineer, or Educational Catering Facilitator or something....
I disagree. There's a distinct difference between Architect, Architectual Technician and draughtsman. A drafty usually has limited knowledge of construction and architectute but knows CAD inside out. An architectual technologist usually sorts out the technical and practical aspect of a design whereas an architect would mainly come up with the design concept. These roles inevitably merge and overlap and will vary accross teh industry but thats generally the case in my experience. This design however does look to have been produced by a drafty with little or no regard to architecture. I would expect an architectual technician to have far more vision than shown here.
So we're all agreed it's a crap design then, and given the budget a flat roof and more windows is the way forward?
I disagree. There's a distinct difference between Architect, Architectual Technician and draughtsman. A drafty usually has limited knowledge of construction and architectute but knows CAD inside out. An architectual technologist usually sorts out the technical and practical aspect of a design whereas an architect would mainly come up with the design concept. These roles inevitably merge and overlap and will vary accross teh industry but thats generally the case in my experience. This design however does look to have been produced by a drafty with little or no regard to architecture. I would expect an architectual technician to have far more vision than shown here.
What-ever! It's a building, not great art. Unless it's a building what can be considered to be a work of art. Ooh I dunno.
[img] 
[/img]
Ah. Feel better now. 🙂
To give my 2 pence the Technologist (if he is a technologist can actually sign of Architects Instructions if he's MCIAT) may have taken into account the OP's budget and merely provided the most cost effective solution. More than likely was signed off by an Architect before leaving the office.
In my experience, as one of these apparently ineffectual professionals, is that good design generally cost a bit more in materials etc. not just the actual design. Things such as green roofs cost money don't you know.
Not defending the design as it doesn't look great, but I've lost count of the amount of 'beautiful' Architects designs I've had to sort out because they are in no way compliant..............but look great. 🙄
OP - one thing to bear in mind is the cost of a likely SAP required if you go with alot of glazing. if you exceed 1/20th the floor area of the extension (but you can allow for the existing door that you are covering up) then Building Control will more than likely require a SAP calculations to prove its Part L performance. Increasing areas of glazing can lead to the need for increasing the performance thermally of the walls, floor and roof - not diffcult but adds expense and may reduce effective floor area if you have to increase wall thickness. May be able to take the extension and existing house combined as downstairs now seems fairly open planned and assess with a few consequential improvements.
Flat roofs are completely fine (we spec Sarnafil alot here). Make sure it's warm roof construction as third parties (NHBC) tend not to insure cold.
Handrail - agreed tends to only be required where the drop is 600mm or over, if it is required though the guarding design certainly would be compliant - should all be picked up by regs.
Since when have people had a 'right to light?' not to be overlooked or massing not appropriate for the area maybe but light?
Not particularly sure where I went with that one, going to go and play on bike. 😳
EDIT: 25% of floor area not 1/20th with regards to glazing and SAP's! 😳
Cheers MrBen, he has this qualification, BSc Architectural Technology, and though I'm not aware of any professional memberships he comes recommended by several people and has a long history working for a LARGE Northern practice.
I think you hit the nail on the head when you said
may have taken into account the OP's budget and merely provided the most cost effective solution. More than likely was signed off by an Architect before leaving the office.
My main beef, apart from it being ugly, is that given his self acknowledgement that the design might upset the planners and if you have doubts about your own work should you be giving it to clients.
Since when have people had a 'right to light'
Since 1832!
I have only looked at the beginning this thread, and rapidly scanned to the end which is perhaps unfortunate for Mr Ben as I have ended up responding to his post but it is directed generally.
Dear MrBen
At a guess you will be an 'Architectural Technologist', a 'Technician' or whatever. It's interesting that it is only you and your peers that argue that you have knowledge, understanding, ability and responsibility equal to that of an Architect. Nobody else in the building industry, property world, central and local Government, industry, commerce, insurance, education, etc., etc. agrees with you. Unfortunately, from yours and your peers point of view, your post rather reveals that these people are right.
Regards
To the OP
If you ask these sort of questions it generally means you know the answers. So, yes, that design is rank bad (and not implementable under Planning Law and Building Regulations). Having got that settled do you really think that this forum if the best place to redesign it give the forum's track record of uninformed opinion, failure to listen and amateur advice?
Yes, I am a bit grumpy today
do you really think that this forum if the best place to redesign it give the forum's track record of uninformed opinion, failure to listen and amateur advice?
Probably not but worth a punt, sometimes we surprise ourselves on here.
I'm more suprised that we got half way down the the second page people started insulting each other
[i]I'm more suprised that we got half way down the the second page people started insulting each other[/i]
Very true, and my apologies for adding to it.
On your original post there's no reason whatsoever (from a technical point of view) not to have a flat roof. A good reason to do it could be to get a first floor terrace with french windows from your bedroom. Don't mention that to the Planners though because they will get all exited about loss of privacy in your neighbour's garden.
Also, check things in relation to 'Party Walls'. You may be able to use the existing conservatory wall your neighbours have so kindly provided and BTW, in that respect your existing plans won't go through Building Control. The good news is you could get a bigger (and cheaper) kitchen by compling.
I would rate your chances of a 15deg Pantiled roof staying watertight for very long as considerably lower than a flat roof with something like Rhepanol on it, plus, as has been said,is a much better use of the available wall area on the existing building. Plus pantiles don't look great (and are hard to seal) around rooflights etc IMO.
http://www.ultraframe-conservatories.co.uk/orangery-products/orangery-conservatory-gallery/
Just a thought,flat roof with loads of light, plenty of downlighter options for in the ceiling. Did one in a kitchen extension last year, customers were very pleased.
OP - Any decent Technologist/Technician/'or whatever' would have a CIAT (Chartered Institute of Architecural Technologists) accreditation - MCIAT/ACIAT etc. To call himself a Technologist he would need to have the MCIAT - much like a designer calling himself an Architect they'll get into trouble.
A Technologist should be adequate for this type of project - often considered as a poor mans Architect - though it may end up function over form
Blimey, a bit of filling in the blanks there 'off the pace' (or should that be 'off the mark'?) 😉
Just giving a voice to the Techs who it appears according to this thread nobody had ever heard of.
Point is to free up the Architects for design/contract administration etc.
When it comes to technical detail yes the techs know more, its what they do every day - liaising with Building Control, Contractors, Clients, dare I say it architects?
I can only assume that your heart was broken by a Tech and the pain is too much. 🙁
[i]I can only assume that your heart was broken by a Tech and the pain is too much.[/i]
MrBen, surely you were taught the dangers of assumption! All I've had at the hands of technicians is disappointment that their knowledge, understanding and ability didn't live up to their claims, regret that their insistence of competence was baseless, and a realisation that, far from knowing the answers, they didn't even know the questions!
Technicians can assist Architects, just as clerks can assist lawyers and nurses assist doctors but you wouldn't want a clerk defending you in court nor a nurse doing your cardiac surgery. To think that there is any field at all where a technician might have superior knowledge to an Architect is delusional and to let technicians out into the world unsupervised would be irresponsible and dangerous (to the environment, to clients and to my professional indemnity insurance premium).
Just my take as an employer in the industry over 30 years.
Oh, I concede that, as in any other field, a good proportion of Architects are incompetent but that's a different argument.
Technicians can assist Architects, just as clerks can assist lawyers and nurses assist doctors but you wouldn't want a clerk defending you in court nor a nurse doing your cardiac surgery. To think that there is any field at all where a technician might have superior knowledge to an Architect is delusional and to let technicians out into the world unsupervised would be irresponsible and dangerous (to the environment, to clients and to my professional indemnity insurance premium).
Ah the world of the planning architect...as an arch tech and having just corrected another architect bodged design where a 2 1/2 storey block of apartments couldnt be reached due to there being no head room in the communal staircase...goes to show 5 years at uni cant buy you everything.
MY ADVICE,
1. GET THE ARCHITECT AT THE PRACTISE TO DESIGN WHAT YOU WANT TO SEE (I HAVE ZERO DESIGN FLAIR THATS WHY IM A TECHY)
2. GET THE TECHY TO THEN DESIGN IT DOWN TO WHAT YOU CAN AFFORD AND BUILD (MULTIPLE ROOFLIGHTS WOULD BE CHEAPER THAN ONE LARGE ONE AS YOU WOULD HAVE TO CUT MORE ROOF TIMBERS TO FIT THEM IN HENCE WOULD NEED BIGGER TIMBERS)
3. GET THEM TO REMODEL IT UNTIL YOUR SATISFIED
4. TRY AND GET A PLANNER TO COME OUT, OR MOST PLANNING DEPTS WILL DO A DROP IN DAY WHEN ONE PLANNER IS AVAILABLE TO DISCUSS WHAT YOU WANT TO PROPOSE - TAKE ON THERE THOUGHTS AND GET THE TECH TO INCORPORATE THEM
5. GET AS MANY REPUTABLE BUILDERS TO COST IT AS POSSIBLE
PS IN THE MODEL,THAT KITCHEN WINDOW SHOULD BE MAX 1050MM DEEP TO ALLOW THE WORKTOP TO FIT UNDER THE CILL HEIGHT
-------
12 YEARS AS AN ARCH TECH FOR A LOT OF MAJOR NATIONAL HOUSEBUILDERS, EXTENSIONS
3 YEARS AS SENIOR TECH DOING LISTED MANSIONS REFURBISHMENTS, ORANGERIES, BASEMENT SWIMMING POOLS...1 PLACE HAD A CRICKET PITCH AND PAVILLION IN THERE GARDEN!
and keep us informed of how it goes!
ONC LEVEL TRAINING (2 YEARS)
PpS SORRY for SHOUTING 😳
my input
you get what you pay for! and if you're not happy with the design get him to change it, If he won't/can't then you're not happy with his service so change him.
there are plenty of talented and competent architects and technologists out there who would be glad of the work
OP - sorry for the apparent hijack of your original post, hope you get a resolution you are happy with.
Off The Pace - I agree with the sentiment of your last post.
However use of the term Technologist infers a whole new level of competancy to that of a Technician.
[url= http://www.ciat.org.uk/en/careers/What_is_a_Chartered_Architectural_Technologist.cfm ]Architectural Technologist[/url]
They can set up their own parctice and have PII and everything - they'll be getting the vote next 😉
BenHouldsworth - Member- We've paid no money or sign no contracts yet so not overly concerned at this point.
just a thought OP, given the above, do you think that airing drawn work on a public forum that you don't have copyright for is very clever??
(not that you'd want the copyright)
Im bad at 3d CAD, 2d only but i could come up with a better model than that with google sketch up...i certainly wouldnt feel happy showing that to a client...
the window is too deep, the downpipe too large, door & window heads on the new section dont line through with the existing house (change of levels/Step in the new extension?)
but it is just preliminary!
Ben - from just looking at the 3D image and the plans, it looks like you could get away from the awful looking mono-pitch roof, and go with a more traditional truss roof. Using interlocking tiles the pitch could be as little as 15 degrees, which Velux can also be fitted at. Because you have shown base units around the 3 new walls you could reduce the height at the eave to 2.1m inside, and still get a reasonable 2.3m 600mm out into the room where you stand. If you want to keep the door on the side, then just krank the roof truss over the door to get the extra head height, or I would put the door at the end leading you to the steps upto the garden. By using exposed timber trusss with an elevated tie beam it would look modern and keep the cost down. Also if you want side windows but more light Velux do off-the-shelf combined roof & vertical windows? As below:
[url= http://www.velux.co.uk/private/products/velux_roof_windows/vertical_and_sloping_combination_elements ]Velux combined[/url]
Hope that helps.
just a thought OP, given the above, do you think that airing drawn work on a public forum that you don't have copyright for is very clever??
You may have a point but I've made the effort not to identify the 'artist' and other than saying I don't like it haven't slandered them anywhere so not too worried about legal action.
Superdale, thanks for the ideas, see a prospective builder tomorrow so will ask for his thoughts