Exemp development.

[onq]

Hey Esterelle,

I'm sorry if I seemed to ignore you whne you replied to this - I got distracted.

OTC I'm fascinated, - could you enlarge on that a little, because I fail to see the difference.

The curtilage encompasses the site and its boundaries whether or not there is a building on it.

If there is a building or work on the site, all are encompassed to an equal and possibly draconian degree.

ONQ

[SirRaymondMang]

SI 256 of 2008 clarifies the issue of curtilege as well as the status of "abutting".

Just in case anyone, like me was looking this up and getting confused, it is actually S.I. 235 of 2008.

I think that whenever statutory instruments are amended, the government should issue the original document with the amendments included. It makes it so hard to ensure you are using the correct regulations when the original has been altered on so many occasions.

[Bren88]

Personally, I think the exemptions and their intentinos are quite clear.
It's only when people try to twist them to suit themselves that "grey areas" are created. We've all seen the threads where people agrue, and try to convince others, "that if you think of it like this" etc
BTW, not suggesting anyone here was doing that, just a comment.

Just in case anyone, like me was looking this up and getting confused, it is actually S.I. 235 of 2008.

I think that whenever statutory instruments are amended, the government should issue the original document with the amendments included. It makes it so hard to ensure you are using the correct regulations when the original has been altered on so many occasions.

The problem with a revised document, would be that the revisions would be impossible to identify. Some people maintain there own when a document is revised.
I maintain my own regarding EDs, as its the part I rfer to the most

[lady louisa]

Very interesting reading.

Can you apply to the council for a Section 5 declaration retrospectively after an extension has been built?

Thanks

LL

[DOC]

Very interesting reading.

Can you apply to the council for a Section 5 declaration retrospectively after an extension has been built?

Thanks

LL

Yes. I have and have been granted a Declaration.

[lady louisa]

Thanks for that DOC, good to know
LL

[onq]

Sir Raymond Mang - nearly two years late in coming, but thanks for that catch.

It was indeed SI 235 of 2008 - dunno where I got the other reference from.

Perhaps skimming down the list on environ.ie and picked the wrong one.

http://www.environ.ie/en/Legislation/De ... 013,en.pdf

And the Act spells it as "curtilage"

[bamurf]

Sorry for resurrecting an old thread but I've a somewhat related question...

I'm looking at a house with an attached garage at the side which is on the northern side of the house and the back garden faces west. The garage doesn't extend to the rear of the house, it stops about 3m short. There are no windows overlooking the space behind the garage and to the side of the house and its essentially dark and isolated. The boundary on this side is with an estate road and the side of the garage forms part of that boundary. My desire would be to build an L shaped 40m2 extension which would extend behind the garage and wrap around about 1/3 of the width of the back of the house on the side of the garage, leaving a westerly and southerly aspect onto the back garden for both light in the extension and enjoyment of the garden and maintaining existing west facing patio doors from the rear reception room onto the garden. Would this be exempt or would it need to be behind the habitable space in the house to be exempt? I really wouldn't like to isolate more space in the north east corner of the garden by extending behind the house just for it to be exemot so I'd go down the PP route if necessary but I would be reducing the maximum I'd be prepared to pay for the house.

[pico]

Bamurf,
The situation you describe is a grey area, and there is no definitive answer apart from applying to the local authority for a Section 5 declaration regarding exemption.

The legislation states ' to the rear of the house ' so it is a matter of interpretation whether the garage is part of the house, & whether the area you state is to the rear.

Therefore, if you are going to purchase, it would be prudent to assume that you would require planning permission, and a welcome surprise if a Section 5 application confirms that you don't have to.

Having said all that, planning permission is not a huge cost and should not be a major obstacle in most circumstances.

Good luck with the purchase and potential extension.

Pico

[joebre]

A neighbor in my estate has placed a timber shed in the "front" garden"
The line of houses have their gable facing the road. The front door is on the side of the house. I have spoken to their engineer and he is claiming that the front of the house is where the front door is and as a result, the shed is to the rear and is there exempt.

The DOE Circular states as follows

You can build a garage, carport, shed, greenhouse, kennel
for domestic pets etc., as long as it does not extend out in
front of the building line of the house and does not exceed 4
metres in height, (if it has a tiled or slated pitched roof), or 3
metres (if it has any other roof type). The floor area
limitation for exempted development is 25 square metres.

In my case, I believe that the gables of the houses are the building line and the shed has been placed forward of the building line and is therefore not exempt.

What do people think?

[onq]

The exempted development regulations at first seem pretty clear.

Extensions to the rear and conversions to the side may be exempt, assuming certain conditions are met.

The view normally taken is that of visual and residential amenity. Converting an existing building like a garage is seen to be a relatively minor issue, so may be exempted.

Similarly building to the rear is fairly innocuous and again may be exempted.

Adjoining neighbours may have different views, but that is why the Exempted Development Schedule exists in part - to avoid tying planners in knots over relatively minor issues.

However the "front" door being to the side muddies the water.

There is a logical argument such that, if the shed is between the front road / access path and the front door, i.e. in the front garden area, then it could reasonably be described as being in front of the house.

I suggest that you talk to the area planner, who may be nice to you and advise you over the phone.

They will normally want a written complaint if you want them to actually take action.

If they don't and you feel there is a case to answer, you may wish to consider taking legal action yourself. Section 160 of the Planning and Development Act refers as does Chapter Three of the Land Conveyancing Law Reform Act 2009.

I strongly suggest you take professional advice before you make a written complaint because - done well - it can save you time and money, whereas over-stating the case in writing could open you up to litigation if you defame someone.

Hope this helps.

[joebre]

I posted my above query with sketch to the local planner entitled "definition of Building Line "

I got this reply today

" we consider the front line/elevation that which contains the front door"

[onq]

Well that's what I mean about the position of the door muddying the water.

However, if you extrapolate that then surely anything between the front door and the path - including the entire front garden and this shed - is in "FRONT" of the building

IMO the relocation of the front door does not make the Front Garden a Side Garden. It stretches the "Front" around to the "Side".

I'd be tempted to put that argument to the senior planner and make your comments. See how you get on and let us know