esterelle wrote:The situation is that if a County Council or the Bord Pleanala receive an application from somebody and a dormer window is included as part of an attic conversion it may well be refused on the basis of the dormer being inappropriate for the area........
It could also be refused on the basis of it being injurious to residential amenity or for being in contravention of many other Development Plan policies.
It could be because it was part of a protected structure or in an architectural conservation area.
It could contravene the existing planning conditions.
Rooflights could be similarly be refused.
Previous posters on this thread have been dismissive of the relevance of Development Plans when it comes to the exempt or non-exempt status of developments.
Yet in most An Bord Pleanala cases, where the Bord is asked to adjudicate on exempt/non-exempt status, Development Plan policy is referenced in the final ruling.
(The records are available for public viewing on the Bord's website).
This is evidence that Development Plans have a significant influence on the determination of exempt/non-exempt status.
esterelle wrote:....The board or the council are not obliged to point out that the coversion (sic) of the attic is exempt under section 4 of the Act.....
Nowhere in the Act does it state that universally, additional habitable floor area development, provided on a new upper floor level of a house, is exempted development.
Of course the Bord or Council are not obliged to point out exempted status of habitable attic development- that's because it's not in the Act.
(Please also note that "habitable" implies development to a particular standard, including ceiling heights, access, structure and the provision of natural light).
Tell me where I'm wrong here.
If you can't, then the logical thing to do is to accept this situation as the reality and move on.
esterelle wrote:....a refusal only prevents the carrying out of works which needed permission in the first instance.....
The provision of storage area in the attic space is generally considered exempt. The standards for habitable accommodation do not apply.
The provision of habitable accommodation on a new upper floor of a house with it's attendant natural daylight provision, structure and access, is not generally exempt.
This is the verbally communicated view of quite a number of local authority Planning Departments in my own experience, despite what Dun-Laoghaire Rathdown Co. Council has on it's own Planning F.A.Q. page, the only document you have to support your argument.
esterelle wrote:The main thing the public should remember is that their local friendly County Council is now severly cash strapped and they will go to any lengths to raise a few bob including giving out mis-information in relation to planning matters..
That's odd. They are your champions one minute and you're denegrating them the next. Would you ever make your mind up, for God's sake.
esterelle wrote:..........flying in the face of what is already well established by An Bord Pleanala and indeed by the High Court and Supreme Court.
Ahem...cough...cough...em........Why don't you have a look at this particular Co. Council Planning F.A.Q. in relation to attic development:http://www.waterfordcoco.ie/en/services/planning/faqs/exempteddevelopment/#Do I require planning permission to convert my attic?
I guess that's another Local Authority you'll have to take to court then.
esterelle wrote:.........one was overheard saying to the other, you pluck your goose and I'll pluck mine.....
There are quite a few pluckers around here, that's for sure.
esterelle wrote:.........Pure balderdash of course....
Pardon? Is that some sort of pebbledash?
esterelle wrote:.........Nice bit of rewording and redifining of terminology by Tayto to extricate himself from an impossible position....
Hey, Thanks. I'll take that as a compliment.