Incorrect certification

Incorrect certification

Postby lady louisa » Thu Nov 11, 2010 1:59 pm

Hi All,

What is the situation when a client comes to you with a project that is going to be an exempt development and you discover that there is an unauthorised development on the site too?

They want me to apply to the LA for an exemption certificate for a proposed exempted development. This part is fine. However when I visited the site there is a 35 sq m garage in the back garden. It doesn't have planning permission and when I checked the file they actually got a refusal for the same garage!

However they bought the house from the person that built the garage and they have a "certificate of exemption" for the garage issued by a local engineer.

Now the garage is quite obviously going to have to appear on the Site Layout Plan and the council are going to know when they check that they refused this development.

What should my plan of action be?

Thank you in advance
lady louisa
Member
 
Posts: 23
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 4:46 pm

Re: Incorrect certification

Postby wearnicehats » Thu Nov 11, 2010 3:25 pm

lady louisa wrote:Hi All,

What is the situation when a client comes to you with a project that is going to be an exempt development and you discover that there is an unauthorised development on the site too?

They want me to apply to the LA for an exemption certificate for a proposed exempted development. This part is fine. However when I visited the site there is a 35 sq m garage in the back garden. It doesn't have planning permission and when I checked the file they actually got a refusal for the same garage!

However they bought the house from the person that built the garage and they have a "certificate of exemption" for the garage issued by a local engineer.

Now the garage is quite obviously going to have to appear on the Site Layout Plan and the council are going to know when they check that they refused this development.

What should my plan of action be?

Thank you in advance


Decline their kind offer and advise that they get the local engineer to certify the works in accordance with his previous cert
wearnicehats
Senior Member
 
Posts: 823
Joined: Wed Aug 02, 2006 2:38 pm

Re: Incorrect certification

Postby lady louisa » Thu Nov 11, 2010 4:30 pm

wearnicehats....Thanks and I was tempted to do that...but I am more inclined to advise them to apply for retention of the garage. Would love to know what a council will think of a retention application for something that they refused though!!

Any other thoughts on the professional advice that should be offered??
lady louisa
Member
 
Posts: 23
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 4:46 pm

Re: Incorrect certification

Postby wearnicehats » Thu Nov 11, 2010 5:20 pm

lady louisa wrote:wearnicehats....Thanks and I was tempted to do that...but I am more inclined to advise them to apply for retention of the garage. Would love to know what a council will think of a retention application for something that they refused though!!

Any other thoughts on the professional advice that should be offered??


but does the existence of the illegal structure not negate any other exemption application?
wearnicehats
Senior Member
 
Posts: 823
Joined: Wed Aug 02, 2006 2:38 pm

Re: Incorrect certification

Postby lady louisa » Thu Nov 11, 2010 6:20 pm

wearnicehats wrote:but does the existence of the illegal structure not negate any other exemption application?


I don't quite follow you? It is a detached garage to the rear. Notwithstanding the fact that it requires a retention permission, does this affect the exemptions that apply to the dwelling?

The way I was going to approach it was to apply for retention for the garage and permission for the extension at the same time even though it is less than 40 sq m.

I cant understand how the engineer certified it as exempt and that the solicitor accepted this as true when my client bought the house. Have the rules about garages changed? What is the largest size historically that a garage could be built without permission?

Thanks
lady louisa
Member
 
Posts: 23
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 4:46 pm

Re: Incorrect certification

Postby onq » Thu Nov 11, 2010 11:06 pm

Hi Lady Louisa,

You are best advised to advise your client full.
Sad to see an engineer's apparent incompetence to certify planning matters.

Before lodging any planning applciation, I would become thoroughly familiar with the previous refused application.
25 sqm is the current, not historical exempted development for a garage - please see the relevant quotation below.
I would be wary about seeking a section 5 declaration for the house extension if it is in fact exempted development.

I would neither seek not issue a cert on it at all yet.
I would seek retention for the garage it is only 10 sqm oversized,
In fact if you wanted to box clever you could apply for the additional square meterage
If you get permission for the garage - and this may require a plnning appeal - I would go back and address the extension.
There are other factors affecting whether or not something may be exempted, but the planning application process should shake those apples out of the tree.

However - and this is a big however - you must absolutely check the exempted status of the existing house extension.
That comes under CLass 1 of the below regulations, but these have been amended in recent time, particularly Class 50.
Please see the Planning and Development Regulations 2008 - S.I. 235 of 2008 http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2008/en/si/0235.html
There are a lot of other factors to check, including the development plan zoning, special objectives, listed views, protected structure status.

One possible issue arises if the house is semi-detached and the outer wall of the extension is built on top of the party boundary.
While development within the curtiledge of a house is exempted, once it goes over the boundayr in theory it may no longer be exempted.
There is whole host of other requirements to do with eaves heights and roofs, for example if the development is flat-roofed to the rear of a bungalow.

This quite detailed so I'm going to cover myself here and say;

All advice on Archiseek is remote from the situation and cannot be relied upon as a defence or support - in and of itself - should legal action be taken.
Competent legal and building professionals should be asked to advise in Real Life with rights to inspect and issue reports on the matters at hand.

ONQ.

From:

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2001/en/si/0600.html

CLASS 3

The construction, erection or placing within the curtilage of a house of any tent, awning, shade or other object, greenhouse, garage, store, shed or other similar structure.

CONDITIONS

1. No such structure shall be constructed, erected or placed forward of the front wall of a house.

2. The total area of such structures constructed, erected or placed within the curtilage of a house shall not, taken together with any other such structures previously constructed, erected or placed within the said curtilage, exceed 25 square metres.

3. The construction, erection or placing within the curtilage of a house of any such structure shall not reduce the amount of private open space reserved exclusively for the use of the occupants of the house to the rear or to the side of the house to less than 25 square metres.

4. The external finishes of any garage or other structure constructed, erected or placed to the side of a house, and the roof covering where any such structure has a tiled or slated roof, shall conform with those of the house.

5. The height of any such structure shall not exceed, in the case of a building with a tiled or slated pitched roof, 4 metres or, in any other case, 3 metres.

6. The structure shall not be used for human habitation or for the keeping of pigs, poultry, pigeons, ponies or horses, or for any other purpose other than a purpose incidental to the enjoyment of the house as such.
User avatar
onq
Old Master
 
Posts: 1220
Joined: Tue May 12, 2009 12:29 am
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Re: Incorrect certification

Postby wearnicehats » Fri Nov 12, 2010 10:35 am

why did they refuse the garage - because of the 35sqm?
wearnicehats
Senior Member
 
Posts: 823
Joined: Wed Aug 02, 2006 2:38 pm

Re: Incorrect certification

Postby lady louisa » Fri Nov 12, 2010 12:30 pm

So a little more digging has revealed the following. Garage was built in 1992 and is governed by the 1977-1994 Local Government Regulations. In those there was no restriction on area of a garage within the curtilage of a site to the rear. But I don't understand why they applied for planning permission for it at all in that case.

But does the refusal have any bearing? Can I just proceed based on the fact that the garage has an exemption certificate already?

ONQ I fully take on board that the advice offered here is just that, advice.
Wearnicehats, the file is on microfiche and the reasons for the refusal were not there.

Thanks for the comments.

LL
lady louisa
Member
 
Posts: 23
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 4:46 pm

Re: Incorrect certification

Postby pico » Fri Nov 12, 2010 12:40 pm

lady louisa wrote:So a little more digging has revealed the following. Garage was built in 1992 and is governed by the 1977-1994 Local Government Regulations. In those there was no restriction on area of a garage within the curtilage of a site to the rear.

LL


Are you sure that is the correct Act or Regulations?
Can you cite the relevant section?
(All planning legislation available on DoEHLG website)
pico
Member
 
Posts: 65
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 4:39 pm

Re: Incorrect certification

Postby wearnicehats » Fri Nov 12, 2010 12:48 pm

lady louisa wrote:So a little more digging has revealed the following. Garage was built in 1992 and is governed by the 1977-1994 Local Government Regulations. In those there was no restriction on area of a garage within the curtilage of a site to the rear. But I don't understand why they applied for planning permission for it at all in that case.

But does the refusal have any bearing? Can I just proceed based on the fact that the garage has an exemption certificate already?

ONQ I fully take on board that the advice offered here is just that, advice.
Wearnicehats, the file is on microfiche and the reasons for the refusal were not there.

Thanks for the comments.

LL


how's your private open space?
wearnicehats
Senior Member
 
Posts: 823
Joined: Wed Aug 02, 2006 2:38 pm

Re: Incorrect certification

Postby onq » Fri Nov 12, 2010 2:35 pm

Just to round off the current advice - POS of min 25sq.m. was one of the limiting factors noted above for the collection of outbuildings.

BTW the allowable size of the garage must take into account whether there are any other buildings erected under the same class 3 definition.

"The total area of such structures ["tent, awning, shade or other object, greenhouse, garage, store, shed or other similar structure"] constructed, erected or placed within the curtilage of a house shall not, taken together with any other such structures previously constructed, erected or placed within the said curtilage, exceed 25 square metres"

--------------------------------------

In relation to the subject garage, it is now well over 7 and even 12 years since its erection I take it?

If so, unless enforcement action was undertaken at the time, it would seem to be free from enforcement action.

This may open other avenues of addressing the issue under planning law - possibly no action may be taken, which is the substantive assurance offered by any architect's certificate, which usually state somewhere -

"The development as constructed is in substantial compliance with the planning orders, saving and excepting such minor ang items that are unlikely to lead to the issuing of enforcement proceedings by the local authority"

- or words to that effect.

Was this the assurance given by the Engineer's Cert you mentioned?

ONQ.
User avatar
onq
Old Master
 
Posts: 1220
Joined: Tue May 12, 2009 12:29 am
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Re: Incorrect certification

Postby lady louisa » Fri Nov 12, 2010 4:07 pm

Hi All, I really appreciate your comments.

ONQ The Engineers cert states ".....is exempted development and in full compliance with Class 3, Part 1, 3rd schedule of the Planning and development Regulations 1977...."

Pico the 1977 regs referred to are here http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1977/en/si/0065.html

Wearnicehats the POS is well in excess of 25 sqm so OK on that score.

So I think my assumption was wrong at the outset ( apologies to any Engineers reading!!) owing to the date of the development.

Just to refer to something mentioned previously....if two neighbours in a semi-detached dwelling both build kitchen extensions to the rear and share the boundary wall between the extensions ie they build a 225 soild block party wall and both share it....say the extensions are 25 sq m...are they exempted developments?? or does the shared boundary wall eliminate the exempt status?

Thanks again
lady louisa
Member
 
Posts: 23
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 4:46 pm

Re: Incorrect certification

Postby onq » Sat Nov 13, 2010 7:53 pm

lady louisa wrote:Hi All, I really appreciate your comments.

ONQ The Engineers cert states ".....is exempted development and in full compliance with Class 3, Part 1, 3rd schedule of the Planning and development Regulations 1977...."

Pico the 1977 regs referred to are here http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1977/en/si/0065.html

Wearnicehats the POS is well in excess of 25 sqm so OK on that score.

So I think my assumption was wrong at the outset ( apologies to any Engineers reading!!) owing to the date of the development.

Just to refer to something mentioned previously....if two neighbours in a semi-detached dwelling both build kitchen extensions to the rear and share the boundary wall between the extensions ie they build a 225 soild block party wall and both share it....say the extensions are 25 sq m...are they exempted developments?? or does the shared boundary wall eliminate the exempt status?

Thanks again


Okay, from that link the position seems to be as follows:

-------------------------

CLASS 3

The erection, construction or placing within the curtilage of a dwellinghouse of any tent, awning, shade or other object, greenhouse, garage, shed or other similar structure.

Conditions and Limitations

1. The height above ground level of any such structure shall not exceed, in the case of a building with a tiled or slated ridged roof, 4 metres or any other case, 3 metres.

2. The structure shall not be used for human habitation or for the keeping of pigs or poultry or for any other purpose other than a purpose incidental to the enjoyment of the dwellinghouse as such.


-------------------------

So no area limits seem to apply to the Garage.

However permissions supersede exempted development regulations.

If you include exampted development within an application and its refused, I have seen arguments that suggest it cannot then be built as exempted development.

Seeking permission and being refused after the building was erected may in fact change the status from exampted development to unauthorised development.

To cover yourself I would be seeking a Declaration in relation to any of this before I'd expose my office to risk for what is probably a minimal fee.

Certify incorrectly and you could be liable for the cost of demolition at the least.

-------------------------

In addition, when was the house extended?

In the 1977 document above, an 18 sqm limit appears to apply, well below the 40 sqm exemtion we enjoy today.

-------------------------

CLASS 1

Any works for the provision of an extension to the rear of a dwellinghouse or the conversion for use as part of a dwellinghouse of any garage, store, shed or other similar structure attached to the rear or to the side of the dwellinghouse, where the height of any structural addition does not exceed that of the dwellinghouse and the original floor area of the dwellinghouse is not increased by more than 18 square metres.

Conditions and Limitations

None.


-------------------------

ONQ.
User avatar
onq
Old Master
 
Posts: 1220
Joined: Tue May 12, 2009 12:29 am
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Re: Incorrect certification

Postby Bren88 » Mon Nov 15, 2010 5:59 am

onq wrote:
However permissions supersede exempted development regulations.

If you include exampted development within an application and its refused, I have seen arguments that suggest it cannot then be built as exempted development.

Seeking permission and being refused after the building was erected may in fact change the status from exampted development to unauthorised development.

I'd agree with this.
I can specificly remember being told this when in college. (there was an examople to go with it about exemption)
lady louisa wrote:Just to refer to something mentioned previously....if two neighbours in a semi-detached dwelling both build kitchen extensions to the rear and share the boundary wall between the extensions ie they build a 225 soild block party wall and both share it....say the extensions are 25 sq m...are they exempted developments?? or does the shared boundary wall eliminate the exempt status?

Thanks again

It's fine to build like that and it doesn't change the exemption status.
Bren88
Member
 
Posts: 389
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2005 1:47 am

Re: Incorrect certification

Postby goneill » Mon Nov 15, 2010 11:03 am

It was thought, perhaps a ruling, that if something was refused permission you couldn't then claim it was exempt, even if it was, but as someone pointed out on this forum in the last 6 months, that has been overturned. It has now been held by a court, that just because you, perhaps cautiuously, apply for permission for something, it doesn't follow that your right to exempted development evaporates.
goneill
Member
 
Posts: 160
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2006 5:36 pm

Re: Incorrect certification

Postby onq » Mon Nov 15, 2010 11:33 am

Would really appreciate a link to that thread - even if I'm embarrassed to find its one to which I've already posted.

ONQ.
User avatar
onq
Old Master
 
Posts: 1220
Joined: Tue May 12, 2009 12:29 am
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Re: Incorrect certification

Postby goneill » Mon Nov 15, 2010 12:41 pm

Can't find the the thread, but this is the judgement:


Judgments Of the Supreme Court




Judgment Title: Fingal County Council -v- William P. Keeling & Sons Ltd.

Neutral Citation: [2005]IESC55

Supreme Court Record Number: 148/02

High Court Record Number: 2001 No. 77MCA

Date of Delivery: 29/07/2005

Court: Supreme Court


Composition of Court: Denham J., Murray C.J., Mc Guinness J., Hardiman J., Fennelly J.

Judgment by: Fennelly J.

Status of Judgment: Approved

9

THE SUPREME COURT


148/02
Murray CJ
Denham J
McGuinness J
Hardiman J
Fennelly J

Between:

Fingal County Council

Plaintiff/ Respondent

AND

William P. Keeling & Sons Limited

Defendant/ Appellant


Judgment of Mr Justice Fennelly delivered the 29th day of July, 2005
___________________________________________________________


This appeal requires the Court to reconsider part of its judgment in County Council of the County of Dublin v Tallaght Block Company Limited [Supreme Court unreported 17th May 1983, per Hederman J, hereinafter “Tallaght Block”]. The Court there appears to have decided the following. Where a developer applies unsuccessfully for retention planning permission, he is estopped by that fact alone from resisting a later application for an order pursuant to section 27 of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1976 on the basis that the development was exempted development. Section 27 is now, of course, replaced by section 160 of the Planning and Development Act 2000.

The Respondent applied in October 2001 pursuant to section 27 for an order that the Appellant demolish forthwith a partially completed bungalow constructed on lands at Killeek Lane, Killeek, County Dublin and to carry out site clearance works following the demolition.

It is not in dispute that the Appellant had not obtained any permission for the development in question before it was carried out. Thus the development was unauthorised unless it enjoyed the benefit of the relevant Exempted Development Regulations. The Appellant’s contention that the development is exempt appears to be based on the existence on the site of an old disused cottage, but I do not wish to say anything whatever about the merits of that argument, which has not yet been explored by the High Court.

The Respondent caused an inspection of the site to take place and complained that unauthorised development had taken place. The Appellant applied on three occasions for permission to retain the development but each application was refused.
In answer to the application for an order pursuant to section 27, the Appellant argued that the development was exempt.

McKechnie J ordered that a preliminary issue be determined “as to whether or not an exemption could be claimed for a development in respect of which an application for planning permission had been lodged.”

The agreed note of the ex tempore judgment of McKechnie J determining that issue states:

“The Applicant relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in [Tallaght Block], argues that the Respondent is now estopped from raising a defence in these proceedings that the work carried out to the property is exempted development. The Applicant submits that the Respondent cannot now argue that the works do not require planning permission as the Respondent lodged planning applications for the works on three occasions and is bound to accept in those circumstances that the works constitute development for the purposes of Part IV of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1963.”

McKechnie J concluded that:

“…were it not for the decision in the Tallaght Block case, this Court would have great difficulty in holding that the Respondent is not entitled to raise the defence of exempt development. The facts of this case are not so distinguishable from the facts of the Tallaght Block case and the decision of Costello J is persuasive. The decision of the Supreme Court, of course, binds this Court.”

Consequently, McKechnie J determined the preliminary issue against the Appellant. The sole issue on the appeal is whether McKechnie J correctly determined the preliminary issue and, consequently, whether, following the decision in Tallaght Block, the Appellant was estopped from raising the issue of exempted development.

Having regard to the doctrine of stare decisis, this Court has consistently stated that it will not depart from a fully considered earlier decision in the absence of compelling argument showing the decision was clearly wrong. That principle does not apply if the earlier statement is not truly a decision in the sense of forming part of the ratio decedendi of the decision of the Court. The statement most relevant to the present appeal is that of Henchy J, with whom Budd and Griffin JJ agreed, in Mogul of Ireland v Tipperary (N.R.) County Council [1976] IR 260 at 272:

“A decision of the full Supreme Court (be it the pre-1961 or the post-1961 Court), given in a fully-argued case and on a consideration of all the relevant materials, should not normally be overruled merely because a later Court inclines to a different conclusion.”

It is necessary, therefore, to consider whether the Tallaght Block decision falls within that description.

The High Court judgment in Tallaght Block was that of Costello J. It is reported at [1982] ILRM 534. The development involved the construction of a manufacturing facility for concrete blocks. Costello J described the issues in the case, at page 535, as being, in effect, whether, in respect of part of the site, the development was exempted development and, in respect of the remainder, whether there had been such “use” prior to 1st October 1964 (the appointed day for the purposes of the Act of 1963) that the development did not constitute material change. In the ensuing pages of his judgment, Costello J examined the history of the development in detail. He concluded, firstly, at page 541, that what he had already said “would justify [him] in making an order under s. 27.” Notwithstanding this he thought he should give his conclusions as to whether the works constituted exempted development. He then examined that argument and concluded it against the Respondents. He continued:

“It follows from what I have said that permission was required under part 4 of the 1963 Act for the development carried out by the Respondents ………and accordingly the jurisdiction to make the order under s. 27(1)(a) has been established.”

At this point, it seems clear that the learned judge had established to his complete satisfaction all the elements necessary to enable him to make an order under section 27. Nonetheless, he continued as follows:

“Before concluding, I should refer to the submissions that were made in this case as to the effect of certain provisions of the 1963 Act on applications made under s. 27 and give my conclusions on them.”

What the submissions there referred to were does not appear and the ensuing passage dealt with two issues. Only the first of those is now relevant. It constitutes the crucial statement. The learned judge stated:

If an occupier of land carries out development on it and, having subsequently accepted that the development was unauthorised and that permission in respect of it should have been obtained, applies under s. 28 of the 1963 Act for permission to retain the unauthorised structure and is refused, then he cannot be heard to argue in proceedings against him under s. 27 of the 1976 Act that permission for the development was not required. He is estopped from doing so. This is what happened in this case in relation to the respondents development in area “E.” Notwithstanding this view of the operation of the Acts I felt that I should give my conclusions on all issues which arose in the proceedings.”

This Court unanimously upheld the judgment of Costello J on all issues. Hederman J, at page 11 of the unreported judgment, summarised the issues on the appeal as being whether there had been a material change of use, whether any development was exempted development and whether section 5 of the 1963 Act imposed a mandatory obligation to refer the exempted development question to An Bórd Pleanála. It will be noted that, like Costello J, he did not include the question of estoppel as one of the issues to be determined. Like Costello J, Hederman J examined the three mentioned arguments in the light of a detailed account of the facts. At one point, however, he stated that he agreed with the findings of Costello J, citing part of the first sentence of the passage from Costello J, which I have quoted in the immediately preceding paragraph. Thus, it is the dictum of Costello J, thus approved, to which we should look to see what was decided. Hederman J did not express himself otherwise on the estoppel question.

Two features of the two judgments stand out. Firstly, it was entirely unnecessary for the Court to express any opinion about estoppel. On both the facts and the law, each court was completely satisfied both that the development was unauthorised and that it was not exempt. It was, accordingly, unlawful. The Court would normally make the order under section 27, as sought. Secondly, the quoted passage from the judgment of Costello J contains a conclusion, unsupported by the close supporting reasoning invariably to be found in the written judgments of that very distinguished judge. In particular, it contains no account of the submissions of the parties or of any authorities which may have been cited. This Court has been referred to specific English case law on the topic, which was in existence at the time of Tallaght Block, but not there considered. Without wishing to pronounce definitively on that case law, it would appear to suggest that there is not an estoppel in circumstances such as those of Tallaght Block. If these decisions had been cited in the High Court or the Supreme Court, it is impossible to believe that the judgments would have passed over them in silence. Furthermore, neither the High Court nor the Supreme Court judgment contains any reference to the general principles of the law of estoppel or any explanation of how the usual elements of representation and reliance arose on the facts of the case. It is not apparent, therefore, that Tallaght Block was a considered decision made in the light of full argument and on citation of relevant authority.

It is quite clear, therefore, that both the statement of Costello J and that of Hederman J approving it constitute obiter dicta. Tallaght Block is not a binding precedent for the existence of an estoppel.

The Court must, nonetheless, determine the current appeal. In the absence of considered argument and reference to authority in the High Court, it is undesirable that this Court should play the effective role of a court of first instance by determining generally on this appeal whether and to what extent the doctrine of estoppel has a role to play in the field of the relations in public law between an individual and a planning authority. That will have to be determined, on full consideration of the law, by the High Court in this or another case.

Nonetheless, in the very narrow terms in which the supposed principle of estoppel was expressed in the terms of the preliminary issue directed and determined by the High Court, it seems clear, and was virtually conceded by Mr John Gallagher, Senior Counsel for the Respondent, that it cannot be sustained. If a proposed development is, in fact and in law, an exempted development, no principle has been identified whereby the owner of land should be estopped from asserting the exemption merely by reason of the fact, and by nothing more, that he or she has made a perfectly proper and lawful application for planning permission. That would be to deprive him of a right at law by reason of his exercise of a different right, which would require cogent justification. There could be many perfectly good and even laudable reasons for taking the course of applying for a planning permission, where there is an arguable case for exemption. It might be done through oversight or mistake or merely through an abundance of caution or to ensure that the planning situation was very clear on the sale of a property. It is perhaps better, at this stage, to say nothing more, as Mr Gallagher reserves the right to assert the right of a planning authority to rely on the doctrine of estoppel based on a more extensive factual basis.

This appeal should be determined solely by reference to the very narrow point which it raises. It suffices to allow the appeal and to hold that a developer is not estopped from claiming that a development, which he has carried out without the benefit of planning permission, is in fact and in law exempted development, by reason only of having made an application for planning permission for the retention of that development.
goneill
Member
 
Posts: 160
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2006 5:36 pm

Re: Incorrect certification

Postby goneill » Mon Nov 15, 2010 12:43 pm

The penultimate paragraph is the important bit
goneill
Member
 
Posts: 160
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2006 5:36 pm

Re: Incorrect certification

Postby lady louisa » Mon Nov 15, 2010 5:29 pm

Hi Bren88, goneill and ONQ,

Thanks for the info and Bren88 thanks for answering the boundary wall question.

I too was taught during Part 3 lectures to use caution about including something exempt in a planning application, so it's good to read this case and to have it as a reference.

LL
lady louisa
Member
 
Posts: 23
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 4:46 pm

Re: Incorrect certification

Postby onq » Mon Nov 15, 2010 9:48 pm

goneill wrote:The penultimate paragraph is the important bit


I agree that this explores the issues, but the final paragraph argues this in the negative, not the positive, a less than convincing way of asserting a principle.

:)

Much indebted to you for the judgement G.O'Neill - I will have a trawl through that at length.

ONQ.
User avatar
onq
Old Master
 
Posts: 1220
Joined: Tue May 12, 2009 12:29 am
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Re: Incorrect certification

Postby lady louisa » Wed Aug 24, 2011 4:54 pm

Update on the above, in summary:

We applied to LA for a Certificate of Exemption for the Kitchen extension which was refused. Basis for refusal was that the Garage was an unauthorised development (Incorrect certification by Engineer for Sale of House) and therefore this unauthorised status on the site negated any exemption / further development on the site without rectifying the situation.

We applied for Retention for the Garage and Kitchen to regularise matters and received a request for additional information on the existing drainage on site, and thankfully received a Full Grant of Permission for the existing developments on site.

Thanks for all your input at the time, as it really was helpful.

LL
lady louisa
Member
 
Posts: 23
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 4:46 pm

Re: Incorrect certification

Postby onq » Sun Sep 04, 2011 9:52 pm

Hi Lady Louisa,

Thanks for the feedback.

No surprises about the Certificate of Exemption result, only surprised you went for it given the advice here instead of going for the straight retention.

I'm assuming that was down to client instruction trying everything before biting the bullet and seeking retention permission.

Glad to hear you got a result and can issue a correct Architect's Opinion instead of a dodgy Engineers Cert.


ONQ.
User avatar
onq
Old Master
 
Posts: 1220
Joined: Tue May 12, 2009 12:29 am
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Re: Incorrect certification

Postby joebre » Mon Sep 05, 2011 7:04 pm

http://www.archiseek.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=7651

You will see in my previous post that there are some dodgy Architect's Certs as well
joebre
Member
 
Posts: 18
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 7:46 pm

Re: Incorrect certification

Postby joebre » Mon Sep 05, 2011 7:05 pm

Removed duplicate post
joebre
Member
 
Posts: 18
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 7:46 pm

Re: Incorrect certification

Postby onq » Tue Sep 20, 2011 11:00 am

This one seems to run and run...

The last post in that thread you posted was from me:

viewtopic.php?f=40&t=7651


Why did you start another thread on this as noted below?

http://www.archiseek.com/content/showth ... p?p=106220

Just posting to this one would have bumped it up.

ONQ.



For the record I don't condone improper or fraudulent certification by anyone claiming to be a professional.

I didn't post much to that other thread because it had mainly been covered by the time I got there.


ONQ.
User avatar
onq
Old Master
 
Posts: 1220
Joined: Tue May 12, 2009 12:29 am
Location: Dublin, Ireland


Return to Irish Planning Matters



cron