Planning Permission for Roof Terraces

[Mercer]

Is planning permission required to use a flat roof as a roof terrace?

[parka]

Yes

[parka]

You will have to take into account issues of overlooking and how you will try and deal with them.

[goneill]

Maybe not.

[henno]

Maybe not.

why so??

the exempted regs specifically state that a flat roof shall not be used as a roof terrace..??

[goneill]

Trade secret!

[johnglas]

Not to mention daft; no wonder planning gets such a bad name. Since when did 'overlooking' actually have anything to do with looking?! The concept implies overSHADOWING, i.e. the bulk of one building overwhelming another - apart from observing a minimum distance between buildings it's hard to see that the concept has any meaning at all. It's equivalent to 'I have a right to a view'. It's about time the planning system got a bit more real.

[parka]

Not to mention daft; no wonder planning gets such a bad name. Since when did 'overlooking' actually have anything to do with looking?! The concept implies overSHADOWING, i.e. the bulk of one building overwhelming another - apart from observing a minimum distance between buildings it's hard to see that the concept has any meaning at all. It's equivalent to 'I have a right to a view'. It's about time the planning system got a bit more real.

I would take photos of my neighbours roof terrace, however, when someone is so in your face it's not the most pleasant of views. (The neighbour that is)

[henno]

Trade secret!

what, you sell flat roof terraces???

[goneill]

No, I've sold the idea of flat roof terraces a couple of times. And the last time I checked there wasn't any absolute right to be not overlooked or overshadowed

[henno]

No, I've sold the idea of flat roof terraces a couple of times. And the last time I checked there wasn't any absolute right to be not overlooked or overshadowed

no, no absolute right...

but the question as to whether planning permission is required or not...
the answer is yes...

do you have information to the contrary...??

[goneill]

Cairnduff case, Waterloo Road
Supreme Court

[henno]

Cairnduff case, Waterloo Road
Supreme Court

that was for a replacement of an existing balcony that had been removed a 'short time' previously...

that case certainly does not set a precedent for roof terraces to be exempt from permission.

[goneill]

that case certainly does not set a precedent for roof terraces to be exempt from permission.

Certainly?

[henno]

Certainly?

short of every planning eventually being subject to a supreme court case... yes!

[goneill]

So, you're sitting in your office, wondering if the phone will ever ring again, when someone calls to say that they've made terrace use of a flat roof at their house, and they now have a great sea view and view of the next door neighbour's garden, and the council have served an enforcement notice. You advise them to either stop using the terrace or to seek retention permission which they do but fail. They appeal to the bord and fail there too. I think (but am not certain) that once you've applied for permission you surrender any claims you might have for exemption. Do you think you have advised them correctly? We know that's what Parka would have done.

[johnglas]

Titanic, deckchairs, moving? Waste of public time and money? Meanwhile, do any Irish planners have even the faintest notion of what might be meant by townscape?

[henno]

So, you're sitting in your office, wondering if the phone will ever ring again, when someone calls to say that they've made terrace use of a flat roof at their house, and they now have a great sea view and view of the next door neighbour's garden, and the council have served an enforcement notice. You advise them to either stop using the terrace or to seek retention permission which they do but fail. They appeal to the bord and fail there too. I think (but am not certain) that once you've applied for permission you surrender any claims you might have for exemption. Do you think you have advised them correctly? We know that's what Parka would have done.

do you advise them not to do anything, wait until the enforcement order is served to discontinue use, and then challenge same order all the way to the high court??? with no guarantee of success.....

that would be incredibly bad advice in my opinion.....

[goneill]

No, I didn't say I would advise them to do that. I might, depending on the circumstances, have written to the council saying that I believed the use of the roof was exempted under Section 4. And the council might then have quietly gone away.

[henno]

No, I didn't say I would advise them to do that. I might, depending on the circumstances, have written to the council saying that I believed the use of the roof was exempted under Section 4. And the council might then have quietly gone away.

my experiences with councils would differ from yours.....

ever hear the expression "never fight with a pig, because a pig likes getting dirty"....?

[goneill]

I accept that many councils would not react as described above, and fighting with them over anything is waste of time. However, in the case of the last council to write to me saying that a roof terrace needed permission, they did indeed just go away when their attention was drawn to Section 4.

[goneill]

Henno, you never really said how you would advise the hypothetical client who came asking what do do about the enforcement notice he had received in relation to using a flat roof as a terrace. In one case I wrote to the council claiming exemption and they backed off.

[henno]

Henno, you never really said how you would advise the hypothetical client who came asking what do do about the enforcement notice he had received in relation to using a flat roof as a terrace. In one case I wrote to the council claiming exemption and they backed off.

prior to knowing about that court case, i would have advised retro planning, and argue the case...

now... im not so sure.....

also, you stated that you think one might lose ones right to claim exemption by making an application... have you got any more info on this... i havent heard of such...

[goneill]

Fair enough.

In addition to the the case where the council just backed off, I had another similar case where they did not, and served us with an enforcement notice. It was actually worse than that. Our client had a five storey 19th century house with a two storey return, which had a 100mm high parapet and a low pitched roof, and a window looking out onto the roof. We took off the roof and replaced it with a flat one, lowered the cill and made a roof terrace. The next door neighbour went ballistic as did the corpo who sevred an enforcement notice. we referred the matter to the Bord, citing 4(1)g of the 1963 act as allowing us to carry out the works, "being not inconsisitent with the character of the structure or of the adjoining structuresand and 4(1)h as allowing us to use the newly flattened roof as a terrace, "incidental to the use of the dwelling house as such" - both as exempted developments. The Bord agreed with us. There were no Protected Structures in those days. There is an interesting article by the late David Keane (Barrister and Architect) on the Cairnduff case. in the Irish Architect 1998 (p47), which I will post here if I can.

Non of the above urports to be professional advice, just a report of what happened to me. The Bord can and does treat every case "on its merits"

[goneill]

Sorry that should have been 1000mm