When can you carry out Exempted Dev?

well it is supposed to be development within the curtilage of a house, I presume that has to be an existing house.

My experience has been its generally ok, ….. until / unless someone objects.

strictly speaking an extension cannot be constructed at the same time as the dwelling itself.

we have clients who built a three dwelling scheme, each prospective owner requested ‘extensions’ to be built, ….they were, at the same time as the dwellings…. awkward interfering neighbours called in enforcement officer of council who put enforcement notice on the works. in his view the ‘extensions’ wernt extensions as they were constructed at teh same time. Retention was applied for and granted by the council, hence awkward neighbour currently has the decision appealed to the bord. Prospective owners now waiting over 7 months to move in….

I have read, on another website, of a person who recieved word on paper from their local authority that it was ok to build ‘exempted extension’ at the same time as dwelling… perhaps request this???

Well it is quite simple to find out for sure. You are supposed to apply for permission for an exempt development (I know it sounds obsured). Send in the application and see what they say.

To me the building of ‘extensions’ at the same time as the house itself would seem to be a violation of the planning permission. You’re not constructing the same dwelling that was in the plans you submitted as part of the application. The ‘awkward neighbour’ has every right to raise their concerns if something different is being built, which could have a significant impact on their property. I’m under the impression that this is a bit of a loophole which some people seem to be getting away with. Anyone agree?

Tyrrp, henno’s example suggests people are not bothering to apply.

Thanks for the replies.

I would not necessarly call it a loophole – technically the minute the house is complete, construction of an exempted devlelopment could commence – I am trying to find out when the exempted development can legitimately start, i.e. what is the definition of complete?

I would agree that it is not legitimate to construct the exempted development at the same time as the development granted.

If the planning authorities had an a real issue with this situation, they would insert a condition in the planning permission stating that no exempted development can be carried out without a prior garnt of planning permission (as they often do for houses granted permission on limited sites).

The point is that the building control officer has the power, on inspection of the site, to shut down the work if he / she decides what you are building is not in compliance with what had been granted permission.

tyrrp, can you expand on your point that it is necessary to apply for permission for exempted development? are you referring to applying to the council for a declaration, ie section 5 of the act?? i understood this to be voluntary…..

Hurray for the building control officer! This kind of carry-on, if is it happening, should be stopped. I’ve be trawling the Acts and Regs to find a definition of a dwelling being complete, but no luck. Is anyone able to answer DOC’s request? I’m quite interested to know the answer myself.

HerrKev: Dont get all het up about it will you. Sure its only a little exempted extension, if it is going to be built anyway what difference does it make if it goes up with the house…would it not just be a case of over-regulation and bureaucracy gone wrong to make someone wait till the house is finished so they can start work on it again to build a perfectly legal extension at extra expense to themselves. 😉

@henno wrote:

tyrrp, can you expand on your point that it is necessary to apply for permission for exempted development? are you referring to applying to the council for a declaration, ie section 5 of the act?? i understood this to be voluntary…..

From my knowledge it is not voluntary but I could be wrong. The reason being that in general people misunderstand the definition of an exempt development. Yes you can build up to 40msq to the rear of you property without permission but if you have ever extended before even with full permission the area of that extension is subtracted from your exempted allowance.
I.E. 5 years ago you built a 30msq extension to the side of your house. You got full planning and completed the extension. You are now only entitles to build 10msq exempted to the rear.
The only way for the councils to watch out for this error is to have everyone apply for a section 5 (€80 for them as well). It also ensures people are not reducing their open space below the percentages allowed.

Consider this also. If you do send in a section 5 application and it is refused then you go ahead and build anyway but make some small changes to the design what type of problems could this cause. Who can ever prove when the exempt development was built is another consideration. I suppose you only have to say it was built while your 30msq application was being processed and that is why it isn’t shown on the original application.

old man troy is correct, herrkev….

the ‘awkward neighbour’ wouldnt have any influence if the extension were constructed after initial completition, so it seems desultory when the building control officer deems the original build with the additions to be unauthorised. i understand why he has to, i just dont agree with the legal standing behind it.
As i stated above, i have been informed by someone that they actually recieved written confirmation from a council that it was ok to construct the ‘exempted’ along with the main dwelling. seems strange to have a LA go against what is law.

I’ve been involved in a number of housing schemes, where extensions (which would be exempted development if constructed to an existing dwelling) have been constructed, prior to completion of the dwelling and nobody (solicitors or otherwise) have ever queried the practice.

I have noticed of late that some planning authorities include a condition requiring planning permission for any extension or other exempted development to a dwelling irrespective of whether exempted or not under the Planning and Development Acts and Regulations. The main reason, from what I can gather for the inclusion of the condition is to collect additional development charges, rather than development control.

and what development charges do they try to recoup jackscout???

water supply, already paid, roads already paid, amenity, already paid, fould discharge, already paid…… i cannot see how development charges become a reason for this condition… not in my local LA’s anyway…

in my opinion the only reason for this condition is to ensure the orderly development of the scheme, especially in high density schemes that have minimum rear amenity spaces….

i know youre cynical, i am most of the time, but this particular issue i wouldnt agree….

Obviously from the replies there is no real clear-cut answer to my question!

My view would be that the development granted permission should be ‘substantially complete’ prior to commencing the construction of the exempted developmnet extension. What I mean by ‘substantially complete’ is that the external envelope is watertight – roof complete, windows and external doors in, external plastering/finishes complete, etc. – but the house not necessarily be occupied.

Would anybody agree with this view?

My wife suggested ringing the Council to ask the question – I said I could ask the question but there are two hopes of getting an answer that doesn’t involve the words ‘apply for planning permission’!

i would agree with thta view. In all honesty this will not be an issue unless a third party informs the council. Ask your architec / engineer (i assume you have one engaged for stage payments etc)

@henno wrote:

and what development charges do they try to recoup jackscout???

water supply, already paid, roads already paid, amenity, already paid, fould discharge, already paid…… i cannot see how development charges become a reason for this condition… not in my local LA’s anyway…

in my opinion the only reason for this condition is to ensure the orderly development of the scheme, especially in high density schemes that have minimum rear amenity spaces….

i know youre cynical, i am most of the time, but this particular issue i wouldnt agree….

I had it from the horses month when I queried it with one Planning Authority, typically the additional development charges comes to approximately €1000, with this particular Planning Authority, for approximately 15 sq.m of an extension (typically a sun room) which isn’t much but when you have 50 different extensions it starts to add up, along with the cost of making the individual planning applications etc. The developer is happy to pay it as it is factored into the cost of the extension. Unfortunately nobody is willing to wait long enough for the condition to be appealed and adjudicated on by An Bord Pleanála.

@DOC wrote:

My view would be that the development granted permission should be ‘substantially complete’ prior to commencing the construction of the exempted developmnet extension. What I mean by ‘substantially complete’ is that the external envelope is watertight – roof complete, windows and external doors in, external plastering/finishes complete, etc. – but the house not necessarily be occupied.

Would anybody agree with this view?

That would be a fair view. As henno says it really only becomes an issue when a third party makes it an issue.

Jackscout, what specifically are they charging for??

Has anyone ever refused to pay it? I have seen cases when development charges were questioned and the council have had to revise them downwards (ie including water supply charges when a well is being used, or foul water charges on a dwelling thats incorporating its own effluent treatment system)……

seems a bit sneaky from the council…….

i also have a theory re pre-planning meetings.
I have seen council officals being very positive towards development in preplanning meeting only for the development to be blown out of the water at decision. Leaving a very peed-off developer (who usually vents anger towards architect!)…. in my opinion the council want as much applications as possible to generate revenue, even to the point of being dishonest in preplanning meetings.

Cheers for the replies OMT and henno, its good to get informed on these things!

My original issue, to clarify, was that there are plenty of conditions in the Regs which would de-exempt extensions, so should the LA not be then monitoring all of this for compliance? There’ll always be a few chancers who won’t follow the Regs.

I agree with DOC in that the house should be complete to a certain degree. Perhaps if a strict definition was in place, you could then say the exemption applies after that point, but permission must be sought before (i.e. during construction). I think it is in the interest of orderly development, especially if henno’s example of each house in a development adding an extension during construction is occuring regularly. That’s my view.

@henno wrote:

Jackscout, what specifically are they charging for??

Has anyone ever refused to pay it?

Water, sewage, roads, community ,… the usual development contributions.

No one has ever refused to pay it, maybe now that there is a slowdown in housing people might actually look things like this and pursue the matter.

@henno wrote:

i also have a theory re pre-planning meetings.
I have seen council officals being very positive towards development in preplanning meeting only for the development to be blown out of the water at decision. Leaving a very peed-off developer (who usually vents anger towards architect!)…. in my opinion the council want as much applications as possible to generate revenue, even to the point of being dishonest in preplanning meetings.

I would agree with the above too, pre-planning meetings can be a waste of time, although you often learn more about what’s proposed for the adjoining site, rather than gaining useful feedback for the site subject to the pre-planning meeting.

@DOC wrote:

Obviously from the replies there is no real clear-cut answer to my question!

My view would be that the development granted permission should be ‘substantially complete’ prior to commencing the construction of the exempted developmnet extension. What I mean by ‘substantially complete’ is that the external envelope is watertight – roof complete, windows and external doors in, external plastering/finishes complete, etc. – but the house not necessarily be occupied.

Would anybody agree with this view?

My wife suggested ringing the Council to ask the question – I said I could ask the question but there are two hopes of getting an answer that doesn’t involve the words ‘apply for planning permission’!

Doc

Remember about 4/5 years ago – the 2 year “withering rule” . The 2000 Planning Act , in an effort to make house builder developers ” get on with it” provided that housing development permissions would lapse after 2 years . So in that context the RIAI sought legal opinion on what constituted “completion” . Answer – walls complete to wall plate level . No windows , roof tiles , plumbing elecs , roads etc . CAUTION – this was an untested ( in court ) legal opinion given in this particular context . ( PS- the 2 year withering rule was scrapped , along with ammendments to Part 5 ( social housing ) as a Christmas gift to the FF Galway racing tent in Dec 2002 ( or 2003 , can’t remember precisely )

Now whether this “wall plate” opinion helps or not ….. in this office we always caution against extending before what “the common man” would consider completion

Brian

‘Substantial Completion’ is deemed to be wallplate level from the point of view of applying for an extension of the duration of a planning premission…. dont know if this helps any, but…..

@tyrrp wrote:

Yes you can build up to 40msq to the rear of you property without permission but if you have ever extended before even with full permission the area of that extension is subtracted from your exempted allowance.
I.E. 5 years ago you built a 30msq extension to the side of your house. You got full planning and completed the extension. You are now only entitles to build 10msq exempted to the rear.
The only way for the councils to watch out for this error is to have everyone apply for a section 5 (€80 for them as well). It also ensures people are not reducing their open space below the percentages allowed.

Consider this also. If you do send in a section 5 application and it is refused then you go ahead and build anyway but make some small changes to the design what type of problems could this cause. Who can ever prove when the exempt development was built is another consideration. I suppose you only have to say it was built while your 30msq application was being processed and that is why it isn’t shown on the original application.

Following on from the point above, I wonder can someone answer this query:
If a 2-storey terraced house, built circa 1860, has 2 original, single-storey rear returns at either side (confirmed original on old OS maps), can the returns be demolished and their floor area added to the 40sqm allowance?
i.e. if the returns combined are 15 Sqm, can they be demolished and a new combined structure of 55 Sqm be constructed assuming that all other exemption criteria are met?

If you think no, might it be permissible if part(s) of the original returns were retained (such as 2 walls out of 3 while installing a new roof and floor?
Thanks in advance.

@mulp wrote:

Following on from the point above, I wonder can someone answer this query:
If a 2-storey terraced house, built circa 1860, has 2 original, single-storey rear returns at either side (confirmed original on old OS maps), can the returns be demolished and their floor area added to the 40sqm allowance?
i.e. if the returns combined are 15 Sqm, can they be demolished and a new combined structure of 55 Sqm be constructed assuming that all other exemption criteria are met?

If you think no, might it be permissible if part(s) of the original returns were retained (such as 2 walls out of 3 while installing a new roof and floor?
Thanks in advance.

On the face of it yes . If you demolish part of a building and rebuild that part you are not extending at that part .
Take care with a building that age that it is not a protected structure ( no exempted development at all ) or that it is not in an ACA ( conservation area ) – possibility of no Ex Dev . A section 5 application can sometimes be useful as it requires no advert , site notice and takes only 4 weeks . Drawings are required , sometimes to same standard as a full application .

how can you include a single storey extension to the side of a dwelling into what can be considered exempt to the rear??? i dont think so….

i would agree with you brian regarding the single storey exension to the rear (assumption), but it does throw up the question of whether the demolition actually requires planning permission???. i think it does……..
at what point do you need permssion to demolish and rebuild??? you cannot demolish a dwelling and rebuild without planning……

Sorry, to clarify, the returns are fully at the rear of the house and the extension will be too. I mean’t that the returns were at opposite sides of the rear of the house.
I have checked that it is not a P.S. etc.
Doing the work as exempted development is very important due to unrelated neighbour issues.
The declaration process sounds like exactly what I need as I know the enforcement officer would be called quick smart no matter how clearly we explained the exemption to next door.
Thanks for the advice.

Henno I agree your point about about side extensions – never exempt . I am interpreting the description of the returns as being ” to the rear , to either side of the rear” . If the returns are even partially to the the side i.e. past the line of the building frontage then , I think a Section 5 may be the way to go , if not full PP

Keeping on the same theme…
What is the position on exemption for a single storey extension under 40 sq. m. totally to the rear of the existing house that would be visible from the front as it is wider than the existing house?
To clarify, it is not to the side of the house, but to the rear.
It will be the width of the plot whilst the existing house isn’t.

Different opinions on this and I can’t seem to get any clear decision from planning authority……

In general, if the extension exceeds the side limits of the dwelling the it is no longer considered to be to the rear, but is to be considered to the side. That has been my experience as advised by various planners.

Another interesting one is what is exactly considered to be the rear of a dwelling. My take, again as advised by planners, is that the rear is the opposite side of the dwelling to where the front door is located. Anyone any other view on this?

@pico wrote:

Keeping on the same theme…
What is the position on exemption for a single storey extension under 40 sq. m. totally to the rear of the existing house that would be visible from the front as it is wider than the existing house?
To clarify, it is not to the side of the house, but to the rear.
It will be the width of the plot whilst the existing house isn’t.

Different opinions on this and I can’t seem to get any clear decision from planning authority……

NOT exempt . Can you redesign to keep entrirely to rear – do not pass the side/gable

@henno wrote:

In general, if the extension exceeds the side limits of the dwelling the it is no longer considered to be to the rear, but is to be considered to the side. That has been my experience as advised by various planners.

Another interesting one is what is exactly considered to be the rear of a dwelling. My take, again as advised by planners, is that the rear is the opposite side of the dwelling to where the front door is located. Anyone any other view on this?

Interesting one henno . With some designs, the apparent front elevation ( i.e. the one facing the road ) does not contain the main entrance ( or any entrance ) . …. now where did I put that Section 5 applaication form again …..