Dormer as Exempt Development?

@pico wrote:

I am trying to make an opinion as to whether the following situation where a house was adapted can be classed as exempt development:

The house is terraced with the roof cut into the first floor restricting the head height in the rooms at the rear. A flat roof dormer was therefore added to the roof at the rear, increasing the usable floor area of two first floor rooms.

No new floor was added, it was just that the dormer was cut into the pitch of the roof, solely to the rear of the house, and covering an area of approximately 13 square metres. The rooms were previously a dressing room, and attic with restricted headroom, but now able to be used as a bathroom and bedroom.

Any thoughts?

+1 What Tayto has written and I add the following; –

Attic conversions are exempted in planning terms, because its work carried out wholly within the building envelope as I understand it.

I don’t happen to agree with this approach BTW, but that appears to be the size of it.

Some people will try to squeeze anything in under Section 4 1 h of the PDA 2000, but I think that’s pushing it too far.

Dormer windows are not exempted development AFAIK., and since you seem to have substantially added to the area of usable space in the attic, this may also be deemed to be non-exempoted development.

If you’re want to stand by your convictions, feel free to request a Section 5 Declaration from the Local Authority.

Or you could simply ring up and have a chat with your friendly neighbourhood planning officer.

ONQ.

I really don’t see the need to provide any reasoning for explanation for why it is not exempt.
There is a very clear list of exempt development. Dormers are not on this list. (there is of course one exception to this list, which is roof lights)

Op, I think you know you are chancing your arm. You haven’t suggested a single validreason for why this could be exempt.

@onq wrote:

Are roof light on the list Bren88?

Nice backpedal.

ONQ.

Hmm, A bit of a pointless comment ONQ.
I don’t see how it was a backpedal.

The exemption for rooflights comes from else where. Which I why I clearly listed them as an exception. I didn’t expect anyone get pedantic with the fact that they aren’t on the list.

FYI, the exemption for roof lights is newer than the current Exemption regs. I imagine it wil be included in the next edition.

But most importantly, I don’t see how that is related to dormers, or why you felt your post was even relevant.

@Bren88 wrote:

Hmm, A bit of a pointless comment ONQ.
I don’t see how it was a backpedal.

The exemption for rooflights comes from else where. Which I why I clearly listed them as an exception. I didn’t expect anyone get pedantic with the fact that they aren’t on the list.

FYI, the exemption for roof lights is newer than the current Exemption regs. I imagine it wil be included in the next edition.

But most importantly, I don’t see how that is related to dormers, or why you felt your post was even relevant.

Probably in response to your own “pointless comment” in Post #5 to this thread.

“I really don’t see the need to provide any reasoning for explanation for why it is not exempt”

Courtesy, like a smile, costs nothing.

Dissing others for offering background information in a forum intended for the exchange of information isn’t helpful.

Especially when you then go and do exactly what you dissed the other poster for doing – a worked example of backpedaling 🙂

Sure you might as well – its exercise, isn’t it?

ONQ

Bren88,

You’re a credit to the profession!

😀

As for me, ascribe it to me still coming down from several days posting against PVC King.

ONQ.

@esterelle wrote:

Dormer windows are not exempted development under the planning and development regulations. Clearly if houses either side of a dwelling had dormers or other features then section 4 (1) h could kick in. There is considerable scope under this particular provision. The situation regarding attics is really a matter for the dwelling owner to decide. The attic is part of the house anyway and therefore no change of use arises which would require planning permission regardless of whether it is used for storage or human habitation. The works involved are normally internal works and no permission is needed for these or for velux windows to the rear / side. Compliance with Building Regs is now by and large subject to self certification and if somebody is happy to sleep in the attic with a ceiling lower than what is specified in the regs then that is their business. But it is vital that a means of escape from fire is always top of the agenda when attics are used as living accomodation. Plenty of smoke alarms should be fitted in the attic and throughout the house. They are cheap and they are proven life savers.

anyone would be advised to read this thread prior to taking planning and/or building reg advice from esterelle

https://archiseek.com/content/showthread.php?t=6429

[ @esterelle wrote:

Fact is that converting your attic does not involve a change of use warranting a planning application. No change use is involved within your dwelling despite what wearnicehats and others might say. Any attic conversion does not consequently eat into the 40 sq metres extension you are allowed have as exempted development under the planning regulations.
This is an incontrovertable fact. There are chancers around and some of them mascarade as planning consultants who will try to convince you that the situation is otherwise and relieve you of some of your money for their incorrect advice. Beware such chancers.

Did you ever actually read the planning legislation?
As a short cut, you can get a good idea of what it’s all about by reading what Local Authorities are legally entitled to charge for processing plannning applications:

PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, 2001, SCHEDULE 9, Part 12
FEES FOR PLANNING APPLICATIONS

Section 2 – Scale of Fees for Planning Applications
Column 1
Class of Development

2. (a) Any works for the carrying out of maintenance, improvement or other alteration of an existing house (including any works for the provision of an extension or the conversion for use as part of the house of any garage, store, shed or other structure).

What is evident from this extract is that:
1. A Planning application is required for “Development“
2. There are different Classes of Development, and different fees for each Class.
3. “Class 2” Development, as described quite clearly above, requires planning permission, (unless it is considered exempt development, of course).

The provision of additional habitable accomodation in the attic space results in an increase in the floor area of the house and is considered “Development” by the Dept. of the Environment and every Local Authority in the country. ie. It is considered an “Extension” of the floor area of the house.
This interpretation of Development is the only one that really matters.
If the sum total of this floor area, plus any other extension areas not requiring permission, is less than 40m2, then the Development is also considered “Exempted Development”.
This type of development is also required to comply with the Building Regulations, particularly with regard to fire safety.
If however, the “conversion” you speak of is merely the provision of floor boarding to an attic storage space, then it would generally not be considered an “Extension” (of the floor area of the house). It would however be considered “Development” in a Protected building/structure as structural alterations would be involved.

You are peddling misinformation in the post quoted above.
Your reference to a “Change of use” is irrelevant.
Your interpretation of the legislation, as opposed to the D.O.E. interpretation, is wrong.
You don’t know what you’re talking about.
But you are absolutely convinced that you are right, which is the main thing!

RE. D.O.E. and Local Authority interpretation of attic conversions:

Extract from Dublin City Council Development Plan 2005-2011,
Chapter 15,
General Site-Development Standards-

“All habitable rooms must be naturally ventilated
and lit, and living rooms and bedrooms shall not
be lit solely by roof lights.”

So if you’re getting paid to put a Bedroom or Living area up in someone’s “converted” attic, you’ll have to do more than insert a couple of rooflights, in order to comply with Development Plan Standards.
That means dormers.
And that means non-exemption.
And that means planning permission required.

@goneill wrote:

Whats the Development Plan got to do with the price of eggs? Section 4.1 of the primary legislation defines exempted development. Regulations are subsidiary and Development Plans even more so. If you treat reading the regulations as a “shortcut” to understanding as suggested above then you will miss the basics. The omission of a particular class of development from a shedule of exempted development is not evidence that it is not exempt. Read David Keane “Blurring around the Edges” Irish Architect March 1998

Jaysus….

For most people considering making a planning application, reading the regulations represents the intoduction point to terminology such as “Development”, “Class of Development” and “Exempted Development”. These terms often appear for the first time when a would-be applicant is considering handing over money and consults the Scale of Fees for planning applications.
In order to find out how much cash they may have to part with, questions such as “Do the works constitute Development?” or “If so, what Class of Development is it?” or ” Do the works constitute Exempted Development?” must be answered.

In answering these questions, a level of understanding of some of the relevant terminology, jargon and concepts at work in the planning process can be achieved.

Or perhaps an applicant might be better off dismissing this irrelevant subsidiary legislation, study the Act and read “Blurring Around the Edges” or similar approved, interpret the primary legislation, submit a planning application and hope for the best.

Similarly, they can also dismiss the irrelevant subsidiary Development Plan policies, lodge the application and hope for the best.