Attic conversions – exempt development

Aren’t attic conversions nearly always done for ‘storage space’ for the reasons you outlined,? even if such works involve a dormer window. I also think you can put in 2 velux windows to the rear along with other internal works for the ‘storage’ area in DCC’s functioning area.
You often see estate agents trying to dance around this in their sales spiel

They are Tommy but I had not before seen an official “sanction” of these conversions as stated here on on the DLRCC site .

@brianrochford wrote:

They are Tommy but I had not before seen an official “sanction” of these conversions as stated here on on the DLRCC site .

One could make a prejudicial guess that the larger semi-D’s commom in DLR have more generous floorplates and roof clearance?
The demograohics of DLR are pretty bad too and there is a raft of ‘densifying’ nuances in the dev plan for mature suburban areas (23 of the 69 DEDs in DLR experienced continual population decline from 86-2002, i.e. all of clonskeagh, churchtown, foxrock, cabinteely etc.) you could probably fit a 2 bed apartment in some of the attics in those neighbourhoods! I am surprised that house division into 2 units hasn’t been sanctioned for in the DLR dev plan. It’s a very common occurence in edwardian semi-D’s in London for example

if you convert an attic to habitable space with fixed access then it needs planning permission…

if you change the construction to give yourself ‘storage space’ with no fixed access then you do not need planning…

if you add velux rooflights or dormer windows to a roof, these require planning permission.

Those guidelines on the Dun Laoghaire are incorrect and misleading.

the “guidance notes” state

“These notes are for guidance only; the relevant Regulations should always be consulted where doubt exists”

ie your conversion must conform with all parts of the building regs, in this case Part B is very clear on all aspects of converting your attic. Joe Soap probably wouldn’t know / care though so the webpage is too vague, almost dangerous in fact

The Dun Laoghaire website is correct and the others are wrong. Attic conversions do not need planning permission. The area involved is part of the dwelling house. All internal works are either not development or exempt under S 4 (1) (h) of the 2000 Act. Velux windows to rear and sometimes to the side and front also exempt.

@esterelle wrote:

The Dun Laoghaire website is correct and the others are wrong. Attic conversions do not need planning permission. The area involved is part of the dwelling house. All internal works are either not development or exempt under S 4 (1) (h) of the 2000 Act. Velux windows to rear and sometimes to the side and front also exempt.

Therein lies the problem….

you are correct to say that internal alterations are exempt under section 4.1.h

however, nowhere in the regulations does it state that rooflights are exempt. !!!!

This is a grey area which different building control sections have different view points. Some consider rooflights internal alterations and thus exempt, however others consider them as a change to facade and thus require permission… theres no straight answer…..

An attic cannot be converted into habitable space without it complying with TGD B fire regs. These regs require an alternative means of escape, usually rooflights.

The best thing to do is apply for a declaration….

@henno wrote:

Therein lies the problem….

you are correct to say that internal alterations are exempt under section 4.1.h

however, nowhere in the regulations does it state that rooflights are exempt. !!!!

This is a grey area which different building control sections have different view points. Some consider rooflights internal alterations and thus exempt, however others consider them as a change to facade and thus require permission… theres no straight answer…..

An attic cannot be converted into habitable space without it complying with TGD B fire regs. These regs require an alternative means of escape, usually rooflights.

The best thing to do is apply for a declaration….

Rooflights are also exempt under 4 (1) (h) and have been deemed by An Bord Pleanala to be so on many ocassions. Rooflights to the rear are always exempt, to the side they are mostly so and even to the front they may well be. There was a relatively recent one in Killiney where 6 rooflights were deemed exempt by ABP.
Nothing to to with the planning and development regulations. All under 4 (1) (h) of the principal act. So my point would be that it is pointless going for further declaratins when they have already been done.

@esterelle wrote:

Rooflights are also exempt under 4 (1) (h) and have been deemed by An Bord Pleanala to be so on many ocassions. Rooflights to the rear are always exempt, to the side they are mostly so and even to the front they may well be. There was a relatively recent one in Killiney where 6 rooflights were deemed exempt by ABP.
Nothing to to with the planning and development regulations. All under 4 (1) (h) of the principal act. So my point would be that it is pointless going for further declaratins when they have already been done.

a sweeping statement and a wrong one – rooflights are not exempt but are judged on individual merit based on the application. ABP decides on a case by case basis not on precedent.

The conversion of an attic without regard to Part B is, by the way, a breach of legislation.

my local authority do not consider attic conversion to be exempt from planning permission, therefore i apply every time….
any attempt to justify their ‘exemption’ simply stretches too many opinions….. in my own opinion…

also, i agree with WNH above, an bord pleanala do not make wholesale determinations, but rather deliberate on a case to case basis… their directions do not create planning law…..

@wearnicehats wrote:

a sweeping statement and a wrong one – rooflights are not exempt but are judged on individual merit based on the application. ABP decides on a case by case basis not on precedent.

The conversion of an attic without regard to Part B is, by the way, a breach of legislation.

I beg to differ with you there. An Bord Pleanala have ruled that the conversion of an attic is not development at all. Velux windows on the rear roofslope are with very few exceptions, exempted development. On the side of houses they are very often exempted development and sometimes they are exempted development on the front roofslope (32 Ballinclea Heights in Killiney being such a case under Referral 06DR2284) An attic in an existing dwelling forms part of that dwelling and works to convert the attic do not require planning permission as they are all internal.
From a Planning point of view no permission is required. How difficult can that be to understand. If you want to go outside planning and into the Building Control area that is something different but no planning permission is needed to carry out the works involved in converting an existing attic.

@esterelle wrote:

I beg to differ with you there. An Bord Pleanala have ruled that the conversion of an attic is not development at all. Velux windows on the rear roofslope are with very few exceptions, exempted development. On the side of houses they are very often exempted development and sometimes they are exempted development on the front roofslope (32 Ballinclea Heights in Killiney being such a case under Referral 06DR2284) An attic in an existing dwelling forms part of that dwelling and works to convert the attic do not require planning permission as they are all internal.
From a Planning point of view no permission is required. How difficult can that be to understand. If you want to go outside planning and into the Building Control area that is something different but no planning permission is needed to carry out the works involved in converting an existing attic.

you say that no planning is required and yet your own text states:

Velux windows on the rear roofslope are with very few exceptions, exempted development ie there are occassions when they are not exempt therefore to state that velux’s are exempt is patently incorrect. You then say that they are “very often” exempt and “sometimes” exempt

It’s like saying someone is only slightly dead.

If you made any sense I could understand you but you don’t and I can only hope that you’re not a planning consultant

@wearnicehats wrote:

you say that no planning is required and yet your own text states:

Velux windows on the rear roofslope are with very few exceptions, exempted development ie there are occassions when they are not exempt therefore to state that velux’s are exempt is patently incorrect. You then say that they are “very often” exempt and “sometimes” exempt

It’s like saying someone is only slightly dead.

If you made any sense I could understand you but you don’t and I can only hope that you’re not a planning consultant

I will say it again for you. An existing attic is part of the dwelling house and the works to convert this space does not require a planning permission. The Dun Laoghaire council website is correct in stating this. Despite your reservations it is unlikely that a case could be found where such an attic could not be provided with a rooflight which would be exempted development under 4 (1) (h) of the planning act. This rooflight or lights could be at the rear, side or even the front of the dwelling as per previous Bord Pleanala referral declarations. To be stating otherwise is quite wrong and misleading.

@esterelle wrote:

I will say it again for you. An existing attic is part of the dwelling house and the works to convert this space does not require a planning permission. The Dun Laoghaire council website is correct in stating this. Despite your reservations it is unlikely that a case could be found where such an attic could not be provided with a rooflight which would be exempted development under 4 (1) (h) of the planning act. This rooflight or lights could be at the rear, side or even the front of the dwelling as per previous Bord Pleanala referral declarations. To be stating otherwise is quite wrong and misleading.

again, you say “unlikely”. If they were exempt there would be no doubt, no cause for words such as “unlikely”, “mostly”, “may well be”

And I will say it again for you – previous ABP decisions are not legislative. Out of interest, perhaps you could show me a decision where ABP invalidated an appeal because roof lights are exempt under the legislation as opposed to it being their opinion that the rooflights are not out of character with their surroundings

@esterelle wrote:

I beg to differ with you there. An Bord Pleanala have ruled that the conversion of an attic is not development at all. Velux windows on the rear roofslope are with very few exceptions, exempted development. On the side of houses they are very often exempted development and sometimes they are exempted development on the front roofslope (32 Ballinclea Heights in Killiney being such a case under Referral 06DR2284) An attic in an existing dwelling forms part of that dwelling and works to convert the attic do not require planning permission as they are all internal.
From a Planning point of view no permission is required. How difficult can that be to understand. If you want to go outside planning and into the Building Control area that is something different but no planning permission is needed to carry out the works involved in converting an existing attic.

would that be the decision where ABP conditioned that the attic be used for storage purposes only?

@wearnicehats wrote:

would that be the decision where ABP conditioned that the attic be used for storage purposes only?

No, habitable use. Not development.

@wearnicehats wrote:

again, you say “unlikely”. If they were exempt there would be no doubt, no cause for words such as “unlikely”, “mostly”, “may well be”

And I will say it again for you – previous ABP decisions are not legislative. Out of interest, perhaps you could show me a decision where ABP invalidated an appeal because roof lights are exempt under the legislation as opposed to it being their opinion that the rooflights are not out of character with their surroundings

Are we talking about appeals or Section 5 Declarations. You appear a little confused between the two.
S5 Declarations may not be legislative in the strictest sense but they do clarify the planning and development regulations and Section 4 of the Act. When planning authorities attempt to prosecute people under planning legislation the board decisions are accepted by the courts as being final in respect of any matters raised. Thats what really matters, I think you will agree

@esterelle wrote:

Are we talking about appeals or Section 5 Declarations. You appear a little confused between the two.
S5 Declarations may not be legislative in the strictest sense but they do clarify the planning and development regulations and Section 4 of the Act. When planning authorities attempt to prosecute people under planning legislation the board decisions are accepted by the courts as being final in respect of any matters raised. Thats what really matters, I think you will agree

with such an extensive knowledge of the system it should be easy enough to provide me with the decision where ABP invalidated an appeal because roof lights are exempt under the legislation as opposed to it being their opinion that the rooflights are not out of character with their surroundings

@esterelle wrote:

I beg to differ with you there. An Bord Pleanala have ruled that the conversion of an attic is not development at all. Velux windows on the rear roofslope are with very few exceptions, exempted development. On the side of houses they are very often exempted development and sometimes they are exempted development on the front roofslope (32 Ballinclea Heights in Killiney being such a case under Referral 06DR2284) An attic in an existing dwelling forms part of that dwelling and works to convert the attic do not require planning permission as they are all internal.
From a Planning point of view no permission is required. How difficult can that be to understand. If you want to go outside planning and into the Building Control area that is something different but no planning permission is needed to carry out the works involved in converting an existing attic.

esterelle…..

i think you need to read the inspectors report on that file….

NOWHERE in the report does it state that the velux rooflights constitute exempted development.

see here: http://www.pleanala.ie/casenum/220205.htm

“I consider that as the six roof lights face towards the public road and are not overly obtrusive or otherwise at odds with the design of the building, they do not create cause for concern from a planning viewpoint.”

This was simply an application to retain… there was no suggestion that the applicant was arguing that the developement was exempt…

since you like to refer to that DLRcoco document….. have you seen this one???
http://www.dlrcoco.ie/planning/oftenasked.htm

look specifically at Q 4…
4.If I build an attic conversion do I need permission?

Normally no. However, if work involves dormer windows, permission is needed. If velux windows proposed to the rear, it is exempt. If velux windows proposed to the side/front elevation it is not exempt.

🙂

personally i would still argue that velux rooflights to the rear are technically NOT exempt… but common (mis)conception has made an assumption…

@henno wrote:

esterelle…..

i think you need to read the inspectors report on that file….

NOWHERE in the report does it state that the velux rooflights constitute exempted development.

see here: http://www.pleanala.ie/casenum/220205.htm

“I consider that as the six roof lights face towards the public road and are not overly obtrusive or otherwise at odds with the design of the building, they do not create cause for concern from a planning viewpoint.”

This was simply an application to retain… there was no suggestion that the applicant was arguing that the developement was exempt…

since you like to refer to that DLRcoco document….. have you seen this one???
http://www.dlrcoco.ie/planning/oftenasked.htm

look specifically at Q 4…
4.If I build an attic conversion do I need permission?

Normally no. However, if work involves dormer windows, permission is needed. If velux windows proposed to the rear, it is exempt. If velux windows proposed to the side/front elevation it is not exempt.

🙂

personally i would still argue that velux rooflights to the rear are technically NOT exempt… but common (mis)conception has made an assumption…

It does not matter what anyone personally believes or disbelieves. I suugest you guys and anybody else who is interested email An Bord Pleanala and request a copy of 28.RF.0794 (the Board Order) This states quite clearly that the conversion of an existing attic is not development (ie not regulatable under planning legislation) Part of the same order deals with velux windows and they were exempted development in that case as they nearly always are. What was interesting about this Order though was that it seperated the works involved in the conversion of an attic from the provision of velux windows. One not dvelopment, they other development but in this case as in most cases exempted development under S 4 (1) (h) of the principal act.
I must declare a vested interest here, I have been converting attics all over Leinster for the last 10 years. No planning permission required. Extra habitable space created, exempted development or rather not development at all. And I have yet to meet a case where a Velux window could not be provided under S 4 (1) (h) I have declared my interest and I sincerely hope that you guys will do the same and for goodness sake stop spinning the yarn that attic conversions need planning permission because they dont. My guess is that you chaps are in the business of drawing up plans for attic conversions. Just a guess.

@esterelle wrote:

It does not matter what anyone personally believes or disbelieves. I suugest you guys and anybody else who is interested email An Bord Pleanala and request a copy of 28.RF.0794 (the Board Order) This states quite clearly that the conversion of an existing attic is not development (ie not regulatable under planning legislation) Part of the same order deals with velux windows and they were exempted development in that case as they nearly always are. What was interesting about this Order though was that it seperated the works involved in the conversion of an attic from the provision of velux windows. One not dvelopment, they other development but in this case as in most cases exempted development under S 4 (1) (h) of the principal act.
I must declare a vested interest here, I have been converting attics all over Leinster for the last 10 years. No planning permission required. Extra habitable space created, exempted development or rather not development at all. And I have yet to meet a case where a Velux window could not be provided under S 4 (1) (h) I have declared my interest and I sincerely hope that you guys will do the same and for goodness sake stop spinning the yarn that attic conversions need planning permission because they dont. My guess is that you chaps are in the business of drawing up plans for attic conversions. Just a guess.

And henno may I suugest that you read the Board Order in respect of 32 Ballinclea Heights. That will set you straight on whether or not these windows were exempted development or not. The Board Order is what is important not the Inspectors report. Their view on things may or may not be accepted by the Board.
This link will take you to the Order

http://www.pleanala.ie/casenum/RL2284.htm

very interesting…

saved and highlighted!!!

@esterelle wrote:

It does not matter what anyone personally believes or disbelieves. I suugest you guys and anybody else who is interested email An Bord Pleanala and request a copy of 28.RF.0794 (the Board Order) This states quite clearly that the conversion of an existing attic is not development (ie not regulatable under planning legislation) Part of the same order deals with velux windows and they were exempted development in that case as they nearly always are. What was interesting about this Order though was that it seperated the works involved in the conversion of an attic from the provision of velux windows. One not dvelopment, they other development but in this case as in most cases exempted development under S 4 (1) (h) of the principal act.
I must declare a vested interest here, I have been converting attics all over Leinster for the last 10 years. No planning permission required. Extra habitable space created, exempted development or rather not development at all. And I have yet to meet a case where a Velux window could not be provided under S 4 (1) (h) I have declared my interest and I sincerely hope that you guys will do the same and for goodness sake stop spinning the yarn that attic conversions need planning permission because they dont. My guess is that you chaps are in the business of drawing up plans for attic conversions. Just a guess.

At least we know who’s to blame for the preponderance of the poxy things all over the place

How many of those conversions complied with Part B when you’d finished by the way?

@wearnicehats wrote:

At least we know who’s to blame for the preponderance of the poxy things all over the place

How many of those conversions complied with Part B when you’d finished by the way?

Planning compliant in any event.

@esterelle wrote:

Planning compliant in any event.

that is a disgraceful comment you low life cowboy

Just for your information I insist that everyone I know who buys a house insists on an Architect’s Compliance Cert. They’ll get you eventually

Don’t come on here looking for absolution.

@wearnicehats wrote:

that is a disgraceful comment you low life cowboy

Just for your information I insist that everyone I know who buys a house insists on an Architect’s Compliance Cert. They’ll get you eventually

Don’t come on here looking for absolution.

I think everybody will accept that those who resort to name calling do so when they have lost an argument. I will have you know that I am no cowboy and my attics comply with all regulations. I apologise if your “planning application trade” has been affected.

@esterelle wrote:

I think everybody will accept that those who resort to name calling do so when they have lost an argument. I will have you know that I am no cowboy and my attics comply with all regulations. I apologise if your “planning application trade” has been affected.

I have never done an attic conversion and I would rather work in McDonalds than have to start. Or any other domestic application other than my own extension. I am a slave to commercialism

I haven’t lost any argument. I asked you whether, having told your “clients” that they don’t need planning permission that you also informed them of their obligations under the Building Regulations to protect their families from burning to death. You answered in a fashion that states “it’s got planning, what do I care”. The reason why I have not converted my own attic is not because I do not want to apply for planning – I did that for the extension anyway – but because I did not want to have to replace all the original doors in the house to protect my kid who would otherwise have wanted to sleep in the attic

“Your” attics might comply with whatever regs you think exist but, if you had a duty of care to your clients, your answer to me would have been a simple “all”

@wearnicehats wrote:

I have never done an attic conversion and I would rather work in McDonalds than have to start. Or any other domestic application other than my own extension. I am a slave to commercialism

I haven’t lost any argument. I asked you whether, having told your “clients” that they don’t need planning permission that you also informed them of their obligations under the Building Regulations to protect their families from burning to death. You answered in a fashion that states “it’s got planning, what do I care”. The reason why I have not converted my own attic is not because I do not want to apply for planning – I did that for the extension anyway – but because I did not want to have to replace all the original doors in the house to protect my kid who would otherwise have wanted to sleep in the attic

“Your” attics might comply with whatever regs you think exist but, if you had a duty of care to your clients, your answer to me would have been a simple “all”

Well now at least you are fully informed of the current situation vis a vis planning for attic conversions. You may not be aware of it but planning authorities have long since abdicated responsibility for supervision of the Building Regulations in this Country. Self Certification has been in vogue for a very long time but there still remains ambiguity in this area. I would always ensure that my attics satisfy all relevant regulations and I would go further and advise people to invest in smoke alarms in all dwellings, new and old. Upstairs windows may be locked and keys may not be easily found. The smoke alarms give you that extra escape time in the event of fire. Regulations are a neccessity but commonsense is a must for all home owners and dwellers.

@esterelle wrote:

Well now at least you are fully informed of the current situation vis a vis planning for attic conversions. .

hahahahahahahaha:D

show’s over you win etc. let the readers decide

@wearnicehats wrote:

hahahahahahahaha:D

show’s over you win etc. let the readers decide

Thankfully they are. I have several more orders in today

@esterelle wrote:

Self Certification has been in vogue for a very long time but there still remains ambiguity in this area.

Ambiguity? No. I think you’ve made your (professional?) position very clear and, by extension, have highlighted the downsides of allowing shysters to ‘self regulate’.

Still, you’re alright, Jack. :rolleyes:

esterelle,
I haven’t posted here in a few months.
I decided to break the mould and agree with you that attic conversations, alone, are exempt.
And even that roof lights etc, may be exempt. Although, not always, case by case and al.

However, this comment;
@esterelle wrote:

Planning compliant in any event.

Is terrible.
Are you joking. Or are you seriously considering blatent disregard for building regs (not planning regs).
Are you even aware of the requirements?

@ctesiphon wrote:

Ambiguity? No. I think you’ve made your (professional?) position very clear and, by extension, have highlighted the downsides of allowing shysters to ‘self regulate’.

Still, you’re alright, Jack. :rolleyes:

You’ve just missed the whole point. We do not self regulate, rather we abide by the statutory regulation which is part of the law of the land. Perhaps you are referring to planning authorities to fail to inform would be applicants for planning that no planning is needed and return their fees.

@Bren88 wrote:

esterelle,
I haven’t posted here in a few months.
I decided to break the mould and agree with you that attic conversations, alone, are exempt.
And even that roof lights etc, may be exempt. Although, not always, case by case and al.

However, this comment;

Is terrible.
Are you joking. Or are you seriously considering blatent disregard for building regs (not planning regs).
Are you even aware of the requirements?

Bren88, you appear not to have read all my comments but selected one which was part of an interchange with wearnicehats. If you read them all I think you will understand that all my attic conversions are not just compliant with planning laws but also satisfy the requirements of the Building Regs.

@esterelle wrote:

Bren88, you appear not to have read all my comments but selected one which was part of an interchange with wearnicehats. If you read them all I think you will understand that all my attic conversions are not just compliant with planning laws but also satisfy the requirements of the Building Regs.

ok esterelle….

if you convert an attic of a two storey dwelling… what work do you need to do to be building reg compliant?

@henno wrote:

ok esterelle….

if you convert an attic of a two storey dwelling… what work do you need to do to be building reg compliant?

If you read the relevant Section 5 decision (Board Order), the reference number of which I quoted previously then you will find the answer to your question. It is set out there for you in black and white.

@esterelle wrote:

If you read the relevant Section 5 decision (Board Order), the reference number of which I quoted previously then you will find the answer to your question. It is set out there for you in black and white.

And Henno just for your information some attic conversions do not require compliance with the Building Regs (ie those where there is no fixed ladder or stairs and no structural work was involved in the conversion)
If you are any way familiar with the Building Regs then I suspect you will know precisely what works are required to make those attics which require compliance with the Regs so compliant. By the way this is not a quiz and I know that you are upset with having your mind changed on the matter of attics and planning permission.

be under no illusions – you haven’t changed my mind one iota.

@wearnicehats wrote:

be under no illusions – you haven’t changed my mind one iota.

Res ipsa loquitir

@esterelle wrote:

And Henno just for your information some attic conversions do not require compliance with the Building Regs (ie those where there is no fixed ladder or stairs and no structural work was involved in the conversion)
If you are any way familiar with the Building Regs then I suspect you will know precisely what works are required to make those attics which require compliance with the Regs so compliant. By the way this is not a quiz and I know that you are upset with having your mind changed on the matter of attics and planning permission.

At no point was anyone talking about conversions that were NOT for habitation….
every instance i refer to above is regarding habitable conversions…

oh, and you certainly have not changed my mind.. the order you linked to i svery interesting and may be very helpful in certain situations but….

as far as i am concerned, if a client comes in to me looking for an attic conversion, i will contact the local authority and ask them if it requires permission and i can guarantee you that 100% will tell me it does.. .therefore i will still prepare the planning application, but more importantly i will ensure i am engaged to supervise the likes of you carrying out the work to ensure everything is compliant with building regs.

@esterelle wrote:

Res ipsa loquitir

I presume you mean ‘Res ipsa loquitur’?

Still, I suppose at least you’re being consistent in your failings.

@esterelle wrote:

Res ipsa loquitir

caveat emptor

@ctesiphon wrote:

I presume you mean ‘Res ipsa loquitur’?

Still, I suppose at least you’re being consistent in your failings.

vous êtes trop parfait

@henno wrote:

At no point was anyone talking about conversions that were NOT for habitation….
every instance i refer to above is regarding habitable conversions…

oh, and you certainly have not changed my mind.. the order you linked to i svery interesting and may be very helpful in certain situations but….

as far as i am concerned, if a client comes in to me looking for an attic conversion, i will contact the local authority and ask them if it requires permission and i can guarantee you that 100% will tell me it does.. .therefore i will still prepare the planning application, but more importantly i will ensure i am engaged to supervise the likes of you carrying out the work to ensure everything is compliant with building regs.

I would respectfully direct you through the link below to the paragraph entitled “If I have planning permission, do I need to comply with Building Regulations? This is the Cork County Council website and it shows clearly the differences between Planning Permission and the Building Regulations. Some local authorities and contributors here are still fudging the issue and trying to combine the two. They are disctinct and different and are regulated under seperate legislation. If someone gets their attic converted for storage purposes only it does not need to comply with the Regs regardless of what works were involved. It may be the most elaborate conversion ever undertaken, but this is the position. Planning permission is regulated under the planning acts and if one wants to have a dormer window that needs permission in all cases.

http://www.corkcoco.ie/co/web/Cork%20County%20Council/Departments/Infrastructure%20&%20Development/Fire%20Service%20and%20Building%20Control/Building%20Control/FAQs#FAQ13

@esterelle wrote:

I would respectfully direct you through the link below to the paragraph entitled “If I have planning permission, do I need to comply with Building Regulations? This is the Cork County Council website and it shows clearly the differences between Planning Permission and the Building Regulations. Some local authorities and contributors here are still fudging the issue and trying to combine the two. They are disctinct and different and are regulated under seperate legislation. If someone gets their attic converted for storage purposes only it does not need to comply with the Regs regardless of what works were involved. It may be the most elaborate conversion ever undertaken, but this is the position. Planning permission is regulated under the planning acts and if one wants to have a dormer window that needs permission in all cases.

http://www.corkcoco.ie/co/web/Cork%20County%20Council/Departments/Infrastructure%20&%20Development/Fire%20Service%20and%20Building%20Control/Building%20Control/FAQs#FAQ13

You dont need to direct me to anything, i know the difference and requirements for both and i have never suggested otherwise. Again i reiterate, i have never once in this thread refered to a non-habitable conversion.

Contributors here KNOW that habitale conversions require planning, and that these then MUST comply with building regs….

theres no fudge, muddle or confusion….

@henno wrote:

You dont need to direct me to anything, i know the difference and requirements for both and i have never suggested otherwise. Again i reiterate, i have never once in this thread refered to a non-habitable conversion.

Contributors here KNOW that habitale conversions require planning, and that these then MUST comply with building regs….

theres no fudge, muddle or confusion….

But there you go again creating the fudge. You have absolutely no basis for what you say. The Board Order sets out the position. You are not accepting it and you are trying to tie planning and building regs together.

@esterelle wrote:

But there you go again creating the fudge. You have absolutely no basis for what you say. The Board Order sets out the position. You are not accepting it and you are trying to tie planning and building regs together.

OK, I WILL MAKE THIS SIMPLE FOR YOU.

1. According to my local authority, nearby local authorities, and building control officers… habitable attic conversions need planning. Therefore everytime a client requests one, i will make a planning application!!! Im not about to embark on a crusade for you or anyone else in your position.

2. Habitable conversions MUST comply with building regulations. These can be life or death measures.

IS THAT CLEAR ENOUGH?

@henno wrote:

OK, I WILL MAKE THIS SIMPLE FOR YOU.

1. According to my local authority, nearby local authorities, and building control officers… habitable attic conversions need planning. Therefore everytime a client requests one, i will make a planning application!!! Im not about to embark on a crusade for you or anyone else in your position.

2. Habitable conversions MUST comply with building regulations. These can be life or death measures.

IS THAT CLEAR ENOUGH?

Have to agree.

If in doubt apply for a Section 5, you’ll soon be told whether it is exempt or not. 😉

@parka wrote:

Have to agree.

If in doubt apply for a Section 5, you’ll soon be told whether it is exempt or not. 😉

Not the case. Why? Because Bord Pleanala have said so in their Board Order 28.RF.0784, a habitable attic conversion. Not development according to them. Therefore no planning required. Sorry guys you are wide of the mark on this one. No S5 declarations required where works involving “no development” is concerned.
Planning and Building Regs separate. I agree that compliance with Building Regs is required with many habitable conversions. Explanation of what is required in terms of the Regs given in the DOE document found through the link below.

http://www.environ.ie/en/DevelopmentandHousing/BuildingStandards/PublicationsDocuments/FileDownLoad,1657,en.pdf

if there was a yawning smilie I’d insert it

stop feeding the troll

@wearnicehats wrote:

if there was a yawning smilie I’d insert it

stop feeding the troll

Nice one “wearnicehats” I have had a look at all my competitors sites (attic convertors) to see what they say and I have yet to find one that agrees with the line adopted by you guys. Interesting agenda though for whatever reason.

@henno wrote:

OK, I WILL MAKE THIS SIMPLE FOR YOU.

1. According to my local authority, nearby local authorities, and building control officers… habitable attic conversions need planning. Therefore everytime a client requests one, i will make a planning application!!! Im not about to embark on a crusade for you or anyone else in your position.

2. Habitable conversions MUST comply with building regulations. These can be life or death measures.

IS THAT CLEAR ENOUGH?

Well, they would say that, wouldn’t they. And what should a Bldg Control officer know about planning? Not that I have ever met one. There is a very good article by the late David Keane in “Irish Architect” about exemption. It was probably about ten years ago, but is still largely relevant.

@goneill wrote:

Well, they would say that, wouldn’t they. And what should a Bldg Control officer know about planning? Not that I have ever met one. There is a very good article by the late David Keane in “Irish Architect” about exemption. It was probably about ten years ago, but is still largely relevant.

ok, disregard the fact that i mentioned ‘local authorities’ altogether…..

my local building control officer is also part of the enforcemnet section, so he IS the exact person to ask…

@henno wrote:

ok, disregard the fact that i mentioned ‘local authorities’ altogether…..

my local building control officer is also part of the enforcemnet section, so he IS the exact person to ask…

These days local authorities are in the business of making a few bob. Unless you show them that planning is not needed they will say it is. Its a bit like the parking meters which are not in use on Sundays. Yet people put in money. What does the LA do with that? Give it to charity. I think not. What you are doing by applying for permission for developments which dont need it is effectively paying the LA to facilitate your neighbours to object to things they have absolutely no right to object to. People should wise up. Money is scarce and giving it away to your local planning authority will not get you very far. They will not even say thanks for it these days.
But I do not blame people who are confused, the issues we have discussed here should be on the DOE web pages. But they are not and each authority is allowed do its own thing. Whats “not development” in one county is “not development” in any county but will your local planner tell you that? No he / she will not. Thats why you must arm yourself with all relevant documents before you make contact with them. And if you dont need to make contact, then steer clear of them. It will probably save you a lot of money, time and frustration. Thats all I will say on this matter. Its been ventilated sufficiently I think.

Well, if you meant your local Planning Enforcement Officer, it would have been better to describe his/her as such, rather than by one of his other titles, I can hardly think of any examples of a planning authority telling me something didn’t require permission, although there was one notable case where they told a developer that permission for a change of use was not required, when it turned out that it did. That was an expensive mistake.

If I were doing an attic conversion I would be very careful to appraise the client of the disagreement surrounding this matter. I mean, if you put the client to the cost of putting an advertisement (or two) in the paper, preparing six sets of drawings, and hanging around for three months or twelve, you would want to be pretty sure that it was necessary. In the current climate there a lot of people turning quite nasty and if your advice were to lead for example to delayed or cancelled sale……

there are too many people in this world who expect to be told what to do

anyway, now that esterelle has had her/his/its final say I would like to have mine. Simply put, whilst you might be able to gloss over the grey area that exists betweeen planning and building regs and between planning and attic conversions, there is absolutely no grey area between attic conversions and building regulations.

Anyone thinking of converting their attics must read this document issued by the Department of the Environment

http://www.environ.ie/en/DevelopmentandHousing/BuildingStandards/PublicationsDocuments/FileDownLoad,1657,en.pdf

you can quote ABP decisions until the cows come home but the requirements to protect your family are quite clear, regardless of whether you needed planning or not so there’s a very clear process here

1. do you want to convert your attic?
2. If yes you should discover what needs to be done to meet the building regulations above document either in discussions with an appropriate professional. Most people won’t pay for this and / or ignore the advice but, again, it’s up to you

This process might, for example, show up the need for velux windows that are suitable for escape – a much different animal altogether

3. You might want to consult with your local authority to garner their opinion on whether the work needs planning. DCC for example hold clinics and it’s free. Contrary to what goneil says above, the €40 they’d get isn’t much of an incentive. If they do advise that planning is required (at the front, side or rear, especially for escape standard windows) the decision to do so is, again, up to you

4. consult an attic conversion “professional”. There are hundreds of them out there and it’s a total minefield. I found a very good guy via word of mouth from other architects

Ask them about the building regs. Ask them about planning. If you don’t get replies that tie in with the above think very hard about using them. If they don’t know the basics then who knows what they’re doing up there. It’s up to you

IF you do find someone who appears to know what they’re doing and you have decided to comply with the building regs then get them to quote for the whole package. If they don’t want to then you can decide to try someone else or get a separate contractor to do the rest. Or not bother. Up to you

As I said before I don’t do domestic work, run a mile from it in fact – but the nature of my propfession is that friends ask me advice off camera and I make a point of knowing the facts or else I don’t give an opinion

The property market is changing. It is no longer a seller’s market. I have done several (free) Opinions of Compliance on Planning and on Compliance with Building regs for friends and family. In one case I refused as it didn’t comply and wrote a letter explaining why. The decision was then with the vendor – and they chose not to address the issues. The sale fell through and the house is still for sale. This was the ultimate decision and, in the end, it wasn’t up to them

caveat emptor – a little knowledge is – in this case, literally, a dangerous thing

@wearnicehats wrote:

there are too many people in this world who expect to be told what to do

anyway, now that esterelle has had her/his/its final say I would like to have mine. Simply put, whilst you might be able to gloss over the grey area that exists betweeen planning and building regs and between planning and attic conversions, there is absolutely no grey area between attic conversions and building regulations.

Anyone thinking of converting their attics must read this document issued by the Department of the Environment

http://www.environ.ie/en/DevelopmentandHousing/BuildingStandards/PublicationsDocuments/FileDownLoad,1657,en.pdf

you can quote ABP decisions until the cows come home but the requirements to protect your family are quite clear, regardless of whether you needed planning or not so there’s a very clear process here

1. do you want to convert your attic?
2. If yes you should discover what needs to be done to meet the building regulations above document either in discussions with an appropriate professional. Most people won’t pay for this and / or ignore the advice but, again, it’s up to you

This process might, for example, show up the need for velux windows that are suitable for escape – a much different animal altogether

3. You might want to consult with your local authority to garner their opinion on whether the work needs planning. DCC for example hold clinics and it’s free. Contrary to what goneil says above, the €40 they’d get isn’t much of an incentive. If they do advise that planning is required (at the front, side or rear, especially for escape standard windows) the decision to do so is, again, up to you

4. consult an attic conversion “professional”. There are hundreds of them out there and it’s a total minefield. I found a very good guy via word of mouth from other architects

Ask them about the building regs. Ask them about planning. If you don’t get replies that tie in with the above think very hard about using them. If they don’t know the basics then who knows what they’re doing up there. It’s up to you

IF you do find someone who appears to know what they’re doing and you have decided to comply with the building regs then get them to quote for the whole package. If they don’t want to then you can decide to try someone else or get a separate contractor to do the rest. Or not bother. Up to you

As I said before I don’t do domestic work, run a mile from it in fact – but the nature of my propfession is that friends ask me advice off camera and I make a point of knowing the facts or else I don’t give an opinion

The property market is changing. It is no longer a seller’s market. I have done several (free) Opinions of Compliance on Planning and on Compliance with Building regs for friends and family. In one case I refused as it didn’t comply and wrote a letter explaining why. The decision was then with the vendor – and they chose not to address the issues. The sale fell through and the house is still for sale. This was the ultimate decision and, in the end, it wasn’t up to them

caveat emptor – a little knowledge is – in this case, literally, a dangerous thing

There are may items in the wearnicehats contribution which require comment and clarification but I will wait a week or so in order to let everyone else have their say

Contrary to what goneil says above, the €40 they’d get isn’t much of an incentive.

Did I say they do it for the money?

@esterelle wrote:

There are may items in the wearnicehats contribution which require comment and clarification but I will wait a week or so in order to let everyone else have their say

There is quite a bit more to be said on this issue but I think it important that the public get an opportunity to have a browse over the DOE Guidlines which are issued to all local planners in this country with respect to planning decisions and related matters. I have included here a link to these guidelines. Please note with interest what is stated in them about Fire Regulations and Building Regulations : pages 67 and 68 or thereabouts.

http://www.environ.ie/en/Publications/DevelopmentandHousing/Planning/FileDownLoad,1603,en.pdf

When people digest these I will return to attics, habitable and non-habitable.

I can’t wait to discover the relevance of a obsolete 2005 “Draft for consultation” document for planners

if you want “the public” to refer to anything at least use the right documents ie

http://www.environ.ie/en/Publications/DevelopmentandHousing/Planning/FileDownLoad,14467,en.pdf

sums you up really

In any event, given that my post specifically separates planning and building regulations and focuses instead on the requirements of each, it serves no purpose whatsoever

@wearnicehats wrote:

I can’t wait to discover the relevance of a obsolete 2005 “Draft for consultation” document for planners

if you want “the public” to refer to anything at least use the right documents ie

http://www.environ.ie/en/Publications/DevelopmentandHousing/Planning/FileDownLoad,14467,en.pdf

sums you up really

In any event, given that my post specifically separates planning and building regulations and focuses instead on the requirements of each, it serves no purpose whatsoever

Now now “wearnicehats” touchy touchy. Same document really in relation to the matters I refer to. No need for any nasty comments or namecalling. People who resort to that type of thing just demonstrate a lack of class I always feel

rather a lack of class than knowledge.

why don’t you enlighten us with the “many items that require comment and clarification”

@wearnicehats wrote:

rather a lack of class than knowledge.

why don’t you enlighten us with the “many items that require comment and clarification”

All in good time. There are so many it will take a while and I am a busy man.

yawn

@wearnicehats wrote:

don’t take too long- these are depressing times and I could do with a good laugh

Fail play wearnicehats, you have given us plenty of those already

@esterelle wrote:

Fail play wearnicehats, you have given us plenty of those already

It is a fact that if someone applies for planning permission for an attic conversion (habitable or non habitable) and includes a dormer window there is a real chance that you will be refused for the lot. The planning authority will not differentiate between the internal works involved in the conversion (not development at all) and the external works involved in putting in the dormer window (definitely development requiring planning permission. People sometimes think that this refusal prevents them from converting their attic. This is definitely not so and if a Velux window will suffice and it falls within the scope of section 4 (1) (h) of the 2000 Act then you can proceed without any permission. If the attic is to be used as a bedroom you must of course ensure that the Velux window is a type which satisfies Part B of the building Regs. I have several cases in recent years where people who had attics suitable for conversion abandoned the whole idea after being refused by their planning authority because a dormer window was found to be unacceptable. They believed that those refusals bound them in relation to works which did not need planning permission in the first place. Needless to say the planning authority did not enlighten them on this.

@henno wrote:

Contributors here KNOW that habitale conversions require planning

No they dont.

I have to say I’ve read this thread with interest and it amazes me how people cant or wont understand the requirements of the P & D Acts. It was stated and backed up with links to ABP determinations that attic conversions to habitable space are exempt from planning subject to conditions relating to window locations.

@Archie wrote:

No they dont.

I have to say I’ve read this thread with interest and it amazes me how people cant or wont understand the requirements of the P & D Acts. It was stated and backed up with links to ABP determinations that attic conversions to habitable space are exempt from planning subject to conditions relating to window locations.

YES they do..

to say something is exempt, subject to conditions, without reference to planning legislation is meaningless.

as i have stated many times above….

If a client approaches me regarding an attic conversion.. the first thing i will do is contact the local planning authority and ask them if it requires planning… the WILL say yes..
Im not going to argue saying well “esterelle and archie on archiseek say it isnt”….

I will take my determinations from my local planning authority until such time as planning legislation specifically refers to and describes a topical issue such as attic conversions and required rooflights. It has already been stated above that an bord pleanala rulings do not constitute planning legislation.

esterelle has made a very very significant argument as to why they should be considered exempt so his/her next step should be to lobby the dept to clarify the matter through legislation…… preaching here is not going to change any certifiers mind when it comes down to it being their ass and their PI insurance which is on the line.

@Archie wrote:

No they dont.

I have to say I’ve read this thread with interest and it amazes me how people cant or wont understand the requirements of the P & D Acts. It was stated and backed up with links to ABP determinations that attic conversions to habitable space are exempt from planning subject to conditions relating to window locations.

ok so let’s examine this defining case of 32 Ballinclea Heights that is supposed to clear up any ambiguity over the planning act

Case PL06D.RL2284

2004 – June – rooflight and gable windows installed without planning
2004 – December – adjoining residents complain to DLRCC
2005 – February – DLRCC issue enforcement warning to owners
2005 – March – owners argue verbal confirmation from DLRCC that planning was not required.
2005 – May – DLRCC inspect and consider the windows not exempt
2005 – July – owner seeks section 5 declaration
2005 – August – DLRCC consider gable window exempt but velux windows not exempt
2005 – September – owner appeals to ABP

2006 – February – Inspector’s report rules:that provision of six roof lights in the eastern roof plane constitutes development which materially affects the external appearance of the structure, but which does not render its appearance inconsistent with the character of the structure and of neighbouring structures. Therefore, provision of six roof lights in the eastern roof plane of the dwelling house is development and is exempted development.

2006 – February – The Board Direction agrees but then suddenly disagrees with the gable, ruled exempt by both DLRCC and the ABP inspector in that provision of a window in the northern gable of the dwelling house constitutes development which materially affects the external appearance of the structure and which renders its appearance inconsistent with the character of the structure and of neighbouring structures. Therefore, the said provision of a window in the northern gable constitutes development and is not exempted development.

Case PL06D.RL2287

In tandem with this the appellant also referred the Section 5 to ABP

2006 – February – Inspector changes his mind and considers gable window to be exempt
2006 – February – Board overturns inspector again and reiterates original decision that gable is not exempt
2006 – August – The applicant then applied to DLRCC for retention
2006 – September – Retention granted with the following conditions

1. Any attic floorspace which does not comply with Building Regulations in relation to habitable standards shall not be used for human habitation

2. This permission does not imply any consent or approval for the structural stability and/or habitability of the works carried out and does not imply that the structure complies with the Building Regulations

3. The attention of the applicant is drawn to Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Governments’ document “Loft Conversion: Protect your family” in ensuring that all development in relation to the attic conversion is undertaken within the necessary requirements

But guess what – appealed again under case PL06D.220205

February 2007 the board decides as follows:

The window within the northern gable shall be fitted with obscure glazing and
shall be non-openable, and the attic space shall be used for storage purposes only.

2007 – September – Now, just when you thought it was all over, the applicant applies for a new permission with a redesign of the gable window to be an internal bay. This is granted and duly appealed under case D06B/0707 PL06D.220205. The board confirms the decision of DLRCC

Presumably this applies just to the window but the condition that it be used for storage only still applies

Therefore, this clear cut case that proves categorically every aspect of exempted development for attics, windows etc, can be summarised as follows

Planning Authority – rejects roof light, accepts gable
ABP Inspector – accepts roof light, accepts gable
ABP Board – accepts roof light, rejects gable
ABP Inspector – accepts roof light, accepts gable
ABP Board – accepts roof light, rejects gable
Planning Authority – accepts retention of window, conditions compliance with Building regs
ABP – accepts accepts retention of window, conditioned use for storage only
Planning Authority – accepts redesigned window, no mention of previous compliance
ABP – accepts redesigned window, no mention of previous condition

Total length of process – 3 years

Yep that’s pretty damn cut and dried to me

@wearnicehats wrote:

ok so let’s examine this defining case of 32 Ballinclea Heights that is supposed to clear up any ambiguity over the planning act

Case PL06D.RL2284

2004 – June – rooflight and gable windows installed without planning
2004 – December – adjoining residents complain to DLRCC
2005 – February – DLRCC issue enforcement warning to owners
2005 – March – owners argue verbal confirmation from DLRCC that planning was not required.
2005 – May – DLRCC inspect and consider the windows not exempt
2005 – July – owner seeks section 5 declaration
2005 – August – DLRCC consider gable window exempt but velux windows not exempt
2005 – September – owner appeals to ABP

2006 – February – Inspector’s report rules:that provision of six roof lights in the eastern roof plane constitutes development which materially affects the external appearance of the structure, but which does not render its appearance inconsistent with the character of the structure and of neighbouring structures. Therefore, provision of six roof lights in the eastern roof plane of the dwelling house is development and is exempted development.

2006 – February – The Board Direction agrees but then suddenly disagrees with the gable, ruled exempt by both DLRCC and the ABP inspector in that provision of a window in the northern gable of the dwelling house constitutes development which materially affects the external appearance of the structure and which renders its appearance inconsistent with the character of the structure and of neighbouring structures. Therefore, the said provision of a window in the northern gable constitutes development and is not exempted development.

Case PL06D.RL2287

In tandem with this the appellant also referred the Section 5 to ABP

2006 – February – Inspector changes his mind and considers gable window to be exempt
2006 – February – Board overturns inspector again and reiterates original decision that gable is not exempt
2006 – August – The applicant then applied to DLRCC for retention
2006 – September – Retention granted with the following conditions

1. Any attic floorspace which does not comply with Building Regulations in relation to habitable standards shall not be used for human habitation

2. This permission does not imply any consent or approval for the structural stability and/or habitability of the works carried out and does not imply that the structure complies with the Building Regulations

3. The attention of the applicant is drawn to Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Governments’ document “Loft Conversion: Protect your family” in ensuring that all development in relation to the attic conversion is undertaken within the necessary requirements

But guess what – appealed again under case PL06D.220205

February 2007 the board decides as follows:

The window within the northern gable shall be fitted with obscure glazing and
shall be non-openable, and the attic space shall be used for storage purposes only.

2007 – September – Now, just when you thought it was all over, the applicant applies for a new permission with a redesign of the gable window to be an internal bay. This is granted and duly appealed under case D06B/0707 PL06D.220205. The board confirms the decision of DLRCC

Presumably this applies just to the window but the condition that it be used for storage only still applies

Therefore, this clear cut case that proves categorically every aspect of exempted development for attics, windows etc, can be summarised as follows

Planning Authority – rejects roof light, accepts gable
ABP Inspector – accepts roof light, accepts gable
ABP Board – accepts roof light, rejects gable
ABP Inspector – accepts roof light, accepts gable
ABP Board – accepts roof light, rejects gable
Planning Authority – accepts retention of window, conditions compliance with Building regs
ABP – accepts accepts retention of window, conditioned use for storage only
Planning Authority – accepts redesigned window, no mention of previous compliance
ABP – accepts redesigned window, no mention of previous condition

Total length of process – 3 years

Yep that’s pretty damn cut and dried to me

This is all great research by “wearnicehats” but quite meaningless in the context of what we are dealing with here. When I am dealing with a client who wants to have their attic converted, I ask a few simple questions. 1. Is the conversion for habitable use. 2. Do you want a dormer window. 3. When do you want the job done.
Planners are a very confused lot when it comes to attics. They do not like to put much in writing, they prefer “clinics” instead. There are notable exceptions, Dun Laoghaire for example.
My advice to anyone wanting their attic converted is this. Contact a reputable attic conversion firm. They will give you the facts and the difficulties straight off. Remember you can have an attic converted for storage purposes first. No requirement for planning permission, as works involved are are internal (works are not development)
If you then decide you want your conversion to accomodate a bedroom you need ro comply with Part B of the Building Regs. This may or may not involve a planning application. It certainly will if you want a dormer window. That rule applies in every county in Ireland. If you are happy with a Velux window you will most propably never need to meet a Local Authority planner. The Velux window must be one which satisfies the requirements of the aforementioned Part B of the Regs. External works such as are requitred to put in a Velux window are development. However the works will more than likely be exempted development under Part 4 of the 2000 Planning Act. Look at houses around you and see have they Velux windows. If they have you can take it that your Velux is almost certainly exempted under 4 (1) (h) as your roof will be in character with your neighbours roofs.
“Wearnicehats” long winded dissertation is very nice but of no practical use. I suspect he may work in a local authority. Make your own mids up folks. There are lots of agendas out there.

@esterelle wrote:

This is all great research by “wearnicehats” but quite meaningless in the context of what we are dealing with here. When I am dealing with a client who wants to have their attic converted, I ask a few simple questions. 1. Is the conversion for habitable use. 2. Do you want a dormer window. 3. When do you want the job done.
Planners are a very confused lot when it comes to attics. They do not like to put much in writing, they prefer “clinics” instead. There are notable exceptions, Dun Laoghaire for example.
My advice to anyone wanting their attic converted is this. Contact a reputable attic conversion firm. They will give you the facts and the difficulties straight off. Remember you can have an attic converted for storage purposes first. No requirement for planning permission, as works involved are are internal (works are not development)
If you then decide you want your conversion to accomodate a bedroom you need ro comply with Part B of the Building Regs. This may or may not involve a planning application. It certainly will if you want a dormer window. That rule applies in every county in Ireland. If you are happy with a Velux window you will most propably never need to meet a Local Authority planner. The Velux window must be one which satisfies the requirements of the aforementioned Part B of the Regs. External works such as are requitred to put in a Velux window are development. However the works will more than likely be exempted development under Part 4 of the 2000 Planning Act. Look at houses around you and see have they Velux windows. If they have you can take it that your Velux is almost certainly exempted under 4 (1) (h) as your roof will be in character with your neighbours roofs.
“Wearnicehats” long winded dissertation is very nice but of no practical use. I suspect he may work in a local authority. Make your own mids up folks. There are lots of agendas out there.

you forgot one very important step esterelle…

if the client needs to pay for this conversion with a mortgage, the financial institution will request the an architect / engineer be engaged to certify compliance, or exemption, with building regs and planning permission before they release monies….

no cert…. no money…. no conversion

@henno wrote:

you forgot one very important step esterelle…

if the client needs to pay for this conversion with a mortgage, the financial institution will request the an architect / engineer be engaged to certify compliance, or exemption, with building regs and planning permission before they release monies….

no cert…. no money…. no conversion

Yes Henno you are correct. But I arrange all of that for my clients. So do most reputable attic converters. Even “wearnicehats” does that for his friends for free. A bit of a nixer I fancy.

@henno wrote:

I will take my determinations from my local planning authority until such time as planning legislation specifically refers to and describes a topical issue such as attic conversions and required rooflights. It has already been stated above that an bord pleanala rulings do not constitute planning legislation.

So your local PA is the authoritative voice when it comes to making planning determinations rather than ABP.

I suppose you’ll be telling us next that none of their decisions have ever been successfully appealed.

@henno wrote:

preaching here is not going to change any certifiers mind when it comes down to it being their ass and their PI insurance which is on the line.

I have certified quite a few developments of this kind and I can sleep easily in my bed at night knowing that Im right.

@Archie wrote:

So your local PA is the authoritative voice when it comes to making planning determinations rather than ABP.

I suppose you’ll be telling us next that none of their decisions have ever been successfully appealed.

I have certified quite a few developments of this kind and I can sleep easily in my bed at night knowing that Im right.

You are quite correct Archie, ABP are the ultimate decision makers in respect of planning applications and S5 referrals. And in the case of attics its really the S5 referrals which are of importance. Wearnicehats has given us a potted planning history of 32 Ballinclea Heights but significantly neglected to highlight the landmark S5 Reference decision whih allowed for 6 large Velux windows on the front roofslope. It should be borne in mind now that solar panels are now allowed on front roofslopes also as exempted development (12 square metres maximum) and as these have similar characteristics to Velux windows we can expect lots more such decisions from ABP. These days the emphasisis is on getting as much natural light as possible into residential units and with energy saving being high on the agenda we will not see any drawing back from that policy.

@esterelle wrote:

This is all great research by “wearnicehats” but quite meaningless in the context of what we are dealing with here. When I am dealing with a client who wants to have their attic converted, I ask a few simple questions. 1. Is the conversion for habitable use. 2. Do you want a dormer window. 3. When do you want the job done.
Planners are a very confused lot when it comes to attics. They do not like to put much in writing, they prefer “clinics” instead. There are notable exceptions, Dun Laoghaire for example.
My advice to anyone wanting their attic converted is this. Contact a reputable attic conversion firm. They will give you the facts and the difficulties straight off. Remember you can have an attic converted for storage purposes first. No requirement for planning permission, as works involved are are internal (works are not development)
If you then decide you want your conversion to accomodate a bedroom you need ro comply with Part B of the Building Regs. This may or may not involve a planning application. It certainly will if you want a dormer window. That rule applies in every county in Ireland. If you are happy with a Velux window you will most propably never need to meet a Local Authority planner. The Velux window must be one which satisfies the requirements of the aforementioned Part B of the Regs. External works such as are requitred to put in a Velux window are development. However the works will more than likely be exempted development under Part 4 of the 2000 Planning Act. Look at houses around you and see have they Velux windows. If they have you can take it that your Velux is almost certainly exempted under 4 (1) (h) as your roof will be in character with your neighbours roofs.
“Wearnicehats” long winded dissertation is very nice but of no practical use. I suspect he may work in a local authority. Make your own mids up folks. There are lots of agendas out there.

sounds a bit similar to post #58.

incidentally my post was meant to indicate to archie that, if the planners and ABP take 3 years to agree / disagree on what’s exempt, the clause in the PDA woul dseem to be a little open to interpretation

@Archie wrote:

So your local PA is the authoritative voice when it comes to making planning determinations rather than ABP.
I suppose you’ll be telling us next that none of their decisions have ever been successfully appealed.

I have certified quite a few developments of this kind and I can sleep easily in my bed at night knowing that Im right.

*sigh*

again, an bord pleanala determine issues on a case by case basis… their determinations are NOT planning law

my local authority, and surrounding authorities, require planning permission to be sought for habitable attic conversions.

regarding certification…. thats fine. Your opinion would differ from mine. That does not make your opinion right or wrong, as arguably, an opinion can be neither.

paul you might do us all a favour and lock this thread because no-one (especially not me) is going to back down and it’s all getting a little boring

@henno wrote:

*sigh*

again, an bord pleanala determine issues on a case by case basis… their determinations are NOT planning law

my local authority, and surrounding authorities, require planning permission to be sought for habitable attic conversions.

regarding certification…. thats fine. Your opinion would differ from mine. That does not make your opinion right or wrong, as arguably, an opinion can be neither.

And it would never dawn on you that your Local Authority, wherever it might be could be wrong. As for planning law, you can take it that when ABP say that the internal works involved in converting an attic are not development, that applies in your County also. If they say that dormer windows need planning permission always then that applies everywhere also. Its not rocket science so lets not try to introduce confusion when there is no need to. But of course if someone feels they must for some reason go for planning permission when its not necessary then why would anybody try to stop them.
And by the way far from being boring this debate is both interesting and enlightening.