Attic conversions – exempt development

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

rather a lack of class than knowledge.

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

yawn

@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.

@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.

@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.

@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.

@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.

@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.

@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.