Interpretation of Planning Condition

@DOC wrote:

Just looking again for peoples thoughts and opinions. 🙂

I have just received planning permission for a client from a local authority and from An Bord Pleanala (after third party appeal) for a sizeable house extension which involves the provision of an entirely new roof structure and roof finishes to the existing house (and obviously the new extension). The house is detatched.

The roof tiles to the existing house are pretty standard suburban Dublin profiled Marley roof tiles (the ones you see almost on every suburban house from the 1950’s onwards).

On the planning drawings, for the proposed extension and new roof to the existing house, I have clearly specified that all new roof tiles are to be plain coloured concrete ‘mini’ tiles (i.e. small flat roof tiles with no profile), as per the clients wishes from the outset.

In local authorities decision, the following condition was stated:
That all external finishes harmonise in colour and texture with the existing premises.

In An Bord Pleanala’s decisions, the condition is elaborated a little further, stating:
The external finishes of the proposed extension including roof tiles/slates shall
match those of the existing dwelling in respect of colour and texture.

In one way, it’s all a bit ambiguous. In other ways it not.

My client sees no issue or ambiguity whatsoever and is forging ahead with the ‘mini’ roof tiles, because they are concrete, they match the texture of the existing roof tiles and the colour will also roughly match the existing.

I am probably reading a little more into the ambiguity of the condition than the client or I am worrying about nothing? Any opinions appreciated.

Cheers.

+1 what Tayto has said, but I also note:

Their original local authority condition wording did not have absolute legal force.
The Bórd’s wording “shall match” has absolute legal force and leaves no room for fudging or doubt.

You cannot proceed to use roofing materials that ignore this, but equally, given the intervening years in the sun, changes in range colours and weathering staining, you would be lucky to get a perfect match.

My best advice to you Doc is to contact the local authority planning officer and explain the position, requesting them to make the final call.
I would go so far as to put it in writing to them with a sample and either ask for a written reply or get a Section 5 on it.

The reason being that the Bórd have no Enforcement Function – this is reserved for the local authority only.
The local authority will be the ones taking you to court over this, so agree it with them beforehand.

FWIW

ONQ.

It might not be that ambiguous. Only the BP condition counts and it says the “external finish…shall match…in colour and texture”. There can’t be much doubt that a roof made of small flat “plain” tiles is a completely different texture to one finished in large wriggly tiles, even if the surface of the tiles themselves have similar textures.
I read a newspaper account last week of a planning appeal in England by Rowan Atkinson in which he argued (I think successfully) that “harmonises” means different from, but the Bord didn’t use that word.

Looks like someone doing their copy and paste in the Board forgot to insert the standard ‘submit a sample of materials prior to commencement’ condition. Happens regularly enough with ABP conditions. AFAIK this can be thrashed out at commencement notice stage but a writtwn note on the file/ S.5 declaration is of course preferable.

Thanks tommyt and again onq.

Yes I agree onq, they are the 3 routes to get a formal answer on this issue.

What I will do is put these coruses of action to my client (in writing of course!) and get him to respond to me in writing. If he wants to proceed then on his interpretation, then so be it, it’s on his own head.

My fear, obvioulsy along with my clients, is that they do in fact want the larger ‘Marley’ style tiles to match the existing, which neither of us want! The fear on the other side is that given the level of objection to the development I have no doubt the enforcement section of the LA will be visiting at some point! 🙂

@onq wrote:

This doesn’t rest with your client at all Doc.

It rests with you and the liability you are willing to take on with this small job – on behalf of your client – when you eventually issue your Opinion of Compliance with Planning Permission.
“Your mission Jim, should you choose to accept it…” is to make sure your client realises that he is obliged to carry out some form of due diligence – or you are, in his behalf – to resolve this.
This matter cannot be left hanging to suit your client, leaving your office in an impossible position when it comes around to certification.

This is the whole reason I am ‘troubled’ at this time! 🙂 At this point, I don’t want to cry wolf and put hurdles in front of the client. I told him my opinions of what the condition might mean – worst case and best case – and told him I would give it more thought. Thus I am trying to get as many opinions as possible before I go back to him for further discussion. I would naturally be very cautious. I can of course decline to issue and Opinion on Compliance if I feel I may be compromised.

@onq wrote:

Having thought a little about this, and quite apart from the three ways describe above, there is a fourth route – it does however involve a little bit of semantics.
The Board Condition wording is as follows; –

The external finishes of the proposed extension including roof tiles/slates shall
match those of the existing dwelling in respect of colour and texture

There is a distance between saying “the existing roof tiles/slates” and saying “those of the existing dwelling”.
For example. certain works are exempted development and renewal of slates/tiles is one of them AFAICR and please confirm that you didn’t include re-reoofing the original dwelling in the permission.

It’s a completely new roof structure (and finishes) both to the existing house and proposed extension – as part of the proposed development is raising the entire roof (there is no ambiguity from the planning drawings that it’s nothing other than a new roof) . That fact adds somewhat to the ambiguity of the issue – i.e. at the end of the day, there will be roof tiles/slates of the existing dwelling remaining! 🙂

Thanks goneill for you reply – the truth hurts sometimes! Your understanding is pretty much what’s at the back of my mind (my subconscious understanding too). Client devastation will possibly follow shortly!

@onq wrote:

Doc,

I thought you’d be a man for wonadem ODOS solutions or a Zinc roof or whatever.

What’s all this Tile Trad stuff about anyway – thought I was the trad head here.

🙂

ONQ.

😀 We can’t all be starchitects! :p

Still battling with the ambiguity this morning. :confused:

My latest thoughts are that the ABP condition is a simple copy and paste job and the intention of the condition is standard for any extension, i.e. the roof finishes to the proposed extension should match the existing house. The fact they have stated ’tiles/slate’ leads me to believe this is a standard condition. Have re-read the ABP inspectors report and nowhere within her consideration is materials and/or roof tiles mentioned.

Yes, in this case there is an extension but also there is a completely new roof to the existing house requiring new roof finishes as well.

@henno wrote:

TBH seeking a decision of compliance or not from an enforcement officer, or planner, to me is passing the buck onto a person less suitable to making this executive decision. Any doubt from the planning section, which is highly likely given my past experience with LAs, will result in detriment to your clients wishes, schedule and probably budget.

Thanks henno. Having spoken with a couple of other architects today, I agree with your statment above (some other architcets having expressed the same thoughts as yourself). In addition to your numbered points above (thanks for taking the time to summarise), we did actually specify on all drawings the intended type of roof tile, and as I said above, there was no comment on these either in the ABP inspectors report or the LA planners report.

@onq wrote:

Never fails to amaze me how many architects hate talking to the planners.

🙂

ONQ.

when its unnecessary, its definitely something i prefer not to do. Perhaps i do not hold them in such as high a regard as you do. Once bitten and all that jazz 🙂