# planning permission - exempted items



## ceciliak (14 Oct 2011)

Hi,

We're building on top of an existing kitchen (part of original house) to extend a bedroom. A number of neighbours have already put in the same extension with no planning permission. One of them recently applied for planning permission for an attic conversion & asked their architect if they would apply for retention permission for the bedroom extension & their architect said no need as it was exempt. 

I’ve since looked into exempt items in more detail & although we comply with size & height there is a requirement that above ground floor extensions are min 2 meters from boundary wall & all our houses are only 1 meter from boundary wall.

Does anyone know if there is any regulation which exempts the 2mter requirement if existing 1st story is only 1 meter from boundary? I’ve searched various sites and can find nothing which exempts it but yet our neighbours are 100% happy that the extensions are exempt. I’m panicking as work has already started on ours. Thanks for any advice.


----------



## Docarch (14 Oct 2011)

ceciliak said:


> Does anyone know if there is any regulation which exempts the 2mter requirement if existing 1st story is only 1 meter from boundary?


 
Hi ceciliak

Quite bluntly _no_!  It does not matter how far the existing first floor/external walls are from the boundary.  To build a first floor extension as an exempt development, 2.0 metres is the minimum distance the external walls must be from any boundary.  

Any neighbour who has already done this type of extension, without planning permission, will probably find they have a problem when they come to sell their houses.


----------



## ceciliak (14 Oct 2011)

Hi Docarch, 
Many thanks for the reply. Apart from any issue with selling the house in the future I’m more concerned about breaching planning laws & what sort of trouble that might land us in. Would you know anything about what the local council could realistically do in a situation like this? One of the extensions is 11 years old so I think they are outside the 7 year period but my other neighbour & myself seem to be in trouble with this. Could we be forced to remove the extensions?


----------



## Docarch (14 Oct 2011)

If you are already building - I will not say either way whether or not you should stop - you shouldn't be building in the first place! - I would first to get a (proper) architect or other professional to look at what you are doing and to confrom whether or not what you are doing does in fact require planning permission. 

The next step possibly would be for you to apply for retention permission. Retention permission is there for people who have made a genuine mistake (as it sounds like you have based on what others have done). 

The consequences are that if someboday was to make a complaint about what you are doing, the Council would investigate and if they found that the extension needed planning permission/was built without planning permission, they may take enforcement proceedings against you. If enfocement proceedings were taken by the Council, and you then subsequently got retention permission, this does not mean that the enforcement proceedings would necessarily stop. 

With regard to the 7 year rule - if the extension is there more than 7 years then the Council cannot take enforcemnet proceedings but that does not 'legalise' the extension. If you tried to sell the house, you would probably find there would be a problem with the tiltle (due to the unauthorised development) and this can only be regularised by applying for retention permission.


----------



## ceciliak (14 Oct 2011)

Many thanks for your reply, it is most helpful


----------



## onq (14 Oct 2011)

+1 what Docarch has posted and I also note he following -

There are several inconsistencies in the exempted development schedule.

A clever architect could work out a way for your development to be compliant, but I imagine he'd want to be paid for it.

A separate way to address this is to discuss it with your local planning officer, something you should have done long ago.

A month and €80 will get you a definitive in the form of a Section 5 Declaration.

Unless the planner is very clever it may result in a "no".


ONQ.

[broken link removed]

All advice on AAM is remote from the situation and cannot be relied upon                                             as a defence or support - in     and    of        itself  -         should       legal        action        be           taken.
Competent legal and building professionals should be asked to advise in                                             Real Life with rights to    inspect     and       issue         reports    on     the         matter    at  hand.


----------



## Docarch (15 Oct 2011)

Tease!    I have to say I have not come across an instance of how it could be considered exempt?


----------



## onq (15 Oct 2011)

Not teasing, just drawing the line


----------



## nutty nut (20 Oct 2011)

onq said:


> There are several inconsistencies in the exempted development schedule.
> 
> A clever architect could work out a way for your development to be compliant, but I imagine he'd want to be paid for it.


No, there is no way round that particular condition - i.e. 2 metres from boundary


----------



## onq (20 Oct 2011)

There is.


ONQ.

[broken link removed]

All advice on AAM is remote from the situation and cannot be relied upon                                              as a defence or support -  in     and    of        itself  -         should       legal         action        be           taken.
Competent legal and building professionals should be asked to advise in                                              Real Life with rights to     inspect     and       issue         reports    on     the         matter     at  hand.


----------



## Docarch (20 Oct 2011)

onq said:


> There is.


 
I personally do not think so (without warping the the exempted development regulations and/or coating paperwork you might submit to planners with LSD! ). 

I think I now where you might be going to with this but I think any local authority or an bord pleanala (by referral) could not allow!

Tell us your thesis....go on!


----------



## onq (20 Oct 2011)

I don't think its appropriate to give away advice at the level people should pay for, so I'll bow out of this discussion 


ONQ.

[broken link removed]

All advice on AAM is remote from the situation and cannot be relied upon                                              as a defence or support -  in     and    of        itself  -         should       legal         action        be           taken.
Competent legal and building professionals should be asked to advise in                                              Real Life with rights to     inspect     and       issue         reports    on     the         matter     at  hand.


----------



## nutty nut (20 Oct 2011)

nutty nut said:


> No, there is no way round that particular condition - i.e. 2 metres from boundary





onq said:


> There is.
> 
> 
> ONQ.
> ...


I will rephrase then so. 

No, there is no *legal* way round that particular condition - i.e. 2 metres from boundary


----------



## onq (21 Oct 2011)

nutty nut

I cannot let that pass.

I don't suggest that people to carry out illegal works.
My long record of posts on AAM [3,856 to date] speaks for itself.

Accordingly, please don't infer, assume or allege illegality because the resolution is not apparent to you.
Spend more time contemplating the limits of the exempted development schedule and the sequencing of events based on it.


ONQ.

[broken link removed]

All advice on AAM is remote from the situation and cannot be relied upon                                               as a defence or support -   in     and    of        itself  -         should       legal          action        be           taken.
Competent legal and building professionals should be asked to advise in                                               Real Life with rights to      inspect     and       issue         reports    on     the          matter     at  hand.


----------



## Superman (21 Oct 2011)

You can build a double height ground floor extension (the act refers to an above ground extension).
Then put in a 2nd floor.
The timing of this may make it fall outside of the statute - exemptions tend to be interpreted strictly, and if the construction is done within a single project, it could be considered an above ground extension.


----------



## nutty nut (21 Oct 2011)

onq said:


> nutty nut
> 
> I cannot let that pass.
> *
> I don't suggest that people to carry out illegal works.*


I never said you did so Id appreciate it if you would withdraw your allegation that I did.


----------



## Docarch (21 Oct 2011)

Superman said:


> You can build a double height ground floor extension (the act refers to an above ground extension).
> Then put in a 2nd floor.
> The timing of this may make it fall outside of the statute - exemptions tend to be interpreted strictly, and if the construction is done within a single project, it could be considered an above ground extension.


 
Yes indeed, you could build a double height extension, but the minute you put in the additional floor, my opinion would be then that you have breached exempted development by extending the first floor.


----------



## Superman (21 Oct 2011)

Docarch said:


> Yes indeed, you could build a double height extension, but the minute you put in the additional floor, my opinion would be then that you have breached exempted development by extending the first floor.


I think it would depend on the timing. If it could be viewed as part of a "single transaction" (i.e. a single building project) I could see it being regarded as a 2 storey extension.
If it is done after the first part is complete with a clear break, then it is merely an internal alteration.


----------



## Docarch (21 Oct 2011)

Hmmmmm..... I would suggest it's debatable - a very grey area!

I personally think if somebody went down that route, you'd be on pretty shaky ground. You've built a single storey extension as and exempt development (albeit double height) and lets say 1m from the boundary - box ticked : exempt - you then later add in a first floor within that structure. The addition of this first floor extends the floor area of the house and becomes 'an above ground', i.e. first floor, extension 1m from the boundary - can you tick the box as exempt? I would say no (even though you are making no external change)!


----------



## onq (21 Oct 2011)

nutty nut said:


> I never said you did so Id appreciate it if you would withdraw your allegation that I did.



Read it again - there is no allegation.

You followed up a post I made asserting that it could be done with a comment suggesting it could only be done illegally.

I pointed out - for anyone reading the exchange - that this was not the case - that's known as a clarification, not an allegation.


----------



## onq (21 Oct 2011)

Superman said:


> I think it would depend on the timing. If it could be viewed as part of a "single transaction" (i.e. a single building project) I could see it being regarded as a 2 storey extension.
> If it is done after the first part is complete with a clear break, then it is merely an internal alteration.



If the 1st floor extension is done after the envelope of the ground floor extension is completed, it *may* then become an internal alteration subject to Section 4 (1) (h) of the Planning and Development Act 2000.
One limiting factor would be the sightlines towards other properties - a window to 1st floor extension has to maintain 11.0M to a boundary IIRC - so careful consideration of windows, light and amenity would play a factor in its exempted status.

The other factor is the area limits imposed on the different types of houses for 1st floor exemption (Total 40sq.m. with up to 20sq.m. of that at 1st if its detached and 12sq.m. if its terraced or semi-D).
As has been noted, its a very gray area, but given the situation many are in, unable to sell or trade up but looking for a way of increasing area, raising it here might be bear fruit for others.

I wouldn't advise that anyone should be cocky about it - personally I'd discuss it fully with the Planning Officer before I carried out the works.
The last thing you would want is a planner who might be brought around with logical argument taking precipitous action.


ONQ.

[broken link removed]

All advice on AAM is remote from the situation and cannot be relied upon                                                as a defence or support -    in     and    of        itself  -         should       legal           action        be           taken.
Competent legal and building professionals should be asked to advise in                                                Real Life with rights to       inspect     and       issue         reports    on     the           matter     at  hand.


----------



## onq (21 Oct 2011)

Superman said:


> You can build a double height ground floor extension (the act refers to an above ground extension).
> Then put in a *2nd floor*.



I think you meant a 1st floor


----------



## Docarch (21 Oct 2011)

onq said:


> Section 4 (1) (h) of the Planning and Development Act 2000.


 
That's fine for attic conversions. 

I just think if you used this as the basis to add an 'above ground' extension, aside from any technical agruments you might have, the planning authority, in my opinion, would take a very dim view of this as a contrived attempt to circumvent the planning process. 

Again, my opinion.

If I was a planner and somebody came to me with proposal/argument along those lines, I'd have one opinion in my head....chancer!


----------



## onq (21 Oct 2011)

I have seen it used to introduce an intermediate floor in a building and my understanding of the follow is that that there was nothing the planners could do.

Long time ago and matters may have tightened up since then, but I think Section S.4 (1)(h) covers a multitude that we don't know about yet.

I've edited my post - "Section 4 (1) (J)" should have read "Section 4 (1) (h)"  - you might want to edit my quotation in your post. 


ONQ.

[broken link removed]

All advice on AAM is remote from the situation and cannot be relied upon                                                 as a defence or support -     in     and    of        itself  -         should       legal            action        be           taken.
Competent legal and building professionals should be asked to advise in                                                 Real Life with rights to        inspect     and       issue         reports    on     the            matter     at  hand.


----------

