# How high can an extension be at the back?



## horusd (19 Oct 2011)

My next-door neighbour is building an extension front and back. She did need planning permission for the front extension, but not apparently for the back. 

As I'm watching the builders, I'm concerned about the height of the rear-extension as it likely will block some light into my backroom. Is there a limit on how how the neighbour can go up, and what is that limit? Thanks.


----------



## Nationaldude (19 Oct 2011)

As far as I know the height restriction depends on the height of the original house, the extension can go as high, but not higher than the original roof.


----------



## lowCO2design (19 Oct 2011)

have a read here
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2001/en/si/0600.html#sched2
if your still not satisfied get an arch out to look at it


----------



## lowCO2design (19 Oct 2011)

Nationaldude said:


> As far as I know the height restriction depends on the height of the original house, the extension can go as high, but not higher than the original roof.


thats not true for an exempted development , maybe for a planning application...


----------



## horusd (19 Oct 2011)

Thanks all. I'm not sure I fully understand the regulations posted above. The possibility of it reaching the eaves would be terrible, but I don't think it will be quite that high. I suppose I'm concerned that when the roof goes on, there will be overshadowing, so I wondered if this were excessive, could I object? I know excessive is a subjective term, and was looking for what the regulations would require.


----------



## picorette (19 Oct 2011)

Why not ask the builder or next door neighbour how high it is going to go ? 
It is only natural to have an interest as a next door neighbour.

As stated, height limit for walls of an exempt extension is existing eaves. Size of all extensions including those with planning permission must be no more than 40 square metres to avail of exemption for rear extension.


----------



## horusd (19 Oct 2011)

Thanks Picorette, I would ask the neighbour but they tend to be a bit reactionary, so I was trying to get an idea of the postion before I consider any options. Assuming no PP is required, are there grounds to object on the basis of shadowing? I hope it doesn't come to that, but it is a bit annoying to have the back of my house darkened.


----------



## onq (20 Oct 2011)

horusd,

It is possible to determine whether the extension is going to be single storey or two storey not in terms of the overall height, but in terms of the floors inside, at this stage?


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.


----------



## horusd (20 Oct 2011)

Hi onq as far as I can tell it's not that huge. I know an archiitect was involved, so I'd say it's below the 40 sqm limit, and is legal in that sense.


----------



## Docarch (20 Oct 2011)

The only thing to be aware of is that if they got planning permission for an extension to the front and are building that and an 'exempt' extension at the same time to the rear, the area of the extension to the front needs to be deducted from the 40 m.sq. area that is allowed as exempt. 

For example. if the extension to the front is 15 m.sq. then only 25 m.sq. could be built to the rear as an exempt development.


----------



## onq (20 Oct 2011)

The point I was trying to make is that a 1st floor extension has to be kept 2M from the boundary, which may reduce your loss of light.


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.


----------



## picorette (20 Oct 2011)

There are no planning grounds to object on the basis of shadowing, if it is within the planning exemption limits. (Updated 3.04pm 20/10/11)

Therefore, start off by being clear if they are within the limits. Calculate the size of all extensions by referencing their planning application online, and estimating the square metres of the rear extension, and go through the list in schedule 2, part I referred to in lowCO2design's post.


----------



## horusd (20 Oct 2011)

okay guys, thanks I'll check out the plans. At least its not as bad on my side as on the other. That neighbour has what she calls a Berlin Wall next to her rear window, and will have the same at the front. She didn't think to object to the front one, too late now I suppose.

 I've no problem with people building extensions etc, but a little consideration would be nice. We still live in a Me Fein society in many respects I think.


----------



## onq (20 Oct 2011)

I'm not sure what picorette has stated is correct.

Planning Law does not supersede the law of the land.

The Land Conveyancing and Law Reform Act 2009 may refer.

There are schemes in London where the Council has taken a legal interest to avoid the rigours of rights to light law being applicable and holding up development.

[broken link removed] covering just such and instance where a questioner obtained reference to the Rights to Light Law in England.

It would be useful if a legal mind commented on this thread.

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.


----------



## picorette (20 Oct 2011)

Sorry, should have said planning grounds. have changed my post to reflect this.


----------



## onq (21 Oct 2011)

No need to apologise,  picorette - you posted in good faith.

Normally I can quote chapter and verse, but in this case I don't know whether Irish Law follows British - ergo my comment above about a legal mind.

Links about the Land Conveyancing and Law Reform Act seem refer to rights to light, but I cannot find a specific reference to it - it may be an inference in a general term.


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)

There is no statutory law regarding the "right to light" easement in Ireland. 
The standard of required light is rather low - it is generally difficult to achieve a degree of overshadowing that would be so great as to constitute an interference with the easement.

Effectively unless there is an established easement involving a window located directly on the boundary of a property, it is highly unlikely that an extension at ground floor level can constitute an interference with an easement.


----------



## horusd (21 Oct 2011)

Thanks all, I spoke with the neighbour on the other side. She is fuming about the wall abuting both her front and rear windows, but it looks like there is little than can be done-she did sign  off on the front side, so I suppose she can hardly object now. She is giving her own architrect a ring to discuss it. 

My side isn't as much of a problem as there is a gap of a meter or so between the houses, so its far less in my face. The person building the extension made no mention of its height at the rear, and personally I think this was sneaky, selfish and inconsiderate, but I suppose that doesn't amount to a legal hill of beans.


----------



## Docarch (21 Oct 2011)

Hi horusd

Do you know what the approx. floor area of the extension is to the front (you could possibly get this from planning files) and what the approx. floor area might be to the rear?  

I think it's odd they went for planning for front extension and not include rear extension?


----------



## onq (21 Oct 2011)

I wonder have they fallen into the sequencing trap?

Building the rear extension as exempted means they must take account of any other extension or conversion for habitable use already in place.

If the front extension was built before the rear instead of the other way around (assuming that is the only extension) the rear will be limited to a max of 40 sq.m. minus the permitted and built extension to the front.


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 (21 Oct 2011)

onq said:


> I wonder have they fallen into the sequencing trap?


 
Exactly, that's what has me curious!


----------



## onq (21 Oct 2011)

Superman said:


> There is no statutory law regarding the "right to light" easement in Ireland.
> The standard of required light is rather low - it is generally difficult to achieve a degree of overshadowing that would be so great as to constitute an interference with the easement.
> 
> Effectively unless there is an established easement involving a window located directly on the boundary of a property, it is highly unlikely that an extension at ground floor level can constitute an interference with an easement.




That was my previous understanding.

Initially it was the Rights of Ancient Lights in the 1832 Prescription Act which allowed rights to accrue to a particular window on a particular wall, as opposed to a general right to light for that elevation.

I understand (and please correct me if I'm wrong) that originally the quantum of light wasn't not fixed for residential use, but for a jeweller who needed the north light for the exacting nature of his work. Given modern lighting appliances I'm not certain that case could be made to day.

Then there was the 25 degree rule, where a line was drawn from the sill of the window on the adjoining property to see if it intersected with the highest point of the proposed property.

Then back in the 'Nineties it was something alone the lines of - the development shall not reduce the incident light below three hours of direct sunlight on March 31st of the year if the property previously enjoyed such a quantum of light.

More recently - as in 2 years ago - there was an appeal where a Building Research Establishment Standard was cited - cannot recall it offhand - which IIRC was imposed by the development plan or was an adopted guide.

Finally there were the the vague references to the Land Conveyancing Law Reform Act 2009 wherein I cannot find a reference.

It would be useful for a definitive comment on this.


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)

Docarch said:


> Exactly, that's what has me curious!



(nods)

I've seen this go very pear shaped on a client where the late delivery of an item necessary for completion meant a permitted development to the dwelling was completed ahead of what was intended as the exempted development.

Even if they had held off enclosing it or something and waited until the exempted section was completed and certified they could have made an argument on the sequencing but that ball was dropped.


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)

onq said:


> That was my previous understanding.
> 
> Initially it was the Rights of Ancient Lights in the 1832 Prescription Act which allowed rights to accrue to a particular window on a particular wall, as opposed to a general right to light for that elevation.


There were 2 earlier methods of acquiring the easement: prescription at common law and the doctrine of lost modern grant.



> I understand (and please correct me if I'm wrong) that originally the quantum of light wasn't not fixed for residential use, but for a jeweller who needed the north light for the exacting nature of his work. Given modern lighting appliances I'm not certain that case could be made to day.


The quantum of light will depend on the user - it is not fixed by reference to a general user (or a jeweller).  For example an artist's studio may have a higher demand than a toilet. Modern lighting has no effect on the rule.



> Then there was the 25 degree rule, where a line was drawn from the sill of the window on the adjoining property to see if it intersected with the highest point of the proposed property.


That was merely a rule of thumb.



> Then back in the 'Nineties it was something alone the lines of - the development shall not reduce the incident light below three hours of direct sunlight on March 31st of the year if the property previously enjoyed such a quantum of light.


Haven't heard of that - sounds to me like something included in a Planning Application for a tower or similar.



> More recently - as in 2 years ago - there was an appeal where a Building Research Establishment Standard was cited - cannot recall it offhand - which IIRC was imposed by the development plan or was an adopted guide.


As there is no objective standard in Ireland, lawyers like to reference anything that will help their case. Planning guidelines generally have higher standards than the law of easements.



> Finally there were the the vague references to the Land Conveyancing Law Reform Act 2009 wherein I cannot find a reference.


The LCLRA'09 has had no effect on the right to light.




> It would be useful for a definitive comment on this.


http://www.lawreform.ie/_fileupload/Reports/rEasements.pdf
remains close to definitive.


----------



## onq (21 Oct 2011)

Thanks both for your comments and the link Superman.
A few things come seem to arise -

- this is an old report - 2002? - surely this is what the LCLRA'09 was based on?
- LCLRA'09  deals with easements in a general way and your link in general says that Rights to Light should be brought into line with the rest of the Law of Easements.
- LCLRA'09 in general repeals all assumed acquired rights in 2012 unless they are formally registered.
- many links in solicitors offices pages seems ot suggest that hte LCLRA'09 affects Rights to Light.
- LCLRA'09 doesn't mention Rights to Light explicitly.

So in one sense the link raises more questions that it answers.
It offers a definitive review of the Rights to Light issue as of say 2002.
It doesn't give guidance on how the Rights to Light issue is addressed since LCLRA'09 came in.

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)

onq said:


> Thanks both for your comments and the link Superman.
> A few things come seem to arise ...


I misspoke: 
The LCLRA'09 has had no effect on the nature of the right to light (regarding quantum etc.). 
It has changed the overall easement framework.


----------



## onq (22 Oct 2011)

Thanks for clarifying and thanks for all the replies thus far.

In connection with the rest of the easements, it seems that acquired rights to light reset to zero in 2012.
I know I'm making a leap here, but all other acquired rights seem to be expiring unless that deadline is extended.
I found [broken link removed]s and perhaps this needs to be asked in the Law forum which is where I'll head later.


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.


----------

