# Planning Permission for a new Window?



## Cyrstal

Hi, 

We have a detached house in an estate.  OUr dining room has patio doors to the back garden.  We want to put a window in the dining room,  this would be at the side of the house, facing onto a fence that divides us and our neighbours.

Does anyone know if we need planning permission for this?

Thanks,

C


----------



## runner

If its a ground floor window at the back, I think you dont need planning.


----------



## Cyrstal

It's groundfloor, but at the side?


----------



## runner

I think as long as its not visible from the road, its ok.


----------



## picorette

If the window is within one metre of the boundary, it will require planning permission.


----------



## Superman

Picorette's advice is incorrect - the rules regarding 1m is to do with windows being put in exempt domestic extensions.

Technically, windows to the side of an existing dwelling should need Planning.
However, if you are quite far from your neighbour, it may be possible to get a Section 5 exemption - depending on your Planner.  The simplest thing to do is talk to your planner to see.

There are also Building Regulation rules regarding windows facing neighbours - in particular fire regulations, (Part B of B.Regs. - available here ) which limit the amount of window you can have within certain distances of a boundary - e.g. from 1m-2m from a boundary you can have up to 5.6m of unprotected glazing.  Talk to Building Control if you have any questions.


----------



## onq

The reference in the Planning and Development Regulations 2001 still appears to be relevant. This relates to windows in extensions, but I'd be surprised if this didn't relate to new windows in existing houses, so picorette's comment is probably spot on.

_Column 1: Description of Development: Class 1

"The extension of a house, etc..."

Column 2: Conditions and Limitations

"6.	(a) Any window proposed at ground level in any such extension shall not be less than 1 metre from the boundary it faces."_

Just remember, your neighbours may not understand the fine points of planning law and may refer you to the local authority if they take offence. 

I usually advise clients that the best way to avoid such hassles is to take a professional approach, taking the neighbours on both sides into their confidence and showing them a little sketch of the proposed works; then discussing the timing, apologising in advance for any disturbance or disruption due to noise and builders traffic.

That usually smooths the way even where planning permission isn't required. And if they take offence, politely point them in the direction of the planning and development regulations.

The first real problem you will face if this is referred to the local authority by your neighbours is the area planner's definition of "the boundary". Some planners may take this to be the physical boundary, i.e. the inside face of the wall. Some may take it to be the notional boundary, i.e. the legal boundary, usually the centreline of the wall. All this gets complicated when there are piers every few metres on one side only and/or its not clear where the legal boundary is located.

Estate houses, even detached ones, sometimes have very tight side passages, and you should check that the distance to the notional boundary is 1.0M clear, then you can at least make an argument that you comply in principle, and argue the toss about what the regulation means, whether the real or notional boundary distance complies.

The sad fact is that may houses have only about 800mm clear or 900mm to the centreline of the wall and this is where planning permission can be needed.

Do ensure that you emply a competent reputable builder and you should also take engineers advice on the contrustion of the ope, head/beam placement and specification as this is in a loadbearing external wall. Do not take on this work yourself as a layperson.

 Overhead work is dangerous. It may require propping of internal floors and temporary supports, as well as a whole raft of safety protocols on top of the non nuisance measures about working hours, keeping noise to a minimum and keeping dust, dirt and debris within your own house site.

Even works as minor as this can benefit from an architects input in terms of frame and glass specification and the prevention of cold bridging if yours is cavity wall or hollow block contruction. 

Be very careful if your builder has to break a hollow block to reach your desired head height, as the walls of these are only 25-40mm thick or so and a beam usually required 150mm of bearing at either end, but again, your engineer can advise on this.

Once you have a builder on site you may find you go mad and start doing loads of things you never intended to do - at their "suggestion". Be careful and have all such ideas checked by a professional and properly costed before commencement, because in the current climate a paying client who will expand the brief will be like gold dust for a builder who is surviving on bits and pieces.


----------



## Superman

onq said:


> The reference in the Planning and Development Regulations 2001 still appears to be relevant. This relates to windows in extensions, but I'd be surprised if this didn't relate to new windows in existing houses, so picorette's comment is probably spot on.


No it is not correct.  Exemptions to the Planning Regulations are interpreted narrowly. That particular class of Exemption applies to domestic extensions only (and only where they fulfill all of the requirements) - not to the original house.  

Windows to the side elevation _may_ be able to avail of the fact that Permission is not required under 4.1 (h) of the Planning Act for alterations which do not materially affect the external appearance of the structure so as to render the appearance inconsistent with the character of the structure or of neighbouring structures - hence my suggestion of a Section 5 application.


----------



## onq

Superman, you may well be correct when you state that Section 4 (1) (h) could help in this particular case. I certainly cannot say you are incorrect. A provision governing how a building looks from the public domain could apply to a matter that might not be visible to members of the public - after all, if its not seen, it cannot affect the appearance.

However, the reason for the Exempted Development schedule in the first place is to avoid the planning departments becoming bogged down in applications for a multitude of minor development works. In that sense I would hope for a broader interpretation than you suggest.

Certainly the attitude of the planning authorities to the issue of velux-style rooflights on the front elevations of houses has changed over the years. It used to be that only one or two velux rooflighte were considered acceptable, providing they faced rearwards and/or their sills were above eye level to help preserve privacy of adjoining houses.

Nowadays, the requirements for alternative escape from attic spaces together with the desire not to have to face multiple applications for solar panels on roofs seems to have changed things.

I would argue therefore that since placing a new window in the existing side elevation of a house is a lesser contravention, _inter alia,_ than building a new side window in a new extension which might be considered to be exempted development, a stong case could be made that it should be considered exempted development on that basis.

As you noted, a Section 5 Referral would clear this up - €80 if I recall correctly - with 4 weeks to a decision. This can subsequently be referred to An Bórd Pleanála if the referrer is dissatisfied with the LA decision.

A few other pitfalls came to mind when I considered your comments.

1. Section 4 (i) (h)
This may fail where the side elevation is on an end of terrace and the 2.0M high rear boudnary wall only begins at the rear elevation, leaving most of the side elevation visible from the public domain. In such a situation, only new windows hidden by an end wall might be exempted. Mind you, the building of such a wall may itself be exempted development, so there is possibly a way around that, but see item 2 below

2. Prior Condition
a) The original permission may preclude the installation of side windows - for example as an additional privacy measure where the side elevation is well set back from the boundary and looks across a garden steeply sloping from side to side, and thus any new window therein would have a view over the 2.0M wall. 
b) Where the original permission precluded a 2.0M boundary from behind the front building line - leaving the side elevation visible - the developer may not first build this wall and then develop a new window behind it, protected from public view.
c) In recent developments the desire for passive overlooking may require a well-designed side elevation, effectively making the house double-fronted in terms of its visual amenity. A new window in such a situation may require permission regardless.

3. Listed Building
Any development normally considered to be exempted development usually requires planning permission when the building is a listed building.


----------



## eggerb

One of the conditions of exempted developments is that "any window at ground floor level ... shall not be less than 1 metre from the boundary it faces".

Does this include roof lights/windows e.g Velux? Would they too be have to be 1 metre from the boundary - effectively 1 metre from the gutter even if they are flush with the roof.


----------



## noel_k

eggerb said:


> One of the conditions of exempted developments is that "any window at ground floor level ... shall not be less than 1 metre from the boundary it faces".
> 
> Does this include roof lights/windows e.g Velux? Would they too be have to be 1 metre from the boundary - effectively 1 metre from the gutter even if they are flush with the roof.


 

I asked a co co this recently and they told me roof lights face the sky and not the bundary and are therefore, not subject to this 1m condition.


----------



## onq

Different local authorities differ.

DLRCoCo used to permit up to two to the back but not to the side or front.

One recent decision by ABP seemed to uphold this view, but another decided against.

Ho hum...

ONQ.


----------

