# Attic Conversions and Velux Windows - Exempted or Not?



## onq (23 Jul 2010)

Why am I asking this question when I have posted so much to so many about it, based on the decisions of An Bórd Pleanála in the case of 32 Ballinclea Heights, Killiney, County Dublin?

I read this: 
[broken link removed]

Specifically these sections:

=================================
_
*Do velux windows require planning permission?
*
Yes, velux windows, whether to the front or rear are not exempt and  therefore require planning permission. Refer to [broken link removed]for advice on how to lodge a planning  application.

*Do I require planning permission to convert my attic?*

Yes, the conversion of an attic is not exempt and therefore requires  planning permission. You can carry out internal alternations to a  dwelling but you cannot change the use from storage to habitable use or  carry out external works such as installation of velux windows/dormer  windows/etc without planning permission. If you are considering lodging  an application for permission for change of use of an attic to habitable  use, you should ensure that your proposed development complies with the  Building Regulations (with particular regard to adequate floor to  ceiling height) and you should also have regard to the potential for  overlooking of adjoining properties._ 

=================================

In the case of the former, the Ballinclea applicant had several velux to the front of a bungalow declared to be exempted development.

In the case of the latter there are several posts to various forums and my own talks with local auhtorities suggesting that the matter relates only to building regulation compliance where the use changes.

IOW and attic conversion is not classed as development per se since it occurs within the existing envelope.

I am just wondering of the frequent posters here with experience of this, Doc, Superman, RKQ, et al, or any other poster, has definitive knowledge of this matter.

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         matters    at         hand.


----------



## Towger (23 Jul 2010)

Differts from Point 4 here: http://www.dlrcoco.ie/planning/oftenasked.htm



> *4.If I build an attic conversion do I need permission?*
> Normally no. However, if work involves dormer windows, permission is needed. If velux windows proposed to the rear, it is exempt. If velux windows proposed to the side/front elevation it is not exempt.




The government should get it's act together with these clowns. Reducing the number of CoCos and centralising many of their functions would same millions each year.


----------



## onq (23 Jul 2010)

Thanks Towger,

That was my understanding of the matter, with the exception that the An Bórd Pleanála decision seemed to clear the way for velux to the front also not requiring permission.

I agree that there needs to be some form of governing issuing body making sure updates in planning law are assimilated so there is an even playing surace.



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         matters    at          hand.


----------



## Peter Sweeny (26 Jul 2010)

There are Section 5 references under the Building Control Act 2000 indicating that skylights (are exempt developments) when fitted to the back of a property in an attic conversions (certain conditions apply).

There is also a Section 5 references under the old 1963 act under Section 4(1)(g) indicating the same. (Section 4(1)(h) has become Section 4(1)(h) under the 2000 Building Control Act). The exact same wording is used, but includes that this section does not apply to protected structures.

Unfortunately Planning Authorities in almost all cases take the view that planning permission is required unless the contrary can be shown.

Attic conversions normally would be exempt developments under Section 4(1)(h). This section states "development consisting of the carrying out of works for the maintenance, improvement or other alteration of the structure, being works that only affect the interior of the structure or which do not materially affect the external appearance of the structure so as to render such appearance inconsistant with the character of the structure or of neighbouring structure" shall be exempted developments.

The last line of this section opens up numerous possibilities as to what is an exempt development. If a number of similar houses along your row / terrace have skylights to the front of their dwelling then it is feasible that fitting new skylights to the front of your property is an exempt development. 

Unfortunately, Planning Authorities do take a very narrow view of this section while the Courts have been reasonably flexible in their interpretation of Section 4(1)(g) and 4(1)(h).
The Local Authorities should at all times take into account previous Courts decisions and reasons when administering the Planning Laws and not ignore them because the circumstances are not identical.


----------



## onq (27 Jul 2010)

Thanks Peter - they sound like the little boy with his finger in the dyke.

Here are links to Referrals to, and to Decisions from, the Bórd.

[broken link removed]

[broken link removed]

[broken link removed]

[broken link removed]

FWIW

ONQ.


----------



## RKQ (27 Jul 2010)

I always understood that velux to the back were exempt.
I understand that An Bord Pleanala decisions direct the Councils interpetation.

From a recent Site Notice issue (2nd Notice required at entrance to a 14 year old housing estate!!!! Two previous house extensions in this estate did not require a 2nd Site Notice at the entrance to the estate - very confusing) 
I understand from the Dept of Environment Planning Section, that "Each Council interpets the Planning Act, without interference from the Dept." Even if the Councils "new£ interpetation is wrong. Therefore Councils can differ according to the view of their Head Planner.

I agree that the Department or An Bord Pleanala should have a mechanism to ensure National policy / interpetation / similar policy across all Councils.


----------



## rockofages (3 Aug 2010)

Not visible from the front would be exempt in my understanding.

There'll always be exceptions tho...


----------



## onq (10 Aug 2010)

The velux mentioned in my links above were all visible from the front - it was a bungalow with a boundary hedge, but the roof was/is visible from the other side of the road and the rooflights were/are quite conspicuous.

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         matters       at          hand.


----------



## popol (26 Aug 2010)

Hi

This is topical for me as I'm currently looking at some extension works (South Dub).

I intend to build a new bedroom and bathroom over an existing garage conversion and expect to be hit with the new development contribution for this work (all works including existing kitchen extension will exceed 40 sq m). While I'm at it I was thinking i'd take a new stairs into the attic and do a conversion with a velux at the back. I had always assumed this to be exempt and therefore hadn't intended even including it on my planning app.

I don't think I'd have any trouble getting the actual permission for the attic work but I don't want to be hit with 120 per sq m for that as well. I'm only having my first architect session this weekend so this point will be high on the agenda. I'll keep you posted.

Regards,
P.


----------



## onq (26 Aug 2010)

Levies might only apply on the additional area over and above the 40 sq.m. exempted development limit.
The attic may be exempt from the calculation.

FWIW

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  matters    at      hand.


----------



## popol (27 Aug 2010)

onq said:


> Levies might only apply on the additional area over and above the 40 sq.m. exempted development limit.
> The attic may be exempt from the calculation.
> 
> FWIW
> ...



Thanks onq. I'm not an architect and know very little about this whole area. What is very clear though from reading up is that the rules seem very blurred. As as been pointed out elsewhere DLR CC clearly state on their website the area is exempt (under certain conditions) but I've looked at some planning decisions online were the floor space is deemed to count toward the 40 sq m limits. 

It's easy to get angry about these things and end up cutting off my nose to spite my face, i.e. avoid the charges but end up with a design that I don't really want. I'm leaning toward seeking a pre planning meeting to get some clarity.


----------



## onq (27 Aug 2010)

Well popol,

Signs of intelligent life.

Let us know how you get on.

After all, you can redesign it to improve matters.

Look on the meeting not as an exam, but as a workshop.

Hope you get a helpful and intelligent planning officer to advise you.

ONQ.


----------



## popol (27 Aug 2010)

onq said:


> Well popol,
> 
> Signs of intelligent life.
> 
> ...


 
Cheers - i'll look into it over the next few weeks and report back.

Slightly off topic but I'm furious over the development contribution. Fair enough if I was going to do or use something extra over and above what I'm already using but I'm not. Not one extra drop of water will be used, not an ounce extra sewage etc. I already paid a handsome sum of stamp duty and now this. I'm sure you've heard it all before and these taxes go to different places etc but they are still taxes towards public services and they still have to be paid and I get nothing in return. The most annoying part is that had I know I could have got planning last year and avoided it.


----------



## elki (11 Sep 2010)

Just on reading this post now, I'm putting my house up for sale soon and have just read here that velux windows to the side require planning permission! I asked the builder about this at the time and he said because I'm on a corner and looking out onto a road that I dont require planning. This is not true? So now how do i rectify this? Do I need to go back to SDCC and request retrospective planning? The window has been in 3 yrs, is there something that allows it to fall outside planning after a certain number of years? Thanks for any help here!!


----------



## RKQ (12 Sep 2010)

Elki you need to apply for Retention permission for the velux rooflight, if it is on a front or side elevation facing a public road - corner plot.

A full set of drawings will need to be done, which could be expensive - site survey, draw up existing, show velux. Do you had the original drawings from builduing the extension? If you do then contact your original Architect or Arch Tech to revise their drawings for you.


----------



## onq (12 Sep 2010)

Elki,

Can I urge a litte restraint before making an application?
There is a possibility that it may not be necessary in this particular instance.

Ideally you should have considered taking competent professional advice before commencing  works.
The builder may be proved right, or it may possibly have been a case of  him not wanting to be held up.

It may be more cost effective and still get useful results to  have an initial chat with the local planning officer for the area.
The Planner may still refer you to a professional to get some drawings  done so he can make a full appraisal.
However the principle fo whether it  needs planning permission or not might be a quick and simple answer.

The the planner may refuse to be drawn without some sort of formal application.
If so you could seek a Section 5   Declaration from the local authority that the velux is exempt, referring to the cases in Post #5 above.
It may  cost €80 and take four weeks IIRC.

Please could you revert here and let us know how you get on, because as you can see from my post and RKQ's, there are at least two schools f thought here.
If the planners say you need permission, I would advise not locking horns with the local authority if a straightforward application for retention permsision is likely to sort matters out.

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         matters      at          hand.


----------



## onq (12 Sep 2010)

popol said:


> Cheers - i'll look into it over the next few weeks and report back.
> 
> Slightly off topic but I'm furious over the development contribution. Fair enough if I was going to do or use something extra over and above what I'm already using but I'm not. Not one extra drop of water will be used, not an ounce extra sewage etc. I already paid a handsome sum of stamp duty and now this. I'm sure you've heard it all before and these taxes go to different places etc but they are still taxes towards public services and they still have to be paid and I get nothing in return. The most annoying part is that had I know I could have got planning last year and avoided it.



Wisdom in hindsight is a great thing 

It used to be that developers would get the permission they wanted and appeal the contributions to An Bórd Pleanála and the Bórd would take a view on them, suetimes reducing them substantially.

Nowadays each Council draws up its list of things it wants to do and effectively taxes people directly to do them.

Its a hard balancing act for all concerned, with only exempted development or the first 40sam of private residential development [in some cases] being exempt [that's from memory of what's on one of the planning application forms - so check it before acting].

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         matters       at          hand.


----------

