What exactly is your question?
If your chimney is too short, the other building is irrelevant. Fix your chimney.
I'm not intending to be blunt. But isn't that really the issue.
Huh?Do you think they should move the new building beside you?
....
It appears that sudden backdraft of smoke may be due to the proximity of a new deveopment next door affecting the flue exit.
....
Building Regs TGD- J is an Irish regs document, so safe to assume the OP is talking about an Irish situation.You do realise that this is an IRISH site??
The issue here is that the developer of this site only has to ensure that flues they are installing on their site meet the requirements you outline.I can't fathom that this would be a cost that I would have to shoulder myself, given the failure with compliance is on the developer side, the chimney was pre-existing and should have been taken into account.
I assume the new development beside it has changed the airflow on the ops roof very likely because the chimney is no longer the tallest structure in immediate vicinity of the chimney.
The development must be at a significant height.
They often extend and cowl a chimney with such problems. Well at least until they ban you using them.
The issue here is that the developer of this site only has to ensure that flues they are installing on their site meet the requirements you outline.
In an ideal world you would have reviewed their planning application in advance and submitted an observation regarding any element that might have been of concern. It's unlikely that the documents they submitted contained sufficiently detailed information about the location of your flue for the planners to assess. Assuming you didn't lodge an observation, you can't appeal that planning at this point.
It might be worthwhile speaking with a planning specialist who could review the planning they have been granted and assess the works carried out for compliance to see if there are any other avenues open at this point, but that won't be zero cost.
That's not true. Based on your description here, it is your property that no longer complies with the regs. It is the position of their flue(s) and not yours that will be of concern when it comes to getting compliance sign-off.The other way to look at it this, their building won't be made compliant until it's sorted.
That's not uncommon, the UK works exactly the same way. Planning permission does not mean you can build something that does not comply with the regs.As far as I've been informed, bizarrely and news to me but planning and building regulations are two separate systems. So they might have got planning but this oversight is a major issue for them to resolve now.
It's unlikely that the documents they submitted contained sufficiently detailed information about the location of your flue for the planners to assess.
That's not true. Based on your description here, it is your property that no longer complies with the regs. It is the position of their flue(s) and not yours that will be of concern when it comes to getting compliance sign-off.
That's not uncommon, the UK works exactly the same way. Planning permission does not mean you can build something that does not comply with the regs.
All sites aren't inspected and even if they did inspect this one, details like that can be missed. That's why it's so important to review any planning applications that might impinge on your enjoyment of your own property, no one else is going to be as focused on you.Should the planners have made a site visit and observed the flue themselves?
I think you're still misunderstanding the regs. The prohibited zone refers to the area within which the applicant cannot place a new flue, it does not refer to the placement of structures near existing flues.As you say Leo, planning permission does not mean you can build something that doesn't comply with regulations. So the fact that they built in what is considered the "prohibited zone" around a pre-existing chimney (despite some claims here that the onus/fault is on my "building") is surely going to be a far graver matter for them, especially when you consider the risk of CO poisoning and liability if something happens.
Very true, and that's why people are advised to consult experts and submit observations as required to ensure that their rights are protected.We have regulations and laws to uphold the standards of a society as a collective. It's not down to an non-expert individual (like me) to oversee what's legit.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?