How high can an extension be at the back?

[Docarch]

I wonder have they fallen into the sequencing trap?

Exactly, that's what has me curious!

 

[onq]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.