Attic Extension: PP or no PP needed?

goz83

Hi Guys,

Been a member for a little while and I find the info here to be great and very helpful. I'm wondering about an attic extension if I can call it such a thing. I've just purchased my dads house and among other things I want to get a little work done to the attic. It's already been converted 10 years ago with a velux window to the rear. And while that's fine I would like to increase the head room available in the attic. At the moment I can only stand upright when in the centre of the room and it has an Apex roof. I want to extend the head space to the rear of the house and put regular (if thats ok) windows to the rear and leave the front facing part of the roof as is. By doing this it will allow me to have proper stairs going up to the attic rather than the mountainous stairs there at the moment.

Do I need planning?

What are my options?

I hope my explanation is clear enough. I dont want to increase floor space or exceed the height of the current roof. I simply want to have the roof to the rear on a straight level.

Help appreciated.

muffler

You will need permission for that proposal. Theres no problem with the internal renovations but if you alter the external appearance of the house/roof then you are looking at a planning application.

The only exemption to this is that you are allowed to install 3 velux rooflights to the rear.

Hope this helps.

PS: Although they dont cover your particular ideas the DOE have planning leaflets which are fairly informative and the one that would interest you most would be PL5 which can be found here.

goz83

thanks for that. i was afraid i might need pp. i may as well go all out and apply for front velux windows while i'm at it i guess.

sinnerboy

Planning is not the end of it - make sure you comply with fire safety b regs

http://www.environ.ie/en/DevelopmentandHousing/BuildingStandards/PublicationsDocuments/FileDownLoad,1657,en.pdf

muffler

sinnerboy wrote: »

Planning is not the end of it - make sure you comply with fire safety b regs

http://www.environ.ie/en/DevelopmentandHousing/BuildingStandards/PublicationsDocuments/FileDownLoad,1657,en.pdf

I think that goes without saying. The OP only wanted to know if he needed planning permission or not and as he does he will need to engage a professional to prepare the plans and spec including detailing of how to comply with all aspects of the building regs not just Part B.

sinnerboy

muffler wrote: »

I think that goes without saying. The OP only wanted to know if he needed planning permission or not and as he does he will need to engage a professional to prepare the plans and spec including detailing of how to comply with all aspects of the building regs not just Part B.

It goes without saying only between those who know . The OP didn't ask directly ( about b regs / fire ) but so often the un asked question is often as important as the one asked. I bet it never crossed the OP's mind . I fully agree with your advice to him to engage professional help .

There is ( and I hope never to be proved right about this , believe me ) an epidemic of un safe ( fire-wise ) attic conversions right across the land . I fear that someday a grouping of tragedies in a short space of time may highlight this Sword of Damacles .

An enforcement officer in DCC clarified a query for me relative to attic conversions and exempted development . They are NOT exempt for the simple reason that they increase the risk from fire to those who occupy them . So by requiring planning and then in due course a commencement notice , building control can ( and do - believe me ) follow it up .

I aksed why enforcement generally don't do more about the prevalance of unsafe conversions* - answer - problem is out of hand , too extensive. No political will to tackle it . A dire consequence of an under resourced LA building control regime and the deficient ( but better than nothing ) Architect / Engineer Opinion on Compliance system in Ireland . B Regs compliance "on the cheap" , to my mind

*attics converted for "storage" nod/wink

muffler

sinnerboy wrote: »

It goes without saying only between those who know . The OP didn't ask directly ( about b regs / fire ) but so often the un asked question is often as important as the one asked. I bet it never crossed the OP's mind . I fully agree with your advice to him to engage professional help .

There is ( and I hope never to be proved right about this , believe me ) an epidemic of un safe ( fire-wise ) attic conversions right across the land . I fear that someday a grouping of tragedies in a short space of time may highlight this Sword of Damacles .

An enforcement officer in DCC clarified a query for me relative to attic conversions and exempted development . They are NOT exempt for the simple reason that they increase the risk from fire to those who occupy them . So by requiring planning and then in due course a commencement notice , building control can ( and do - believe me ) follow it up .

I aksed why enforcement generally don't do more about the prevalance of unsafe conversions* - answer - problem is out of hand , too extensive. No political will to tackle it . A dire consequence of an under resourced LA building control regime and the deficient ( but better than nothing ) Architect / Engineer Opinion on Compliance system in Ireland . B Regs compliance "on the cheap" , to my mind

*attics converted for "storage" nod/wink

I agree in the main with what you are saying but in relation to the paragraph highlighted, attic conversions like other domestic improvements/extensions ARE exempted development in accordance with the Planning & Development Acts. However such developments must be carried out in compliance with the Building Regulations.

Its something that I dont agree with but thats a matter for the legislators.

sinnerboy

They're not Muffler . A careful re reading of the exempted development schedule
will indicate that that attic conversations are not covered by Exempt Development provisions . The enforcement officer I spoke with noted that the exempted development regulation ( SI 600 2001 schedule 2 Class 1) is carefully worded ( extension to side or conversion of garage to side or rear ) to specifically exclude attic conversions . He further pointed to Condition 4 (of Class 1 ) which relates to heights of extensions being specifically worded to exclude attic conversions

muffler

sinnerboy wrote: »

They're not Muffler . A careful re reading of the exempted development schedule
will indicate that that attic conversations are not covered by Exempt Development provisions . The enforcement officer I spoke with noted that the exempted development regulation ( SI 600 2001 schedule 2 Class 1) is carefully worded ( extension to side or conversion of garage to side or rear ) to specifically exclude attic conversions . He further pointed to Condition 4 (of Class 1 ) which relates to heights of extensions being specifically worded to exclude attic conversions

All I can say to that is that the enforcement officer you mentioned appears to have a different interpretation of this from the rest of the country and that includes An Bord Pleanala. Fair play to him.

In relation to condition 4. of class 1 - have you read it? It has nothing whatsoever to do with attic conversions.

Mellor

sinnerboy wrote: »

They're not Muffler . A careful re reading of the exempted development schedule
will indicate that that attic conversations are not covered by Exempt Development provisions . The enforcement officer I spoke with noted that the exempted development regulation ( SI 600 2001 schedule 2 Class 1) is carefully worded ( extension to side or conversion of garage to side or rear ) to specifically exclude attic conversions . He further pointed to Condition 4 (of Class 1 ) which relates to heights of extensions being specifically worded to exclude attic conversions

An attic conversion is not an extension. It is internal alteration, in my opinion.
Condition 4 refers to heights of extension to prevent them being intrusive.

An extension above ground floor can be exempt only if it is 2m away from the boundary. Attics wouldn't be allowed here either if they were extensions.

The end section of the following document mention internal alteration beinf exempt if the external of the house id unaltered.


As for the enforcement officer saying they are not emept. Maybe he is right, but I don't believe so. I've learnt to wait to see everything in hard facts before I believe it. I have some accross plenty of planning officals that got planning laws mixed up and insisted certain works were not exempt or similar issues
http://www.environ.ie/en/Publications/DevelopmentandHousing/Planning/FileDownLoad,1586,en.pdf

sinnerboy

I have indeed read it , -

4. (a) Where the rear wall of the house
does not include a gable, the height of
the walls of any such extension shall
not exceed the height of the rear wall of
the house.

- excludes provision for attic conversion in the case of most of suburbia

as does

(b) Where the rear wall of the house
includes a gable, the height of the walls
of any such extension shall not exceed
the height of the side walls of the house.

as does the first part of 4(c)

(c) The height of the highest part of the
roof of any such extension shall not
exceed, in the case of a flat roofed
extension, the height of the eaves or
parapet, as may be appropriate,

the remainder , I grant you does muddy the waters

or, in any other case, shall not exceed the
height of the highest part of the roof of
the dwelling.

The following , in practical terms , excludes conversions to semi d's and terraces


3. Any above ground floor extension
shall be a distance of not less than 2
metres from any party boundary.


The over riding description in the schedule ( my underlining ) is worded to exclude attic conversions .

CLASS 1
The extension of a house, by the
construction or erection of an extension
(including a conservatory) to the rear of
the house or by the conversion for use as
part of the house of any garage, store,
shed or other similar structure attached to
the rear or to the side of the house.

If it is not included in the schedule, it is not exempt, is my own interpretation

Muffler , can you point me to where ABP have indicated to the contrary ?

sydthebeat

Attic conversions are not exempt from planning permission.

Sorry for being loud on this but the information supplied above stating that they were is dangerously incorrect.
Attic conversions are not included anywhere in the 'exempted development' regulations and as such should not be considered exempt.

I agree with sinnerboy completely. An 'internal alteration' is to be considered 'development', and as it is not included in exempoted development... its not exempt.

I know this by the number of 'retention of attic conversion' applications ive had to do over the last 7-8 years, almost exclusively done at point of sale. Neither architects / engineers nor solicitors consider them exempt.

The simplest way to determine between a 'storage' conversion or a true conversion is whether a fixed stair access is included.. if there is a fixed stair access its not storage.

muffler

It has been the accepted practice by all associated professionals here in Donegal to deem an attic conversion to be exempted development (subject to windows etc). I cant locate the link to ABP's ruling on this but I did see it up in their web site a couple of years ago where they stated that an attic conversion was not development within the meaning of the Planning & Development Acts.

Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown CC says its exempt - see Q4 in their FAQs publication

Section 4.1 (h) of the 2000 Act confirms it also

Edit: Just had a look through ABP,s web site and the nearest I could find was this determination. It was in respect of an attic that was being converted at the time of the building of a new house but it clearly states that had the house been completed then the conversion would have been exempt.

I dont know what more you would like me to do and I am disappointed at the replies here especially from people who by their own self appraisals should know better.

Mellor

sinnerboy wrote: »

4. (a) Where the rear wall of the house
does .....

...... height of the highest part of the
roof of any such extension shall not
exceed, in the case of a flat roofed
extension, the height of the eaves or
parapet, as may be appropriate,

Im not sure that this rules out converations, as no external walls are built, nor a new roof.

the remainder , I grant you does muddy the waters

or, in any other case, shall not exceed the
height of the highest part of the roof of
the dwelling.

This part would allow it, by the looks of it.

3. Any above ground floor extension
shall be a distance of not less than 2
metres from any party boundary.

If it is not included in the schedule, it is not exempt, is my own interpretation

I mention the above section in my last post, if the conversation is an extension, then it would not be exempt. But is it an extension??

sydthebeat wrote: »

I agree with sinnerboy completely. An 'internal alteration' is to be considered 'development', and as it is not included in exempoted development... its not exempt.

See the link I posted above, internal alteration is exempt, as long as the exteranal is unchanged. The link is from the DOE website.




It comes down to one thing, weither or not a conversation is an extension or a internal alteration. I tried to look, but some sites were down. I can see where you are coming from, but I have never seen it defined as either, so I am unsure. I know some CoCos consider them as internal work and allow as exempt.

sydthebeat

as a response to the above.

Did the planning and development regs of 2001 not supercede the planning and development act of 2000?? If you check you will see that schedule 1 of the regs 2001 revoked the planning act of 2000.

Would an attic conversion not be considered a 'material change of use' and thus not including it as an 'internal alteration' anyway?? all this 'is a conversion an extension' issue is a red herring.......

Does it not suffice to accept that any development not mentioned as 'Exempted Development' in accordance with regs 2001 is not to be considered exempt?

Without being in any way smart muffler,.... it appears that Donegal Co Co operate in different ways to the rest of the country.....

muffler

sydthebeat wrote: »

Did the planning and development regs of 2001 not supercede the planning and development act of 2000?? If you check you will see that schedule 1 of the regs 2001 revoked the planning act of 2000.

Are you asking or telling us? No Planning Act was revoked. The 2000 regulations were revoked under the 2001 regs as you cant in law have 2 separate sets of regs for the one Act. The 2001 regulations consolidated the 2000 regs made under the 2000 Act and also replaced previous regs for a number of years prior to that.

sydthebeat wrote: »

Would an attic conversion not be considered a 'material change of use'

Another question? The answer is no. It is no more a material change of use than an attached garage for example.

sydthebeat wrote: »

all this 'is a conversion an extension' issue is a red herring.......

You should explain that. Is that a statement of fact or an opinion?

sydthebeat wrote: »

Does it not suffice to accept that any development not mentioned as 'Exempted Development' in accordance with regs 2001 is not to be considered exempt?

No - you are interpreting this the wrong way - see my post above re consolidation of the 2000 Act

sydthebeat wrote: »

Without being in any way smart muffler,.... it appears that Donegal Co Co operate in different ways to the rest of the country.....

Certainly not in relation to the Planning & Development Acts.


Now you made a big bold and loud statement (or assumption) about this issue - can you give us links or whatever to back that up. I have shown how an attic conversion is exempt with the link to a recent decision by An Bord Pleanala who at the end of the day have the final say on these matters.

sinnerboy

muffler wrote: »

I have shown how an attic conversion is exempt with the link to a recent decision by An Bord Pleanala who at the end of the day have the final say on these matters.

So you did Muffler , thanks for that . I haven't had a chance to review the ABP link but for a quick scan-over but the case apears to be contested in detail by several parties . But the S4. 1 (h) of the P+D 2000 Act point is pretty clearly stated .

My concerns about fire safety I won't repeat save to say that I will change my practice very little . I will continue not to sign off on attic conversions as exempt unless I am satisfied the ( not planning related I know ) fire safety issues are addressed - principally

- provision of window(s) to comply with escape / rescue requirements
- stairway to Part K
- stairway enclosed , fire door to top ( or bottom )
- closers to doors entering stairway enclosure ( top to bottom )
- smoke detector coverage to all levels

BECAUSE

like in the case of the Ozzie joke

Bloke 1 "hey mate - are there any crocodiles in this creek ? "

Bloke 2 "naaahh" ( but mutters under breath ) " the sharks ate all the crocs "

This gives out the totally wrong signal that all is ok .

STB , I would continue to act as you do .

As I have said I fear that a series of tragedies which may group together in a short space of time will force a rethink . ABP or not .

sydthebeat

muffler... you havent shown why attic conversions should be considered exempt.

I accept that that the planning act of 2000 states that an internal alteration is exempt, however i do not accept that this pertains to attic conversions.
An attic conversion is not an interal alteration, it is a material change of use, and if you check the regs 2001 you will see that the conversion of an attached garage is specifically included and considered exempt. By your logic, assuming 'attic conversion' to be comparable to 'attached garage conversion', then it also should b eincluded.... but it aint, is it??.....

To attempt to define a conversion as an extension is a red herring. By simple literal definition, they are seperate.

My opinion is based on experience alone... experience from dealing with all the professions included in determining issues like this.... issuing certs of compliance, certs of exemption etc...... i have never yet met another architet / engineer or anyone in the legal profession that accepted an attic conversion without planning.

muffler, maybe ive got a computer virus or something, but the link to that direction from the bord definately states that that attic conversion is not exempted development........ where do you think it states otherwise???

NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by
section 5 (4) of the 2000 Act, hereby decides that the said conversion of an attic space
is not exempted development.

muffler

If you read my previous post about the determination by ABP and the content in full of the link given you will see that they deemed it to be development but only because it was developed during the construction of the house.

This is the relevant extract from the inspectors report which was subsequently adopted by the board:

S.4(1) lists development which are exempted developments for the purpose of this Act,
including (S.4(1)(h) ) , ‘development consisting of the carrying out of works for the
maintenance, improvement, or other alteration of any structure, being works which
affect only the interior of the structure or 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’.

I would prefer if you didnt quote the parts that are are not in question. I did say in my post above and I quote "Edit: Just had a look through ABP,s web site and the nearest I could find was this determination. It was in respect of an attic that was being converted at the time of the building of a new house but it clearly states that had the house been completed then the conversion would have been exempt."


Oh and this was also there to be read:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that in order to avail of an
exemption under section 4(1)(h) of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, the
house should have been completed in the first instance prior to the conversion of the
attic the subject of the question referred. It appears to the Board that this construction
work was carried out concurrently with the said permitted development:

sydthebeat

If you read closely you will see that the first complaint happened in mid '00.... before the 2001 regs were in place. Therefore the inspector could only refer to the (S.4(1)(h) ) of 2000. The 2001 regs were not in place at that time.

Therefore this determination was made under previous regulations and does not hold substance over the OPs or any other similar current 'attic conversion' issue.

Attic conversions are not exempt from planning permission.

muffler

I dont know why I bother. You seem to only want to read what appeals to you. I explained earlier that the 2001 regs consolidated the 2000 act and regs. Now in plain english the 2001 regs encompass the regulations made under the 2000 act - they just didnt have to repeat them.

This is all going nowhere. I have shown you examples of how an attic is exempted development under the planning regs and others have accepted that but you have shown none to back up your assumption and that is all that it is - an assumption or a personal interpretation of the regs. You even had the audacity to post this

sydthebeat wrote: »

muffler... you havent shown why attic conversions should be considered exempt.

after I had in fact done so.

I made a statement and I backed it up. You made an assumption and went on a rant stating that my advice to the OP was "dangerously incorrect" I think you need to choose your words a bit more wisely as I am not happy at being accused of giving dangerous and incorrect advice.

Im going to take a step back on this now as your remarks are indeed offensive and I will ask smashey to look at this thread and moderate it as he sees fit.

Now if you feel that An Bord Pleanala are wrong and that local authorities are also wrong then I suggest that you take the matter up with them as you seem to be fighting some sort of lone crusade here.

smashey

sydthebeat wrote: »

muffler... you havent shown why attic conversions should be considered exempt.

Eh, he did.

Mellor

sydthebeat wrote: »

Therefore this determination was made under previous regulations and does not hold substance over the OPs or any other similar current 'attic conversion' issue.

Ok, so you accept that the attic conversation was exempt in 2000.

sydthebeat wrote: »

I accept that that the planning act of 2000 states that an internal alteration is exempt, however i do not accept that this pertains to attic conversions.
An attic conversion is not an interal alteration, it is a material change of use,

You believe that the attic is material change of use.

Material change of use was not exempt in 2000, attic conversation was (by your admission). The defination of a material change of use hasn't changed since then. If an attic not exempt now because it is material change of use, then it would of been non exempt then too.

Therefore it was not material change of use then, it shouldn't be now.
Material change of use does not mean change from storage to bedroom in an attic. The house is still a dwelling,

A material change of use is a shop changing to a pub or similar.

sydthebeat

i was using the 'material change of use' as a better explaination of the issue... because posters were going off in a tanget in the 'whether a conversion was an extension' issue......

look, i accept that muffler has, by experience, found out that in donegal, professionals consider attic conversions to be exempt....

my point is that as far as i know, this isnt accepted anywhere else.....

i have always been led to believe that the regulations are the statutory instruments of the act..... therefore they are what needs to b ecomplied to...
similarly the current 'building control act' is powerless in many situations without the necessary instruments attached.

and sorry muffler, you havent shown why an attic conversion should be considered exempt. you linked to a determination from the board that actually showed that the conversion was not to be considered exempt. you are referring to a section in the planning at of 2000 that is ambigious as to its association with the issue.

Contact anyone who certifies compliance with planning permission on monday, or any solicitor, (outside donegal, obviously) and ask them what their view on this issue is and i guarantee that the informed opinion is an attic conversion is not exempt.

To the original poster, to get a definitive answer on this, contact your planning authority and ask them the question... and please post the response you get.

I dont want to be confrontational on any forum, especially one as helpful as this, and this may simply be a difference of opinion, so i cant argue any more on this issue, ive nothing more to add.

Mellor

sydthebeat wrote: »

look, i accept that muffler has, by experience, found out that in donegal, professionals consider attic conversions to be exempt....

Also posted were DLRCC, and I can say SDCC allow it too,

DLRCC - Dated April 2007
http://www.dlrcoco.ie/planning/oftenasked.htm

SDCC, Fingal and meath also have it apparently

Gumbo

i rang Dublin City Council yesterday and the girl told me that i dont need PP to convert my attic to a storage or non-habitable use (study, home office, games room etc)room. and also i can put 2 velux windows in without PP.

now it would be a different story if i want an "official" bedroom up in the attic.

i think muffler is right on this one too, so i would take his advice and follow it up.

muffler

sydthebeat wrote: »

i was using the 'material change of use' as a better explaination of the issue... because posters were going off in a tanget in the 'whether a conversion was an extension' issue......

look, i accept that muffler has, by experience, found out that in donegal, professionals consider attic conversions to be exempt....

my point is that as far as i know, this isnt accepted anywhere else.....

i have always been led to believe that the regulations are the statutory instruments of the act..... therefore they are what needs to b ecomplied to...
similarly the current 'building control act' is powerless in many situations without the necessary instruments attached.

and sorry muffler, you havent shown why an attic conversion should be considered exempt. you linked to a determination from the board that actually showed that the conversion was not to be considered exempt. you are referring to a section in the planning at of 2000 that is ambigious as to its association with the issue.

Contact anyone who certifies compliance with planning permission on monday, or any solicitor, (outside donegal, obviously) and ask them what their view on this issue is and i guarantee that the informed opinion is an attic conversion is not exempt.

To the original poster, to get a definitive answer on this, contact your planning authority and ask them the question... and please post the response you get.

I dont want to be confrontational on any forum, especially one as helpful as this, and this may simply be a difference of opinion, so i cant argue any more on this issue, ive nothing more to add.

I am a bit sick of your stubbornness and your inflammatory and derogatory statements. So far you have made a very serious accusation of me having given “dangerously incorrect” advice. You have called into question the integrity of professionals in Donegal and in doing so are questioning their integrity.

Only recently you have even refused to accept a statement made here by smashey concerning a minor amendment. In an attempt to disprove this you took the bother to telephone Donegal County Council only to be told that such a facility did exist. You have implied that the Planning Act is not being enforced or adhered to in Donegal whereas the truth is that they are using the act in its entirety and that includes the use of “minor amendments” which very few other, if any Local Authorities implement. Your comments so far are an insult to me, to other professionals, to the planners of Donegal County Council and to the legal profession here.

There are only 4 main contributors to this thread and the others have accepted and agreed that an attic conversion is exempted development. But your refusal to even read what was posted in links I or others give just reinforces my opinion that you are trolling and flaming. You have made big statements but have refused to back them up.

I am a moderator of this forum but because of my involvement with this thread I have already stated that I will leave any moderation of the thread to smashey. If I had no input to this thread then I would have told you to put up or shut up and your comments would not have escaped as lightly as they have. I don’t know if smashey has read this entire thread or not but I hope he takes the time to do so.

smashey

I've read it alright.

Three times.

It would appear that while everybody else has accepted and agreed with what muffler has said, sydthebeat is intent on disagreeing. That's his prerogative.

It has been shown by a few posters that the development is exempt as long as it complies with the building regulations.

One thing I take issue with is sydthebeat's slur on professionals in Donegal and indeed Donegal County Council. I can assure you that from my experience with the planning department in Donegal, they stick rigidly to the Planning Act and they make this known to everybody they deal with.

As it stands now, with muffler taking a back seat here, I would ask the OP to contact his planners directly and post their response here.

I would also ask that sydthebeat apologises to muffler and retracts his comments on professionals in Donegal.

sinnerboy

Muffler you have been emphatically proved correct - I apologize for for contradicting you earlier in the thread and thank you for going to the trouble of providing the link to the ABP site .

I had seen the DLRCC FAQ list before but concluded they were wrong .

It was DCC enforcement who took a diametrically opposite (to DLRCC ) view when I spoke with them some years back that "confirmed" my erroneous interpretation.

BUT ........I would observe ...........

S4.1(h) P+D Act 2000 , reads
(h) development consisting of the carrying out of works for the maintenance, improvement or other alteration of any structure, being works which affect only the interior of the structure or 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 neighboring structures;

Even reading it now , still appears to me , in the domestic context , to be addressing issues like
1. opening up a through- lounge
2. creating an en suite bathroom , within the existing building enclosure
3. splitting 1 big room in two or vice versa
.... issues of that nature ( only )

in other words the alteration of the internal layout of an existing built space

BUT NOT

to my reading ( still ) can it be logically implied or inferred to relate to the creation of additional spaces .


S4.2 of P+D Act 2000 leads on from S4.1(h) P+D Act 2000 to amongst other things enable regulations providing for exempt development provisions for the creation of additional spaces ( extensions and conversions ) , thus we have SI 600 2001 Schedule 2 ( Class 1 - for domestics )

The ABP order you posted the link to Muffler does not support me in my interpretation , I accept this . But I struggle to see logic in the ABP reasoning I believe they have stretched the legislators intentions behind S4.1(h) P+D Act 2000

The inspectors report in the ABP case you linked to states on page 6

The planning authority’s first argument regarding the attic conversion is that it involved the conversion of a ‘nonspace’ or unusable space to habitable and storage space and that the conversion would be a material change of use of the structure notwithstanding the provisions of s.4(1)(h).

I think this indicates that my understanding of S.4(1)(h) was shared by this local authority

The inspector goes to say on page 7 ( my underlinings )

The Board has previous determined, in a number of cases, that the creation of an attic area in a habitable house is exempted development subject to no material change in external appearance of the dwellinghouse. .[/I]

ABP have had to address this issue more than once .I conclude as I have said before that the legislation is badly worded and open to interpretation ( or mis interpretation if you prefer ) and this is why ABP have has to address the issue "in a number of cases" ( I wonder just how many ? ) . Again I say I believe this is for political reasons .

To clarify Muffler I am not challenging you here in any way - I affirm my total agreement with you . But the Act / Regs are very unsatisfactory .

Mellor , I did a quick check on the sites of MCC , SDDC and FCC . all have almost identical FAQ lists on Exempt Development . I didn't see the words "attic" or "conversion" . DLRCC , and ABP are the only places I have seen such explicit and clear references .

I have been reflecting on the matter and believe I still will continue NOT to "cert" conversions that are unsafe ( even though I could re planning exemption ) for reasons I have stated already .

STB I consider you are serving your clients well by regularising the situations as you say you do .

muffler

sinnerboy, thank you for your comments. This whole thread has gone off the rails a bit but then again debate is healthy but only if it is done without casting aspersions - and Im not referring to you just to clarify.

The Planning regs like the building regs leave a lot to be desired in certain areas. I suppose the authors would claim its a work of art but still in the making. Parts of the Planning Act and its regulations can be gray at times and just like the statutory laws of the land they can be interpreted in different ways. How many times has one judge's ruling be overturned on appeal by another judge? But in law when you go to the supreme court you are at the final hurdle and you have to accept its decision which is at times based on an established precedent - you may not like it or agree with it but you still have to accept it. Similarly on planning issues we lesser mortals can argue in the first instance with the local planners and we then have the right to appeal if we dont agree with their decision and that is where ABP can be compared to the supreme court - its the end of the road. But bear in mind that just like the supreme court ABP will also use case history and precedent to hand down a ruling and when they make a ruling its final I tend to abide by it.

As I said before I agree with your concerns and reservations in relation to the fire regulations (or want of at times). A persons safety is paramount regardless of the other aspects of the regs. I have signed off on several of these developments in recent times but only when I was absolutely sure that they were exempt from planning AND in compliance with the building regs. In one case I refused until a velux window was fitted at a lower lever in order to comply with Part B so we are in agreement in full on this issue.

At this point I think its safe to say that an attic conversion can be certified either way - exempt or PP required if the certifier feels it should be sought. Its down to each individual to consider their own personal judgments and any consequentel issues that may arise. Either way there is that case history and precedent which I have established that can be referred to in times of need.

ircoha

For the sake of those who might read this post in the future, perhaps it might be useful to summarise what i think are the key points in relation to 'attic conversions':

If I am wrong please amend the post

1: Each professional advisor shall let his/her conscience determine what is the correct procedure in relation to the application of the Planning laws and Building regs on a case by case basis.

2: For attic conversions that create non-habitable space and that dont materially alter the existing external structure, the general consenus, as evidenced by what is happening in the field is that PP is not required.
However any work that is done will have to comply with the relevant building regs that apply to non-habitable space.

3: If the conversion does materially alter the existing external structure, even though it is still non-habitable space, then PP is required and the BL regs as in 2 above apply.

4: If the conversion is to create habitable space, and by habitable space I mean space that can be added to the deeds of the house when being sold, then additional Building regs will apply, most notably the fire regs for the entire structure, and not just the new space. PP will not be required unless there is material alteration to the existing external structure.

5: If the conversion is to create habitable space, as defined in 4 above, and if there is material alteration to the external structure then PP is required and the Building regs will apply as 4 above.

sydthebeat

sydthebeat wrote: »

it appears that Donegal Co Co operate in different ways to the rest of the country.....

i accept that muffler has, by experience, found out that in donegal, professionals consider attic conversions to be exempt

The two statements above are the only mention i made of donegal council or professionals... and if anyone thinks that there is a slur or insult there then you are completely incorrect. The first statement i can back up by referring to the 'minor alterations' thread. The second statement is underscored by mufflers own postings.

the OP stated that he wanted to put in a window to the rear of the roof.... to infer that he doesnt need planning permission is incorrect. I am stubborn and i stand over my opinion. All this non-habitable stuff is nonsence also. Theres no one here arguing that storage space conversions require planning. You cannot convert an attic to create a habitable space without altering the exernal. See ventilation regulations and fire regulations. Any habitable conversion requires planning permission.

smashey

sydthebeat wrote: »

Contact anyone who certifies compliance with planning permission on monday, or any solicitor, (outside donegal, obviously)

So you exclude the legal profession?

muffler

sydthebeat wrote: »

the OP stated that he wanted to put in a window to the rear of the roof.... to infer that he doesnt need planning permission is incorrect.

And you are now calling me a liar - this is the first sentence in my first post in this thread

muffler wrote: »

You will need permission for that proposal.

sydthebeat wrote: »

Without being in any way smart muffler,.... it appears that Donegal Co Co operate in different ways to the rest of the country.....

That is a slur on the the good people of Donegal.


At this point in time you should look seriously at your ability to differentiate between fact and fiction. We dont need or want a Walter Mitty type character on this forum.

Mellor

This is the document I was looking for last week, couldn't find it.

http://www.environ.ie/en/DevelopmentandHousing/BuildingStandards/PublicationsDocuments/FileDownLoad,1657,en.pdf

DOE document published in 2004. List of ammendments available, no change to the below.

If your house is a protected structure (or a proposed protected structure), under the Planning Act 2000, you may require planning permission for an attic / loft conversion

Following published 2002
http://www.environ.ie/en/Publications/DevelopmentandHousing/Planning/FileDownLoad,1586,en.pdf

13. Can I carry out internal alteration, external repairs
and maintenance?
You can carry out any internal alteration you wish as long
as you do not alter the domestic use of the house.
External works of repair, maintenance and improvement
such as painting or replastering do not need planning
permission so long as they do not materially affect the
external appearance, thus rendering the appearance
inconsistent with neighbouring buildings. You may need
approval for certain external alteration e.g. a new
connection to a sewer.
This exemption does not apply to protected structures,
nor to the subdivision of a house into flats or granny flats.
Planning permission must be obtained for such works.

muffler

Cheers Mellor. Good work.

I think that kinda concludes the debate.

alinoee

just to add this and close the discussion. an extract from Dun Loaghaire RCC FAQs

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.

foxfordbuild

I currently have planning permission for a bungalow in Mayo. I am getting the attic done as part of the timberframe spec. I had originally planned on leaving it for a year or more and then converting it completely but it makes more sense financially to do at construction stage. How do I apply for addittional planning for this, is it straight forward and can I start the site works before this is received based on existing permission or will it hold things up. I am also planning a shed of 23 m2 which would be exempt. I would estimate the attic floor space would be in the region of 65 m2 with Velux windows on the rear roof of the house only. I would like to divide this space into 3 rooms - Storage \ Office with open area for entertainment room in between with a fixed staircase.

muffler

foxfordbuild wrote: »

I currently have planning permission for a bungalow in Mayo. I am getting the attic done as part of the timberframe spec. I had originally planned on leaving it for a year or more and then converting it completely but it makes more sense financially to do at construction stage. How do I apply for addittional planning for this, is it straight forward and can I start the site works before this is received based on existing permission or will it hold things up. I am also planning a shed of 23 m2 which would be exempt. I would estimate the attic floor space would be in the region of 65 m2 with Velux windows on the rear roof of the house only. I would like to divide this space into 3 rooms - Storage \ Office with open area for entertainment room in between with a fixed staircase.

The short answer is that so long as you dont alter the external appearance of the house (with the exception of 3 velux to rear which you are allowed) you should be fine. You will of course have to comply with building regs and you should also check with your architect/engineer that he is happy to sign off on the proposal.

esterelle

muffler wrote: »

The short answer is that so long as you dont alter the external appearance of the house (with the exception of 3 velux to rear which you are allowed) you should be fine. You will of course have to comply with building regs and you should also check with your architect/engineer that he is happy to sign off on the proposal.

f

Where did this business of the 3 Velux Windows come from. ABP allowed 6 Veluxes under a Section 5 referral in Killiney recently and that was in the front of a house. There is no numeric limit. I also possess a Section 5 referral from ABP declaring that an attic conversion is exempted development. The works involved are all internal except Velux Windows (normally) the area in question forms part of the house already. No permission required. Issues such as fire regs. etc are not really Planning matters atal. There is no issue here as far as I am concerned.

muffler

esterelle wrote: »

f

Where did this business of the 3 Velux Windows come from. ABP allowed 6 Veluxes under a Section 5 referral in Killiney recently and that was in the front of a house. There is no numeric limit. I also possess a Section 5 referral from ABP declaring that an attic conversion is exempted development. The works involved are all internal except Velux Windows (normally) the area in question forms part of the house already. No permission required. Issues such as fire regs. etc are not really Planning matters atal. There is no issue here as far as I am concerned.

Please dont jump in at the tail end of a now near dormant thread and with your first post attempt to drag this both up and off.

If you feel like replying to the OP then please do so.

Post up a link to the ABP determination you refer to.

muffler

sydthebeat wrote: »

please do jump in to any discission ongoing on this forum if you fell you have anything positive to add.

Please drop the back seat modding. Get your own forum if you want to dictate what is welcome and what is not.

Infraction given

sydthebeat

muffler wrote: »

Please drop the back seat modding. Get your own forum if you want to dictate what is welcome and what is not.

Infraction given

sincere apologises.... i must refrain from saturday night posting....

again.. apologies.

muffler

sydthebeat wrote: »

sincere apologises.... i must refrain from saturday night posting....

again.. apologies.

Maybe include Friday night posting also.

No more.

Mellor

esterelle wrote: »

f

Where did this business of the 3 Velux Windows come from. ABP allowed 6 Veluxes under a Section 5 referral in Killiney recently and that was in the front of a house. There is no numeric limit. I also possess a Section 5 referral from ABP declaring that an attic conversion is exempted development. The works involved are all internal except Velux Windows (normally) the area in question forms part of the house already. No permission required. Issues such as fire regs. etc are not really Planning matters atal. There is no issue here as far as I am concerned.

This is a strange post. If you read through the whole thread you will see that a number of people are of the opinion that an attic conversation is exampt.

But if you read the latest question fully.

I currently have planning permission for a bungalow in Mayo. I am getting the attic done as part of the timberframe spec. I had originally planned on leaving it for a year or more and then converting it completely but it makes more sense financially to do at construction stage.

The work is being carried out during construction of an existing dwelling. As the PP recieve doesn't include the attic it cannot be built at the same time, strictly speaking. ABP muffler posted earlier proves this.
The OP must either speak to the planner and see if he will allow it, apply for additional PP, or wait until the house is finished then build it exempt.

The best example of this is the fact that you can't stick 40m2 onto the area of your new build during construction and call it exempt under extension.

foxfordbuild

I have emailed Mayo Co Co in relation to this and am currently awaiting a response. If I do need to get addittional planning am I still able to start construction to foundation level or would I need to wait until amended planning is granted assuming it is. How long would a similar request normally take ?

sinnerboy

you can still start based on permission you have

muffler

sinnerboy wrote: »

you can still start based on permission you have

Agreed.

foxfordbuild

I got my reply from Mayo Co Co today -
"Planning Permission is required for what you propose. You should apply to convert attic to usable accommodation and for velux windows."

My engineer has advised me to wait for a year and then just knock through for the staircase. I have informed the timberframe company of this and location for the staircase so hopefully they will incorporate this into the structure.

sinnerboy

get them to

oversize attic joists now to act later as floor joists

floor over now - wall plate to wall plate

trim the joists to the attic stairway location

first fix elecs + safely tail

relocate your water tank to suit finished attic layout

plumb / cap to future shower room up there ( if that is in future plan )

locate insulation to run along rafters line now , and plaster to this line ( wall plate to wall plate - don't let them place quilt between joists

provide roof ventilation to suit warm roof condition , not cold

trim the rafters now ( and infill ) to future velux locations