Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Attic Extension: PP or no PP needed?
Options
-
29-12-2007 5:37pm#1Hi 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.0
Comments
-
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.0 -
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.0
-
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.pdf0 -
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.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.pdf0 -
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/wink0 -
Advertisement
-
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.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
Its something that I dont agree with but thats a matter for the legislators.0 -
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 conversions0 -
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.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
In relation to condition 4. of class 1 - have you read it? It has nothing whatsoever to do with attic conversions.0 -
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.pdf0 -
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 ?0 -
Advertisement
-
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.0 -
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.0 -
Im not sure that this rules out converations, as no external walls are built, nor a new roof.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,
This part would allow it, by the looks of it.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.
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??
See the link I posted above, internal alteration is exempt, as long as the exteranal is unchanged. The link is from the DOE website.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.
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.0 -
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.....0 -
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: »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.
Another question? The answer is no. It is no more a material change of use than an attached garage for example.sydthebeat wrote: »Would an attic conversion not be considered a 'material change of use'
You should explain that. Is that a statement of fact or an opinion?sydthebeat wrote: »all this 'is a conversion an extension' issue is a red herring.......
No - you are interpreting this the wrong way - see my post above re consolidation of the 2000 Actsydthebeat 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?
Certainly not in relation to the Planning & Development Acts.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.....
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.0 -
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 .0 -
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.0 -
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:0 -
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.0 -
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
after I had in fact done so.sydthebeat wrote: »muffler... you havent shown why attic conversions should be considered exempt.
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.0 -
Advertisement
-
sydthebeat wrote: »muffler... you havent shown why attic conversions should be considered exempt.
Eh, he did.0 -
Ok, so you accept that the attic conversation was exempt in 2000.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.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.0 -
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.0 -
Also posted were DLRCC, and I can say SDCC allow it too,sydthebeat wrote: »look, i accept that muffler has, by experience, found out that in donegal, professionals consider attic conversions to be exempt....
DLRCC - Dated April 2007
http://www.dlrcoco.ie/planning/oftenasked.htm
SDCC, Fingal and meath also have it apparently0 -
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.0 -
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.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.
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.0 -
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.0 -
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 .0 -
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.0 -
Advertisement
-
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.0
Advertisement