new 'exempted development' query

sydthebeat

Heres on for you, that i hope someone else has insight into because im bewildered.

Just because something is exempt from planning, does that mean it can be built? case in point......

Site area = 0.13 acres
Existing dwelling consists of a semi-detached 1920s type dormer.

The client wants to extend to rear, by 'exempted' measures... however, because the site is bound on two sides by public roads, this extension will mean that theres no part of the site not in excess of 20m for percolation piping.

So the general question is...
just because something is exempt from planning, does that mean it can be built and certified exempt, even if it is not in accordance with other requirements such as SR 6 or EPA guidelines etc.

No6

What are you doing with the septic tank / percolation area syd is it new or existing??

sydthebeat

No6 wrote: »

What are you doing with the septic tank / percolation area syd is it new or existing??

it exists in this case....

should this matter?

No6

yes if it was new it couldn't be exempt, surely however as the house is 1920's the septic tank is fairly old, possibly prior to 1963 and if so dosnt even have percoaltion piping a soak pit at best, would you still be more than 7m from the septic tank, if so you could be alrgiht. You can't retrospectively comply with something like the EPA or SR6 within such an old and small site, are you sure its serviced by a septic tank? I'd talk to you enviornment section if you're not sure. Better safe than sorry.

sydthebeat

No6 wrote: »

yes if it was new it couldn't be exempt, surely however as the house is 1920's the septic tank is fairly old, possibly prior to 1963 and if so dosnt even have percoaltion piping a soak pit at best, would you still be more than 7m from the septic tank, if so you could be alrgiht. You can't retrospectively comply with something like the EPA or SR6 within such an old and small site, are you sure its serviced by a septic tank? I'd talk to you enviornment section if you're not sure. Better safe than sorry.

but it isnt retrospecive compliance if the extension is a new build, is it...;)

The question is more general than the case ive given.

Basically, can you build something that is exempt from planning but contravenes other regulations?
and more specifically, can you offer a certifica of exemption if something is exempt from planning but not other regs..

Poor Uncle Tom

For me it is a case of all development should be built in compliance with the Building Regulations and the provisions of Good Building Practices, whether the development is exempted from planning permission or not.

RKQ

I agree with Poor Uncle Tom.
We can't really nit pick or pick and choose which are important or relevant, while ignoring other laws.

IMO its exempt if it meets the requirements of planning exemptions while complying with Building Control Act. The exemption law was designed to lessen the number of applicants applying for permission on straight forward cases.

We should use common sense and ensure we comply with all recommendations where possible and always comply fully with Building Control Act & the Planning Acts.

sydthebeat

RKQ wrote: »

I agree with Poor Uncle Tom.
We can't really nit pick or pick and choose which are important or relevant, while ignoring other laws.

IMO its exempt if it meets the requirements of planning exemptions while complying with Building Control Act. The exemption law was designed to lessen the number of applicants applying for permission on straight forward cases.

We should use common sense and ensure we comply with all recommendations where possible and always comply fully with Building Control Act & the Planning Acts.

so if you were asked to provide a cert of exemption, under what grounds do you consider it not exempt?

RKQ

sydthebeat wrote: »

The question is more general than the case ive given.

My reply is more general than the case you have given!
I need to see the site / structure to give a full answer.:D

Good practice states that its not possible / professional to issue a cert of compliance with planning permission if you are aware that the structure does not comply with Building Control.

muffler

I would simply certify it as exempt but qualify the certification by referencing any possible breaches of of planning or BC acts.

sydthebeat

muffler wrote: »

I would simply certify it as exempt but qualify the certification by referencing any possible breaches of of planning or BC acts.

my opinion too...

funny thing is, when the solicitor who requested the cert was notified of the possible problems, his response was..."you are only asked to certify exemption with planning regs"....

No6

You could consider applying to the Local Authority for a certificate of Exemption, I think the fee is 80 and assuming they approve it it would be reasonable for you to certify it as being in compliance /exempt.

muffler

sydthebeat wrote: »

when the solicitor who requested the cert was notified of the possible problems, his response was..."you are only asked to certify exemption with planning regs"....

Bit of a catch 22 situation in a way.

The damn thing is that this could open up a whole can of worms. Take for example the situation you mentioned syd but say the original house was built 10 years ago and a condition of the PP stated that the perc. area had to be 20m from the house. Ordinarily the extension would be exempt but its only exempt if it does not breach a planning condition.

On one hand it could be argued that the original house is still 20m from perc. area and therefore the condition is unaffected and the extension is exempt.

However it could also be argued that as the extension forms an integral part of the house the said house has now encroached into that 20m condition and therefore the extension would not be exempt.

A friend of mine once told me to always apply the C.Y.A. clause and when I asked what this was as I never heard of it before he said - Cover Your Ass

RKQ

Good advice muffler. I agree as I do, in part with your earlier post today.

But as you say its gets sticky and as the Certifier with the PI, then your the weak link i.e because you have PI you may be viewed as the "best bet" to persue as your PI might be quickest in a chain (previous owner, solicitor, certifier) to pay out.

I never heard the initials CYA but I've heard the phrase. We more commonly use the phrase "Fireproof".

Syd make sure you are fireproof on this one, (don't be the weakest link!)

Carlow52

My view, for what it is worth having read more of this stuff than I wanted to the past few weeks, would be that the exemption here, which is Class 1 of Schedule 2, [http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2001/en/si/0600.html#sched2]

relates only to area and that the other rules and regs must be complied with.

The obvious and extreme example is fire regs