building house bigger than planning?

DanGerMus

If a house is 150 sqm on the existing planning before the build is it allowable to make the house a little larger, say add a meter on to the depth of the house without planning?

sinnerboy

No. You have to follow the drawings . If you wish to change from the proposals on the drawings you need permission

slowharry

No you can't but (as this is Ireland)it all depends on who you have certifying the construction. Making the house deeper will likely raise the ridge height and this is often one of the major concerns for the planners, so this may bite you in the ass in years to come with you needing to get retention.

Bullseye1

You can add 40 square meters to the building without planning permission unless precluded by the Planning Authority. I know there was confusion as to when this extension could be built but there is either a High Court or Supreme Court Case which dealt with that issue. From what i recall (open to correction) the Judge said it was okay to add at the same time.

But what you are describing could not be considered an extension. And as the above have mentioned could lead to a retention permission at great cost and possibility of refusal. Consult with your Architect.

BryanF

Bullseye1 wrote: »

You can add 40 square meters to the building without planning permission unless precluded by the Planning Authority. I know there was confusion as to when this extension could be built but there is either a High Court or Supreme Court Case which dealt with that issue. From what i recall (open to correction) the Judge said it was okay to add at the same time.

id like to see that case and meet an architect that will certify planning compliance under the circumstances you suggest.

sinnerboy

Bullseye1 wrote: »

You can add 40 square meters to the building

Keyword - building i.e. you can add only to something that exists.

In the context of the OP query one cannot add anything - without permission.

Bullseye1

SB I'm nearly sure there was a court case on this where the judge ruled that it could be built at the same time. It makes sense to construct at the same time for obvious reasons. I'll see if I can find the newspaper clipping which I have filed away somewhere.

rural_red

Bullseye1 wrote: »

SB I'm nearly sure there was a court case on this where the judge ruled that it could be built at the same time. It makes sense to construct at the same time for obvious reasons. I'll see if I can find the newspaper clipping which I have filed away somewhere.

Newspaper Clipping will have been written by a journalist with no understanding of planning legislation. You will need planning permission.

Bullseye1

Certainly the way the OP has described how he proposed to increase the house there is no question he requires planning. I stated that in my initital post.

Regarding the report in the Law section of the times I believe the journalist may also be a solicitor. But again until I find the clipping I cannot say for sure.

Bullseye1

Okay I just looked up the article. It was actually from the Irish Architect Nov/Dec 1998 (When is a house not a house?). It also appeared in the Irish Planning and Environmental Law Journal Volume 5 No. 4.

If anyone is interested I'll scan them in tomorrow and PM them to you.

Poor Uncle Tom

Bullseye1 wrote: »

Okay I just looked up the article. It was actually from the Irish Architect Nov/Dec 1998 (When is a house not a house?). It also appeared in the Irish Planning and Environmental Law Journal Volume 5 No. 4.

If anyone is interested I'll scan them in tomorrow and PM them to you.

First of all, no more derailing of this thread.

Secondly, any exemptions from planning permission as expressed through SI 600 of 2001, are in accordance with the Planning & Development Regulations 2001
which came into force years after the article you refer to.

Bullseye1

Apologies but I thought we were discussing the same topic. Moving on.

Can you point me to the specific text where it states the house has to be occupied before any extension or exempted development is carried out?

muffler

Bullseye1 wrote: »

Can you point me to the specific text where it states the house has to be occupied before any extension or exempted development is carried out?

There is nothing in the regs to say the house has to be occupied.

However the regs clearly state that a "house" can be extended without PP subject to the usual T & C's. There is no mention of a "partially constructed house" or a "house under construction"

Does that clarify the matter?

sydthebeat

If its any consolation, ive had a case where an "extension" was built "at the same time" but actually block courses behind, a dwelling and we were made apply for retention of the whole dwelling as constructed as the planning authority did not consider the "extension" exempt because it couldnt be defined as an "extension" because there was no dwelling there to extend in the first place.

The council, at least my LA, insist that an extension can only be added after the parent dwelling is complete.

to the OP, technically what you want to do would require planning permission.

Bullseye1

muffler wrote: »

There is nothing in the regs to say the house has to be occupied.

However the regs clearly state that a "house" can be extended without PP subject to the usual T & C's. There is no mention of a "partially constructed house" or a "house under construction"

Does that clarify the matter?

Cheers M. So it could be built prior to occupation but not until the permitted development is first completed.

Poor Uncle Tom

Bullseye1 wrote: »

Cheers M. So it could be built prior to occupation but not until the permitted development is first completed.

That's my reading of it also.

muffler

Bullseye1 wrote: »

Cheers M. So it could be built prior to occupation but not until the permitted development is first completed.

That would be it

DanGerMus

Glad to see all the replies and a little friendly debate.

I was wondering if what I proposed would fall within the 40sqm allowance but I can see it doesn't.
also, it would seem, that any extension would only be allowed after the original building is finished.


Thanks lads.

slowharry

Just to note there are other conditions as to when an 'extension' is exempt from a planning application besides the 40sqm.

beyondpassive

The building must be constructed in accordance with the plans and particulars lodged with the council, and this is valid for the lifetime of the project. The 'exemped development' of 40sq.m to the rear of the building isn't valid untill the original grant of planning runs out which is the end of the five year period from decision to grant although other interpretations say it is 7 years when the statute runs out.

The usual procedure is to submit alterations to previously approved application. If this fails you fall back on the original application. There is no statutory mechanism for altering planning applications but this is accepted by most planners as a way of reconciling minor alterations which can arise after planning. We've had recourse to do a number of these where we've had to make changes to badly designed houses submitted for planning a couple of years ago, where the client has become conscious of Energy and airtighness. Another area where this arises is where the clients would have got the local draftsman or engineer to churn out the usual fare that was popular in the naughties, with the badly proportioned mock victorian and sticky on stone to the front gable only, lobbed into an empty field. They now see this as tacky and flash and want something a bit more simple, sensitive and modest looking as befits our era of austerity. The planners are generally amenable to 'fixing' bad design. But to add an extra metre of depth to the house you're looking for a new application.

martinn123

beyondpassive wrote: »

The building must be constructed in accordance with the plans and particulars lodged with the council, and this is valid for the lifetime of the project. The 'exemped development' of 40sq.m to the rear of the building isn't valid untill the original grant of planning runs out which is the end of the five year period from decision to grant although other interpretations say it is 7 years when the statute runs out.

The usual procedure is to submit alterations to previously approved application. If this fails you fall back on the original application.

Can you expand on this please, perhaps in a new thread if it drags this one off topic.
I would have assumed from other comments here, and on other threads, that the 40SqM rule applies from the time of occupation. You seem to be stating that the 40SqM rule does not come into play for 5/7 yrs from grant of planning.
Please post a link if you can, or perhaps others will post in agreement/otherwise
thanks

Poor Uncle Tom

beyondpassive wrote: »

The building must be constructed in accordance with the plans and particulars lodged with the council, and this is valid for the lifetime of the project.

And any changes must be OK'd by the council or through a seperate planning application.

beyondpassive wrote: »

The 'exemped development' of 40sq.m to the rear of the building isn't valid untill the original grant of planning runs out which is the end of the five year period from decision to grant although other interpretations say it is 7 years when the statute runs out.

This is simply not true and there is a mix of information here which is misleading.
1. Any relevant exempted development, as specified on SI No. 600 of 2001, can be added once the house is completed, whether this is one year or five years into a planning permission.
2. Generally an full grant of planning permission lasts 5 years.
3. Under the planning and development act 2000, the statute of limitations on prosecution for any unauthorised development is 7 years.

beyondpassive wrote: »

There is no statutory mechanism for altering planning applications but this is accepted by most planners as a way of reconciling minor alterations which can arise after planning. We've had recourse to do a number of these where we've had to make changes to badly designed houses submitted for planning a couple of years ago, where the client has become conscious of Energy and airtighness. Another area where this arises is where the clients would have got the local draftsman or engineer to churn out the usual fare that was popular in the naughties, with the badly proportioned mock victorian and sticky on stone to the front gable only, lobbed into an empty field. They now see this as tacky and flash and want something a bit more simple, sensitive and modest looking as befits our era of austerity. The planners are generally amenable to 'fixing' bad design. But to add an extra metre of depth to the house you're looking for a new application.

This is just a rant.

Augusta11

Hi,

I'm just after reading this forum and am now worried I might have a big problem with my self build. We started to build last September. The house is 3,000 sq foot which we got PP for. We then decided that we would add a conservatory at the back of the house which is 20 sq metres. We did not apply for PP for the conservatory as we thought once it was under 40sq metres and at the back of the house it was exempt from requiring PP. Our Architect didn't see any problem with this either. From what I have read on this it seems we are not allowed to go ahead and build the conservatory as we require PP? Should I inform the council asap?

Mellor

Augusta11 wrote: »

Hi,

I'm just after reading this forum and am now worried I might have a big problem with my self build. We started to build last September. The house is 3,000 sq foot which we got PP for. We then decided that we would add a conservatory at the back of the house which is 20 sq metres. We did not apply for PP for the conservatory as we thought once it was under 40sq metres and at the back of the house it was exempt from requiring PP. Our Architect didn't see any problem with this either. From what I have read on this it seems we are not allowed to go ahead and build the conservatory as we require PP? Should I inform the council asap?

You are correct that you are not allowed to add the 20sq.m on during construction. What stage is it currently at?

If you are only at foundation level, you should stop the conservatory there and complete the house. Then complete the extension of the house with conservatory. (its generally considered that sub-ground works for a future extension can take place during build).

If its further along than that you'll need retention.

Mod Note: Just a warning before it happens. We don't allow discussion of how to get around planning regs, which includes stories about how other people avoided retention for similar

martinn123

Very specific advice being offered here, which on the limited information provided, will probably prove correct.

However,

Augusta11 wrote:

We did not apply for PP for the conservatory as we thought once it was under 40sq metres and at the back of the house it was exempt from requiring PP. Our Architect didn't see any problem with this either.

Mellor wrote: »

You are correct that you are not allowed to add the 20sq.m on during construction. What stage is it currently at?

If you are only at foundation level, you should stop the conservatory there and complete the house. Then complete the extension of the house with conservatory. (its generally considered that sub-ground works for a future extension can take place during build).

If its further along than that you'll need retention.

As this might have implications for the ongoing build, e.g if the Door to the Conservatory is the primary external rear secure door, and the door linking to the house is an internal non-secure door, or even open plan, the house will not be secure.

I would have thought rather than taking action as above a discussion with the Architect on site, first, might be more appropriate. If as it appears, he has erred, I am sure he can propose a solution.

As regulars will know I am not an Architect, but I do build Conservatories so perhaps I am biased.

Poor Uncle Tom

martinn123 wrote: »

As this might have implications for the ongoing build, e.g if the Door to the Conservatory is the primary external rear secure door, and the door linking to the house is an internal non-secure door, or even open plan, the house will not be secure.

Build it as it is shown on the planning documentation, it will be secure then. When the building is completed then construct the exempted extension. If there is a door shown at this location on the planning drawings I'm sure it is not an internal door.

martinn123 wrote: »

I would have thought rather than taking action as above a discussion with the Architect on site, first, might be more appropriate. If as it appears, he has erred, I am sure he can propose a solution.

Whatever is being done would need to be discussed with the Architect, more so if s/he is inspecting the build.

martinn123 wrote: »

As regulars will know I am not an Architect, but I do build Conservatories so perhaps I am biased.

It isn't relevant in this case.