Exempted Development - Private Open Space Query

oraiste

A neighbour of mine is currently renovating a small workers cottage in the inner city area - it involves demolition of existing extensions (part of original house design) to the rear and building new structures (external walls/roof).

He is hoping to do these works without planning permission (within the regulations of exempted development). He is concerned by the rule that the private open space that must remain after an extension must be minimum 25m/sq - this will not be possible given the restricted area of the site.

With the existing provision of private open space less than 25msq (existing condition is approximately 12msq open space), it could be argued that he is not 'extending' the property and he is rebuilding on the same footprint area of the existing house (although the configuration of the private open space will change).

Has anyone any thoughts on this interpretation of the regulations in this regard?

How do you define the difference between 'development' and 'renovation' under the planning regulations? Could he argue that he is not extending?

DOCARCH

oraiste wrote: »

existing extensions (part of original house design) to the rear and building new structures (external walls/roof).

Query 1 - are the existing extensions pre-1963?

Query 2 - do the existing extensions abut another structure/extensions to adjoining houses?

Those two questions will help determine if planning is required or not.

oraiste

DOCARCH wrote: »

Query 1 - are the existing extensions pre-1963?

Query 2 - do the existing extensions abut another structure/extensions to adjoining houses?

Those two questions will help determine if planning is required or not.

Q1 - Yes, extensions would be pre-1963 (cottage built around 1900).

Q2 - Yes, the cottages are terraced. One could assume that the party walls have extensions one both sides of the party wall.

DOCARCH

oraiste wrote: »

Q2 - Yes, the cottages are terraced. One could assume that the party walls have extensions one both sides of the party wall.

On query 1, it could be argued that planning permission would not be required to re-build what was already there/original (even with the lack of private open space) under Section 4.1(h) of the planning regulations (if it were me, I would get a Section 5 Declaration on this)...

however...

...re Query 2, you do need planning permission to demolish a structure (even in connection with an exempt development) that abuts or adjoins another structure in seperate ownership.

oraiste

DOCARCH wrote: »

On query 1, it could be argued that planning permission would not be required to re-build what was already there/original (even with the lack of private open space) under Section 4.1(h) of the planning regulations (if it were me, I would get a Section 5 Declaration on this)...

however...

...re Query 2, you do need planning permission to demolish a structure (even in connection with an exempt development) that abuts or adjoins another structure in seperate ownership.

Thanks DOCARCH, really great advice.......

Mellor

oraiste wrote: »

With the existing provision of private open space less than 25msq (existing condition is approximately 12msq open space), it could be argued that he is not 'extending' the property and he is rebuilding on the same footprint area of the existing house (although the configuration of the private open space will change).

How do you define the difference between 'development' and 'renovation' under the planning regulations? Could he argue that he is not extending?

If there isn't 25 sq.m of open space then it is not exempt development. Simple as that.

I understand the frustration as he isn't increasing the footprint. But there is no exemption made for rebuilding existing or renovating externally. Permission is likely required imo.

There is a thin chance that DOCARCH's suggestion is viable, see below;

DOCARCH wrote: »

On query 1, it could be argued that planning permission would not be required to re-build what was already there/original (even with the lack of private open space) under Section 4.1(h) of the planning regulations (if it were me, I would get a Section 5 Declaration on this)...

I assume you mean Section 4.1(h) of the Act, not the regulations. Honestly, I don't think that applies. I can see where you are coming from. in that if the new extension, pretty much resembles the existing, it isn't externally materially altered (may not even be the case in regards to the OP.)
However that only applies to maintenance, improvement or other alteration. Not demolishing and rebuilding.

(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;

however...

...re Query 2, you do need planning permission to demolish a structure (even in connection with an exempt development) that abuts or adjoins another structure in seperate ownership.

Actually this is incorrect.
That only applies when demolishing for the purposes in accordances with class 1 exempt extensions. As this case doesn't come under class one due to a lack of open space, the exemption to demolish doesn't apply. Abbuting another structure or not.



In short.
Its not exempt to build due to lack of open space.
It's not exempt to demolish due to not being an "exempt extension".

Maintenance, improvement or other alterations can be exempt under 4.1 (h) if the external appearance is not significantly altered. But you need a section 5 to be sure.
IF you could get a section 5 under 4.1 (h), abbuting another property would no longer be an issue.

DOCARCH

I'm afraid Mellor, I would have to disagree generally with your post.

I have direct experience of this type of situtaion and dealing with the planners.

Re-built a small (original) return/kitchen to the rear of an artisan cottage where the area of private open space was approx. 10 m.sq. - like the OP, external walls (with the exception of the party wall) and roof were removed and replaced but did not abut a party structure (ecah house had it's own seperate return forming the yard/open space to the adoining house - Section 5 Declaration was granted by the Local Authority for this work under Section 4.1(h).

Section 4.1(h) is open to interpretation.

If the structure had abutted a party structure, and you were to apply for a Section 5 Declartaion, it would not be granted - you would be told to apply for planing permission.

Mellor

Which parts do you disagree with?

DOCARCH wrote: »

Re-built a small (original) return/kitchen to the rear of an artisan cottage where the area of private open space was approx. 10 m.sq. - like the OP, external walls (with the exception of the party wall) and roof were removed and replaced but did not abut a party structure (ecah house had it's own seperate return forming the yard/open space to the adoining house - Section 5 Declaration was granted by the Local Authority for this work under Section 4.1(h).

You were restoring the cottage to original. Therefore you didn't alter the appearance of the structure so as to render the appearance inconsistent with the character of the structure or of neighbouring structures. Section 4.1 (h) applied. I acknowledged that situation in my post.

But how does that apply here?
He isn't restoring anything. He is knocking a section of the original house and building new walls, in new locations. Only the area is the same? That's materially altered for me.

Section 4.1(h) is open to interpretation.

Of course it is. As is everything.
Under my reading of it he doesn't meet 4.1 (h), under soembody elses he might. Which is why I said that he might get a section 5. I don't believe he will though.

If the structure had abutted a party structure, and you were to apply for a Section 5 Declartaion, it would not be granted - you would be told to apply for planing permission.

I think you are misunderstanding me.
Demolition of a house is not exempt, except if its for an extension under class 1 or 7 (which the OP clearly isn't). And exception is that abbuting structures can't demolished under that exemption.

The rule is only in relation to class 50 and class 1 and 7. It's not related to section 4.1 (h). If the LA was wiling to grant a section 5 for a full rebuild under the guise of maintenance, improvement or other alteration, then I can't see anywhere that prevents them granting the same for an abbuting structure (I could easily be missing something that does prevent this). They may of course never do this as a matter of policy, or as a internal rule to their interpitation. But thats different.

Basically it comes down to the person opinion of when rebuilding a section of wall for maintenance becomes a new extension under class 1.

Mellor

By the way,
I think we both may have read the OPs intentions differently which lead to the different understanding of the situation. And not outright disagreeing.

DOCARCH

Mellor wrote: »

By the way,
I think we both may have read the OPs intentions differently which lead to the different understanding of the situation. And not outright disagreeing.

No doubt! Need to re-read.

Also, it depends a lot and what Council you are dealing with. The OP mentions inner city - not sure whether rightly or wronly to assume Dublin? Each Council would have their own interpretation/policy on Section 4.1(h).

DOCARCH

oraiste wrote: »

(although the configuration of the private open space will change).

Had a re-read! I didn't fully pick up on the above statement.

If the configuration of the open space is to change, that obviously means your neighbour is not exactly replacing like for like and/or the footprint of the original extension is to change somewhat? If, so, then planning permission would be required.

If your neighbour was re-building like for like, same footprint, etc., then I would argue/my opinion would be exemption is possible under Section 4.1(h).

Section 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.”

You can do quite a few things with Section 4.1(h) however, as Mellor correctly points out above, is does not go as far as relocating external walls/changing the shape of an existing structure.

forestwood

Is anyone aware if planning permission is required to dash the the front of a red brick house in the Ballymun regeneration area or does it come under section 4.1.h Planning and development Act of 2000.

sydthebeat

forestwood wrote: »

Is anyone aware if planning permission is required to dash the the front of a red brick house in the Ballymun regeneration area or does it come under section 4.1.h Planning and development Act of 2000.

It would be my opinion that planning would be required.
However contact your local authority to be certain.

DOCARCH

I too would suggest planning permission would be required for this, afterall, by dashing the front of the house you would....

....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

....assuming the adjoining houses are also of brick?

forestwood

DOCARCH wrote: »

I too would suggest planning permission would be required for this, afterall, by dashing the front of the house you would....

....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

....assuming the adjoining houses are also of brick?

no adjoining houses are white render.

Poor Uncle Tom

forestwood wrote: »

no adjoining houses are white render.

Not exempt under Section 4.1(h).

darzan

Hi
I realise this thread is quite old but my query is very much related:

I am currently buying a house with the intention of building a rear extension less than 40m2.

Does anyone know if a side garden (the house is end of terrace) counts towards the 25m2 Private Open Space requirement for planning exemption purposes?

Thanks

Gumbo

darzan wrote: »

Hi
I realise this thread is quite old but my query is very much related:

I am currently buying a house with the intention of building a rear extension less than 40m2.

Does anyone know if a side garden (the house is end of terrace) counts towards the 25m2 Private Open Space requirement for planning exemption purposes?

Thanks

It can depending on the size, orientation and how the side is accessed from the house.
How wide is the side garden which is behind the building line?

darzan

The side garden is approx. 50m2 grassed area with about half of it being behind the building line.. Its accessed from the front and back.

Thanks for your opinion.