Garage

DPM1

I hope to build a garage in by back garden at some stage and i was looking at the site last night. i will more than likely put down a slab of concrete and purchase a steel shed that will be bolted to it.

My question related to planning permission. As its not not considered a perminant structure what are the guidelines in relation to size or does it vary by location and council?

I was hoping to have a 2 car garage with some additional space for lawm mower, freezer, dryer etc. I would probably want it to be big enough to be able to park 3 cars side by side to cater for the additional storage i want which might help you to visualise the design im after.

Does anyone have any experience with this type of query?

muffler

Domestic structures whether "temporary" or permanent are subject to the planning & development acts but there are exemptions. There's a handy little leaflet available from DoE here and the following extract is relevant in your case

You can build a garage, carport, shed, greenhouse, kennel
for domestic pets etc., as long as it does not extend out in
front of the building line of the house and does not exceed 4
metres in height, (if it has a tiled or slated pitched roof), or 3
metres (if it has any other roof type). The floor area
limitation for exempted development is 25 square metres.
The structure may not be lived in, used for commercial
purposes or for keeping pigs, poultry, pigeons, ponies or
horses. Garages, sheds etc. to the side of the house must
match the finish of the house. You cannot reduce the open
private space, reserved exclusively for the use of the
occupants of the house, at the side or rear of the house
below 25 square metres.

These exemptions are the same regardless of which county you are in.

You should check the original planning permission for the house to ensure there are no conditions restricting or prohibiting any other development on the site.

DPM1

Thanks muffler. Im trying to see if there is a restriction on whether a second building up to 25 square meters can also be built, i should say that im not considering it but it does not seem to be clear or else iv missed something very obvious?

I have a large site and perhaps the 25 square garage and garden shed at the end of the lawn for the lawn more etc would suit me better.

muffler

Its all in the wording

The exemptions state that you can build a garage, shed, car port etc etc etc. It doesn't say you can build 2 of them

Timmyboy

muffler wrote: »

Its all in the wording

The exemptions state that you can build a garage, shed, car port etc etc etc. It doesn't say you can build 2 of them

There's lots of different readings of that "a".

1. It doesn't prohibt building more than one of them does it? I understand that the exemption does appear to allow only one. Judgement here is that only one is allowed (it could be legally argued I think but not successfully)

2. I think that you can build a shed for say garden equipment and have a separate garage for car parking out of the rain without any difficulty. So I think one of each of the above would be exempted in accordance with a plain reading of the regulations. But again that could be debated.

One point is that the "etc." at the end changes the signifincance of the "a" at the beginning it appears.

muffler

Timmyboy wrote: »

There's lots of different readings of that "a".

1. It doesn't prohibt building more than one of them does it? I understand that the exemption does appear to allow only one. Judgement here is that only one is allowed (it could be legally argued I think but not successfully)

Enjoy yourself. Build a his and hers and maybe a spare to be on the safe side and when you look for certification or a part 5 declaration come back and let us know how you got on

Timmyboy wrote: »

2. I think that you can build a shed for say garden equipment and have a separate garage for car parking out of the rain without any difficulty. So I think one of each of the above would be exempted in accordance with a plain reading of the regulations. But again that could be debated.

So you can build both? You have stated "plain reading" and then stated it can be debated. Its one or the other Im afraid when it comes to these issues.

Timmyboy wrote: »

One point is that the "etc." at the end changes the signifincance of the "a" at the beginning it appears.

I think they were referring to the usage or purpose rather than the number of structures

Timmyboy

muffler wrote:

Enjoy yourself. Build a his and hers and maybe a spare to be on the safe side and when you look for certification or a part 5 declaration come back and let us know how you got on

I agree with your interpretation here muffler. I do think that on further reading that it basically would be one garage.

muffler wrote:

So you can build both? You have stated "plain reading" and then stated it can be debated. Its one or the other Im afraid when it comes to these issues.

Just making the point that anything that can be debated here could be debated with Planning and could be debated with An Bord and could if a person could afford it be debated in the High Court:rolleyes:.
I do think that it's a one of any of the listed items.

muffler wrote:

I think they were referring to the usage or purpose rather than the number of structures

Maybe so.
So answer me this since the usage of a garage would generally be different to the usage of a greenhouse could a person only be exempted to build one of each (i.e. either one garage or one greenhouse) or does the exemption allow both to be built?

I do believe that in the instance of different usages or different descriptions for that matter that the exemption would be reasonably read to allow a garage, and, a greenhouse, and a kennel, etc.
As I write this I can see that this too could be debated but I'd like to hear others opinion on this matter?:)


There's a couple of other important point related to these exemptions....

Say that you have a Class 2 exempted shed which is used for the storage of solid fuel, i.e. a timber and turf shed and decide to then build a garage, do you loose the exemption for the garage because you already have the timber and turf Class 2 shed (which is in a different category (heating purposes) than general (garden) sheds?

Furthermore, there is no size limit defined in the Class 2 structural sections. Given the cold winters that we've had in both 2009-10 and 2010-11 would it be reasonable to accept that a 40 m2 fuel storage shed is a reasonable size? Are there any known maximum sizes being allowed by the different planning authorities?

profplanner

DPM1 wrote: »

I hope to build a garage in by back garden at some stage and i was looking at the site last night. i will more than likely put down a slab of concrete and purchase a steel shed that will be bolted to it.

My question related to planning permission. As its not not considered a perminant structure what are the guidelines in relation to size or does it vary by location and council?

Does anyone have any experience with this type of query?

The Planning Regs allow you to build a garage which is less than 25sqm but the external finish and roof must conform with the house i.e. if your house is finished with render or pebble dash, your garage must also. Similarily the roof of the garage must also use same roof covering. Automatically your steel shed will require permission.

Timmyboy wrote: »

So answer me this since the usage of a garage would generally be different to the usage of a greenhouse could a person only be exempted to build one of each (i.e. either one garage or one greenhouse) or does the exemption allow both to be built?

I do believe that in the instance of different usages or different descriptions for that matter that the exemption would be reasonably read to allow a garage, and, a greenhouse, and a kennel, etc.
As I write this I can see that this too could be debated but I'd like to hear others opinion on this matter?:)

There are a number of restrictions to applying the exempted develoment regulations but generally they allow for the a number of such structures including a garage, greenhouse, store etc to be built as long as the total floor area of these structures does not exceed 25sqm.

The Regs can be viewed at http://www.environ.ie/en/Legislation/DevelopmentandHousing/Planning/FileDownLoad,8797,en.pdf - check out Schedule 2 Part 1 Class 3 for details of this exemption, (page 160).

sydthebeat

profplanner wrote: »

The Planning Regs allow you to build a garage which is less than 25sqm but the external finish and roof must conform with the house i.e. if your house is finished with render or pebble dash, your garage must also. Similarily the roof of the garage must also use same roof covering. Automatically your steel shed will require permission.

the external finishes must match ONLY where the garage is to the side of a dwelling.

If it is behind it does not have to match and a steel shed is acceptable.

profplanner

apologies ... I should have clarified this.

Timmyboy

profplanner wrote: »

There are a number of restrictions to applying the exempted develoment regulations but generally they allow for the a number of such structures including a garage, greenhouse, store etc to be built as long as the total floor area of these structures does not exceed 25sqm.

The Regs can be viewed at http://www.environ.ie/en/Legislation/DevelopmentandHousing/Planning/FileDownLoad,8797,en.pdf - check out Schedule 2 Part 1 Class 3 for details of this exemption, (page 160).

I respectfully disagree with your first paragraph there profplanner.

I see where you are coming from though but let's break this out a little.

Exempted development is gathered into different classes.

So there is exempted development allowed for Class 1 works and then there is exempted development allowed for Class 2 works etc. There are lots of different classes and not all of them would apply generally but I do believe that both Class 1 (garage for example) and Class 2(fuel store shed) do apply. Note particularly that Class 2 regulations were modified by the government back around 2007 or 2008 that they actually allowed a store to be built for fuel storage.

There is no limit defined that I know in the Class 2 exempted development.

I don't see any legal basis to prevent a person building a 25m2 garage for cars say and then to build an additional 30m2 building for fuel storage.

Please note my reference to
SI No 83 of 2007 -Planning and Development Regulations 2007 (pdf, 85 kb)
which includes detail of changes to Class 2 buildings now including specifically a structure used as a fuel stores ancillary to the domestic dwelling.

This is why I disagree. I would welcome specifically telling me that I can't both have a fuel storage building(class 2 - no size limit) and a garage (class 1 up to 25m2) as exempted.

sydthebeat

timmy... thats an interesting one to challenge with a section 5 application to your local authority.

i think the council could challenge it from the point of view of being a 'dedicated use' ie if you have a shed build with double doors, windows etc is its use solely for fuel storage?

also, is a timber / peat store actually "part of a heating system of a house"???
when compared to an oil tank which is plumbed to a boiler then, in essence, no its not part of a heating system.

interesting, but id be surprised if you were granted a section 5 on it.

Timmyboy

sydthebeat wrote: »

timmy... thats an interesting one to challenge with a section 5 application to your local authority.

Thanks for the feedback Syd.
Done in my neck of the woods the first mistake that you would be making would be to be going to the planning authority with a Section 5 application.
This would be taken by our lads and lassies as an opportunity to put their opinion upon you and then you'd be stuck with fighting that.
It would not be something that I would wish to do here.
What I'm trying to discover is what are reasonable people thinking here about the grounds of this, legally as its read, outside of what the people who work in planning would think. Because I already know how they (don't) think:rolleyes:

sydthebeat wrote: »

i think the council could challenge it from the point of view of being a 'dedicated use' ie if you have a shed build with double doors, windows etc is its use solely for fuel storage?

The doors are actually double but you need them to back in the tractor to put in the fuel, sods of turf, logs of timber etc.
You need windows to see what you are doing and it would be a waste during the late summer to have to be turning on lights while you're stacking in the turf.
Windows and doors are as much a need in a solid fuel storage structure as they are in a garage for car storage.

sydthebeat wrote: »

also, is a timber / peat store actually "part of a heating system of a house"???
when compared to an oil tank which is plumbed to a boiler then, in essence, no its not part of a heating system.

Yes is my answer to this.
You couldn't leave timber or turf outside down here as it would be destroyed by rain during the winter. Would not burn easily. You need to have storage to allow the timber to season properly.
It is a necessary part of the heating system as it stores the fuel (as is described by the regulations.

sydthebeat wrote: »

interesting, but id be surprised if you were granted a section 5 on it.

I'd be suprised too!

sydthebeat

Timmyboy wrote: »

Thanks for the feedback Syd.
Done in my neck of the woods the first mistake that you would be making would be to be going to the planning authority with a Section 5 application.
This would be taken by our lads and lassies as an opportunity to put their opinion upon you and then you'd be stuck with fighting that.
It would not be something that I would wish to do here.
What I'm trying to discover is what are reasonable people thinking here about the grounds of this, legally as its read, outside of what the people who work in planning would think. Because I already know how they (don't) think:rolleyes:

in all due respect timmy, it doesnt matter a damn what people "who work outside of planning" think on the matter.
They are not the ones who have to offer, and stand over when legally challenged, an opinion.
It doesnt matter how you, or any one else 'reads' the regulations because at the end of the day someone has to determine if its exempt or not.

Timmyboy wrote: »

The doors are actually double but you need them to back in the tractor to put in the fuel, sods of turf, logs of timber etc.
You need windows to see what you are doing and it would be a waste during the late summer to have to be turning on lights while you're stacking in the turf.
Windows and doors are as much a need in a solid fuel storage structure as they are in a garage for car storage.

Like i said, it could be argued that the use isnt 'solely' fuel storage and therefore could be determined not to be exempt.

Timmyboy wrote: »

Yes is my answer to this.
You couldn't leave timber or turf outside down here as it would be destroyed by rain during the winter. Would not burn easily. You need to have storage to allow the timber to season properly.
It is a necessary part of the heating system as it stores the fuel (as is described by the regulations.

Thats not what i am arguing.
I can see the counter argument being made to your assertion that the 'fuel store' (as we are describing here) is not part of the heat system of a house. Thats how the regs refer to this. It may be ancillary, but is it part of a "system"??? Id argue that its not.


At the end of the day if you can get a professional with PI insurance who is willing to agree with your view point and offer you an exemption certificate, great. However you might find that the professionals who work in this field may not be so forthcoming to agree with your opinion.

profplanner

Timmyboy wrote: »

Exempted development is gathered into different classes.

So there is exempted development allowed for Class 1 works and then there is exempted development allowed for Class 2 works etc. There are lots of different classes and not all of them would apply generally but I do believe that both Class 1 (garage for example) and Class 2(fuel store shed) do apply.

Timmyboy, you have taken my statement out of context. In my response I refer "generally" to the number of structures which can be provided as exempt under Class 3 of the Regs which includes a garage, greenhouse, store etc. I do not state that the exemption classes can be applied generally to all works and in fact the construction of a garage comes under class 3 only. Class 1 allows for an extension of the house or the conversion of an existing garage for use as part of the house, with class 2 relating to provision of a fuel storage structure as part of a heating system.

sydthebeat wrote: »

At the end of the day if you can get a professional with PI insurance who is willing to agree with your view point and offer you an exemption certificate, great. However you might find that the professionals who work in this field may not be so forthcoming to agree with your opinion.

I am a professional in the private sector, with PI insurance, and I would class the fuel store being discussed as development which could claim exemption only under Class 3. It is not part of the heating system of a house as required to claim exemption under class 2.

Finally ...

sydthebeat wrote: »

in all due respect timmy, it doesnt matter a damn what people "who work outside of planning" think on the matter.
They are not the ones who have to offer, and stand over when legally challenged, an opinion.
It doesnt matter how you, or any one else 'reads' the regulations because at the end of the day someone has to determine if its exempt or not.

Agreed

Timmyboy

OK, the goal that I have here is to determine what type of "structure" (I'll clarify this below in respect of a "heating system" may be reasonably and legally considered to be certifiable by a person of suiable competency to be lying within the regulations without necessarily having to go down the Section 5 route.

So first off, let's look at the regulations:

Here's what the regulations say:

CLASS 2
(a) The provision as part of a heating system
of a house, of a chimney or flue, boiler
house or fuel storage tank or structure.

The regulations mention one limitation to the above, namely:

The capacity of an oil storage tank shall not
exceed 3,500 litres.

If I break that out a little then I have a question that if there was an existing shed on the site, which has been and continues to be used as a fuel storage shed then what may I ask might be useful to demonstrate, within reason, that it is part of the heating system of the house?

Would it not be reasonable to show that within the house that there is a solid fuel boiler that burns fuel brought to it from the shed?

Woud it not be reasonable to show, ever more clearly that if there was acutally a boiler fitted within the shed, that was then suppying heat to the house via pipe work that it too would be an example of how the fuel storage shed, a structure, in this case was part of the heating system of the house?

I think that within reason as Class 2 (a) buildings fitting the regulations then I don't see why the clause of "soley" comes into it?
Where in the regulations does it include the words that indicate "solely" or "unique" or "singular" etc. type of use must be the only use of the structure.
The regulations state that " The provision as part of a heating system of a house...of a fuel storage... structure" (I've extracted other parts here that I believe are extraneous to the intrepretation) is exempt.

I'd read that to say that if the primary use of the structure was fule storage so provided to serve the heating system (e.g. a wood fuel boiler (located in either the house or at least an ancillary structure serving the house) that it is exempt.

I appreciate the commentary already received as I do want to get down to the nuts and bolts of the regulations here.
Please clarify what part of the regulations if any include detail of "soley" or "uniquely"?

Timmyboy

in all due respect timmy, it doesnt matter a damn what people "who work outside of planning" think on the matter.
They are not the ones who have to offer, and stand over when legally challenged, an opinion.
It doesnt matter how you, or any one else 'reads' the regulations because at the end of the day someone has to determine if its exempt or not.

I need to respond to this separately.

It does matter what people outside of planning think.
That's the whole point of exempted development, it's exempted from going through the planning application process and procedures. Works can be carried out exempt of planning regulations because such works are exemptly suported by the planning regulations.

Ultimately it would be down to whether the council planners would reasonably bring successful enforcement procedures upon a development where the development would be of a type I'm describing, i.e. a timber storage shed to support a domestic house heating system.

I don't believe that such procedures would be successful. I don't believe it because of what the regulations say.

Ultimately it would be for the council to challenge that legally (a planning opinion) that may then ultimately have to be determined by a court (a non-planning person).

People outside of planning matter too, also their opinions.

That's why exemptions are important. Because it's the self opinion of those involved in the development that would enable that developmet to be carried out WITHOUT THE INFLUENCE OF PLANNING OFFICIALS!.....

sydthebeat

timmy, im not quite sure what you are looking for here.
if you think youve found some loophole in which you can build as big a "fuel store" type building as you like without planning, well go off then and test your opinion???

if you are correct your section 5 application will be successful, if you are not correct your application will be refused.
are you willing to put your opinion to the test?
you will not find yourself anyone one here will will advise you to flout planning legislation, and if they do they will be in breach of this forums charter.

you can argue your point all you want, you are entitled to hold you opinion... however your opinion has no legal grounding, whereas i am expected to stand over my opinion in a court of law. Theres a huge difference there and thats why i say that, essentially, a lay persons opinion doesnt matter.

whether you believe a court action would be successful is also immaterial and totally hypothetical and adds no credence to your argument.

That's why exemptions are important. Because it's the self opinion of those involved in the development that would enable that developmet to be carried out WITHOUT THE INFLUENCE OF PLANNING OFFICIALS!.

if that is your understanding of how the system of exemptions work im afraid you are completely in the dark.
try selling a property with an 'exempted' extension / shed / fuel store etc and see if its good enough for you to say "sure, i think its exempt... isnt that good enough" or try building something questionable with borrowed money and see if your opinion is good enough
you'd be in for a harsh lesson.

muffler

Timmyboy wrote: »

Ultimately it would be for the council to challenge that legally (a planning opinion) that may then ultimately have to be determined by a court (a non-planning person).

People outside of planning matter too, also their opinions.

Im not aware of any high court judges posting here and your comment above in this regard would be in relation to litigation and a judge rules on the legalities and not the regulations.

Im amazed at how naive you are in this matter.

Timmyboy

I'd like to get away from the track where this conversation is going because certainly it was not my intention to steer the conversation that way and I'm sorry if I did.

I'm not in search of a loophole either.

What I am in search of is reasonable opinions based on the changes to Class 2 structures that were brought about in 2007 at the time of the ending of the government before last.
This was when the Greens and others were trying to take account of allowing reasonable measures for the production of green energy for both domestic and non-domestic buildings.

In the case of domestic builidngs I'm seeking clarification on one matter here from people on boards.

If a person was to build a reasonable sized (say 40m2) timber storage shed, within which was floor space for the storage of stacks of timber and also containing a solid timber boiler that then had piping that fed the heated water to the domestic house and then the cool return water was fed back to the boiler, so that the store and shed IMHO were functioning as part of the heating system of the house, then do people here think that this would be exempt under the Class 2 regulations as were amended by the 2007 changes?

sydthebeat

personally...

like i said previously, there is a facility to sort out the exemption status of queries such as these so my advice in this situation would be to use this facility. You have two determining parties, firstly your local authority and secondly the Bord.


would i go out on a limb and deemed it to be exempt myself, absolutely not.

so that the store and shed IMHO were functioning as part of the heating system of the house

and again, as much as it not what you want to hear, but you 'opinion' actually counts for nothing in this matter. the opinion that matters is the certifier, and then subject to a section 5, the local authority and possibly the bord.

you may well be successful and i can certainly see your argument. But you unwillingness to get a determination is your biggest flaw.

muffler

Timmyboy wrote: »

If a person was to build a reasonable sized (say 40m2) timber storage shed, within which was floor space for the storage of stacks of timber and also containing a solid timber boiler that then had piping that fed the heated water to the domestic house and then the cool return water was fed back to the boiler, so that the store and shed IMHO were functioning as part of the heating system of the house, then do people here think that this would be exempt under the Class 2 regulations as were amended by the 2007 changes?

My personal opinion is that such a shed/store would not be exempt and if I was asked to certify this I wouldn't.

There is an anomaly there which is no different to other aspects of the P & D Regs but to sleep easy at night the least I would be doing is looking for a Section 5 Declaration.

Timmyboy

To sydthebeat:

I want to explain my hesitation and indeed unwillingness to seek a Section 5 on this matter.
The reason that I have this resistance is that I am then as I see it inviting and requesting the Local Authority Planning Department to make a determination on the matter.

As I see it by doing so I may be at risk of the following:
1. That they may rule against the claim for exemption. I could handle that because within reason I do believe that it would be approved by An Bord.
2. That they may start applying other restrictions on development at the site and prevent me from doing other works which were outside of the actual request for approval of exemption that was being sought. i.e. that they woudl script in conditions to the approval of the exemption request and that those conditions would be to usurp allowances to the benefit of the site that I already enjoy. For example they may apply a condition to prevent any Class 3 development as a consequence of what has occurred.

I've had a number of bad experiences with the Plannin Authority from them having me skip between 4 planners before one of them woudl give me a meeting after 8 weeks of waiting, to having a guy tell me that I should have to marry a local from the area in order to be able to build (of course that was in line with his intrepreation of locals only planing and development guideline for the county) etc.
Evem planners that I've met socially are generally unimpressed with the conduct of their own department and have told me face to face that it's essentially an authoritian power enforcement organization. That does not give me any confidence.
Neither have I had any confidence after having maken an objection in the past to see how it led to actions happening outside of the planning department which had a direct bearing on my job.

BryanF

Timmyboy wrote: »

To sydthebeat:

I want to explain my hesitation and indeed unwillingness to seek a Section 5 on this matter.
The reason that I have this resistance is that I am then as I see it inviting and requesting the Local Authority Planning Department to make a determination on the matter.

As I see it by doing so I may be at risk of the following:
1. That they may rule against the claim for exemption. I could handle that because within reason I do believe that it would be approved by An Bord.
2. That they may start applying other restrictions on development at the site and prevent me from doing other works which were outside of the actual request for approval of exemption that was being sought. i.e. that they woudl script in conditions to the approval of the exemption request and that those conditions would be to usurp allowances to the benefit of the site that I already enjoy. For example they may apply a condition to prevent any Class 3 development as a consequence of what has occurred.

I've had a number of bad experiences with the Plannin Authority from them having me skip between 4 planners before one of them woudl give me a meeting after 8 weeks of waiting, to having a guy tell me that I should have to marry a local from the area in order to be able to build (of course that was in line with his intrepreation of locals only planing and development guideline for the county) etc.
Evem planners that I've met socially are generally unimpressed with the conduct of their own department and have told me face to face that it's essentially an authoritian power enforcement organization. That does not give me any confidence.
Neither have I had any confidence after having maken an objection in the past to see how it led to actions happening outside of the planning department which had a direct bearing on my job.

is this just a rant about civil servants? 80quid & 5 weeks, best of luck, I look forward to reading the outcome.

muffler

I want to explain my hesitation and indeed unwillingness to seek a Section 5 on this matter.
The reason that I have this resistance is that I am then as I see it
inviting and requesting the Local Authority Planning Department to make a determination on the matter.

Thats what a Section 5 application is for - to invite the LA to give their determination on whether this type of shed/store is exempt or not.

As I see it by doing so I may be at risk of the following:
1. That they may rule against the claim for exemption. I could handle that because within reason I do believe that it would be approved by An Bord.

So if you think they will rule against it and also that ABP will rule in favour then why not go for it.

2. That they may start applying other restrictions on development at the site and prevent me from doing other works which were outside of the actual request for approval of exemption that was being sought. i.e. that they woudl script in conditions to the approval of the exemption request and that those conditions would be to usurp allowances to the benefit of the site that I already enjoy. For example they may apply a condition to prevent any Class 3 development as a consequence of what has occurred.

They cant apply any conditions to a Section 5 Declaration other than outlining any conditions that are already attached to the exemption in the 2001 Regs or if it breached a condition of a previous planning permission. Im not sure if you fully understand how the Section 5 applications work. They are nothing like a planning application.

I've had a number of bad experiences with the Plannin Authority from them having me skip between 4 planners before one of them woudl give me a meeting after 8 weeks of waiting, to having a guy tell me that I should have to marry a local from the area in order to be able to build (of course that was in line with his intrepreation of locals only planing and development guideline for the county) etc.

I dont see that of any relevance to the topic here

Evem planners that I've met socially are generally unimpressed with the conduct of their own department and have told me face to face that it's essentially an authoritian power enforcement organization. That does not give me any confidence.

As above.

Neither have I had any confidence after having maken an objection in the past to see how it led to actions happening outside of the planning department which had a direct bearing on my job.

Again this is a personal issue and i will tell you though, if you think that planners have in some way disclosed any information or details that weren't available for public consumption then there are avenues open to you. But as before this has nothing to do with the topic.

I think you posted here in the hope that someone would come up with a precedent that you could use to justify your belief that the shed/store is classed as exempt development. None of the regular professionals posting in the C & P forum have given you any encouragement in this regard because they cant. Im not sure what more you expect from this discussion.

From reading your post above its clear that you have had problems with planners in the past and its my belief that you are reluctant to make any form of application but you really shouldn't feel that way. I have dealt with awkward planners in the past and have even "fallen out" with them but in most cases the differences were reconciled by the parties involved. In the couple of isolated situations where I felt certain planners were not treating me on the same level as other agents I went further up the chain of command (armed with evidence of course) and things were done a little differently after that.

To conclude on the matter at hand I can only reaffirm what I stated in an earlier post that I would not sign off on any certificate or opinion that the shed is exempt development. From my reading of the regs it is, as ABP would phrase it, development and not exempted development.