Garden Chalet

martinn123

Hi Guy's

a neighbor is researching placing a Garden Chalet, free standing, at the rear of his house, and I thought I could post some issues here for your thoughts.

It will be a two bed unit, with all the services, on a large Rural site.
His intention is to possibly cater for an elderly parent, or to have accommodation if relatives turn up, looking for a bed.

He is looking at a couple of products.
First a well known Co who specialize in Garden Rooms, their Web-site states that their units comply with current building reg's and a Cert of Compliance is included in their service

Second a Log-Cabin type building.
Their Web-site states that Planning and site suitability is the customers responsibility, no mention of Reg's

Last, a well known Steel Shed Co have a Garden Chalet option.
No info on Planning etc, on their site, but the spec. is a Steel frame, pvc sheeting exterior, pvc windows, doors, 25mm Kingspan, and Plasterboard interior. Internal partitions obviously.

All 3 types go onto a concrete base, with the services installed in the base prior to construction.

So my questions, in General, what are the L/A's attitudes to such a project, do attitudes differ between a Rural site, and say a large garden in a Built up area.

With regard to the Log Cabin, and the Steel Shed Co, are they likely to comply with the Current Reg's, any obvious pitfalls, in their design.

Finally the First Co have a statement on their Site, that under a certain size 25 Sqm, planning may not be required to build the unit, but may be required to use it, sounds a daft statement to make.

As this is at an early stage of research, an Architect will be consulted, and a planning application sought, so just looking for some pointers at this stage

Perhaps, with the Mod's permission I can post links to the Web-sites I will hold off on that for now.

Cheers

Poor Uncle Tom

martinn123 wrote: »

Hi Guy's

a neighbor is researching placing a Garden Chalet, free standing, at the rear of his house, and I thought I could post some issues here for your thoughts.

It will be a two bed unit, with all the services, on a large Rural site.
His intention is to possibly cater for an elderly parent, or to have accommodation if relatives turn up, looking for a bed.

If it is to be used as a separate living unit it will need planning permission, regardless of floor area or position, etc.

martinn123 wrote: »

He is looking at a couple of products.
First a well known Co who specialize in Garden Rooms, their Web-site states that their units comply with current building reg's and a Cert of Compliance is included in their service

Second a Log-Cabin type building.
Their Web-site states that Planning and site suitability is the customers responsibility, no mention of Reg's

Last, a well known Steel Shed Co have a Garden Chalet option.
No info on Planning etc, on their site, but the spec. is a Steel frame, pvc sheeting exterior, pvc windows, doors, 25mm Kingspan, and Plasterboard interior. Internal partitions obviously.

All 3 types go onto a concrete base, with the services installed in the base prior to construction.

Just to clarify that there is a world of difference between the notion of a 'garden room' where someone can go for an occasional retreat from the world in general and the family in particular, to a fully serviced separate living unit catering for additional persons to the original family unit.

martinn123 wrote: »

So my questions, in General, what are the L/A's attitudes to such a project, do attitudes differ between a Rural site, and say a large garden in a Built up area.

Once your neighbour has clarified to the LA what the use of the structure is going to be and if it turns out to be a separate living unit, then the services become the hinging issue. For an urban site where there are services like mains sewer it becomes easier. For a rural site where there are individual septic tanks or treatment systems and water supplies then those issues would need to be dealt with. So there is a potential for a huge difference between rural and urban sites in this case, leaving out the discussion as to whether the LA would even consider granting planning for an additional living unit on the site in the first instance.

martinn123 wrote: »

With regard to the Log Cabin, and the Steel Shed Co, are they likely to comply with the Current Reg's, any obvious pitfalls, in their design.

They are not going to comply with up to date regulations for habitable accommodation in their standard format.

martinn123 wrote: »

Finally the First Co have a statement on their Site, that under a certain size 25 Sqm, planning may not be required to build the unit, but may be required to use it, sounds a daft statement to make.

It's an unsafe caveat, imo. The notion that you can build up to 25 sq m under exempted development and then to change the use of it yourself you would need planning permission. If you didn't get planning permission to change the use, you are then left with a damn expensive coal shed.

martinn123 wrote: »

Perhaps, with the Mod's permission I can post links to the Web-sites I will hold off on that for now.

Cheers

There's really no need as we can discuss it without them, imo.

martinn123

Poor Uncle Tom wrote: »

If it is to be used as a separate living unit it will need planning permission, regardless of floor area or position, etc.


Just to clarify that there is a world of difference between the notion of a 'garden room' where someone can go for an occasional retreat from the world in general and the family in particular, to a fully serviced separate living unit catering for additional persons to the original family unit.

Yes a separate living unit, 2 Bed, Small Kitchen, Bathroom, etc

Poor Uncle Tom wrote:

Once your neighbour has clarified to the LA what the use of the structure is going to be and if it turns out to be a separate living unit, then the services become the hinging issue. For an urban site where there are services like mains sewer it becomes easier. For a rural site where there are individual septic tanks or treatment systems and water supplies then those issues would need to be dealt with. So there is a potential for a huge difference between rural and urban sites in this case, leaving out the discussion as to whether the LA would even consider granting planning for an additional living unit on the site in the first instance.

He has his own Waste Water treatment on site, expects to connect to that, mains water on site. both are servicing his existing house.

Poor Uncle Tom wrote:

They are not going to comply with up to date regulations for habitable accommodation in their standard format.

Could you elaborate on this point please

Poor Uncle Tom

martinn123 wrote: »

Yes a separate living unit, 2 Bed, Small Kitchen, Bathroom, etc

Then, as stated you would be looking at planning permission.

martinn123 wrote: »

He has his own Waste Water treatment on site, expects to connect to that, mains water on site. both are servicing his existing house.

Depends on the local authority, but any that I have dealt with when discussing a separate living unit on a rural site would require a separate treatment system and separate water connection.

martinn123 wrote: »

Could you elaborate on this point please

From experience of dealing with the standard format of construction of both the Log Cabin and Steel frame type build I found that they were not equiped for the levels of insulation or air tightness required under the present requirements of the Building Regulations.

martinn123

Poor Uncle Tom wrote: »

Then, as stated you would be looking at planning permission.

Depends on the local authority, but any that I have dealt with when discussing a separate living unit on a rural site would require a separate treatment system and separate water connection.


From experience of dealing with the standard format of construction of both the Log Cabin and Steel frame type build I found that they were not equiped for the levels of insulation or air tightness required under the present requirements of the Building Regulations.

thanks for that, in relation to treatment System the L.A require at least .2 Ha of a site to facilitate proper treatment, percolation area etc, he has just about that area, surrounding his existing home.

The original planning was granted with the treatment system catering for 5/6 residents. Its a well known system, Biocycle.
Now the kids have moved on and the house has 2 residents, could you make a case for connecting to the existing system as the Chalet will add 2/3 residents and only occasionaly, putting no additional pressure on the system than was originally proposed.
There would be no issue in connecting water, say with a new meter, as its on site. ESB is obviously available with a new meter.

muffler

The treatment systems are designed (and approved by the LA) to cater for the "possible" number of occupants and take no account of the actual numbers as that can change. In short its all based on the number of bedrooms.

rayjdav

The fact that the kids have "moved on" does not really come into it imo. The system was designed by the PE method I assume and therefore relates to the "possible" occupancy of the house not the "actual". If permission was granted, it is attached to the unit hereafter and say the house was sold and had a full compliment of beds used again, together with the Chalet at full peak, the system was not originally designed to take the additional loadings so therefore could lead to failure. This is what the LA would argue I assume?

You would also have to look at plot ratio as per you CDP as sub-division of sites was cracked down on in the last 6-8yrs in my eperience, additional (possible) traffic movements to access area and fro the LA perspective, precedent.

martinn123

muffler wrote: »

The treatment systems are designed (and approved by the LA) to cater for the "possible" number of occupants and take no account of the actual numbers as that can change. In short its all based on the number of bedrooms.

O.K so he has 3 bedrooms in the house, and the chalet will add 2.
Assuming the treatment system is designed for a home with 5 bedrooms, might he be approved to connect to it.

Biocycle wrote:

EN 12566-3 is the new standard for wastewater treatment systems up to a population equivalent of 50. The bioCycle™ system underwent 38 weeks of testing in a EN 12566-3 accredited test facility to assess its treatment efficiency, structural behavior and water tightness. On successful completion of testing the bioCycle™ system was awarded the following CE mark.

It appears to be certified for a population equivalent of 50 ( Big House)

daver123

A neighbour of mine built a small unit out the back of his house for his father to live in, he got the planning permission as a games room and then the father moved in to it, the esb and gas are connected to the main house.

martinn123

daver123 wrote: »

A neighbour of mine built a small unit out the back of his house for his father to live in, he got the planning permission as a games room and then the father moved in to it, the esb and gas are connected to the main house.

As a Games room, he may not have needed permission, less than 25 SqM.

i imaging once it became habitable, i.e once his father moved in that changed

muffler

martinn123 wrote: »

O.K so he has 3 bedrooms in the house, and the chalet will add 2.
Assuming the treatment system is designed for a home with 5 bedrooms, might he be approved to connect to it.

Technically, yes, thats a point worth arguing but obviously needs backed up with a site assessment report.

But there are 2 other factors here. First of all the planners could take the view (and perhaps rightly so) that to permit another dwelling connect to the existing on site treatment plant would be in breach of the original permission.

Then there is the small matter of allowing 2 separate dwellings use the same system. As has been seen in various threads in this forum different councils take a different view on various aspects of planning and here in Donegal for example the idea of a second dwelling sharing a treatment system is frowned upon. Leaving the capability of the system aside there is the big issue of maintenance and that's one of the main reasons my local council dont look favourably on such matters.

archtech

An other matter to bear in mind is the separation distances from the new "residential" accommodation and the treatment unit/percolation area, even if one unit between 2 residential units is acceptable to the planning authority.

martinn123

rayjdav wrote: »

The fact that the kids have "moved on" does not really come into it imo. The system was designed by the PE method I assume and therefore relates to the "possible" occupancy of the house not the "actual". If permission was granted, it is attached to the unit hereafter and say the house was sold and had a full compliment of beds used again, together with the Chalet at full peak, the system was not originally designed to take the additional loadings so therefore could lead to failure. This is what the LA would argue I assume?

You would also have to look at plot ratio as per you CDP as sub-division of sites was cracked down on in the last 6-8yrs in my eperience, additional (possible) traffic movements to access area and fro the LA perspective, precedent.

Thanks for that, the plot has in recent history been sub-divided, original, site .5Ha with house pre 63, in last 15 yrs, with family dispersed, one family member in original house, with a disability, sibling, got permission to build behind family home, to ''look after'' family member
So A further sub division not realistic.
But that's not whats required, just a Chalet, for occasional occupation, or an elderly relative residence.

Poor Uncle Tom

The plot history would certainly be taken into account by the LA when any application is being determined.

Also just to note that the quote you have taken from the treatment system supplier is recent and may not apply to the system in place. If the system is in place for a while it may not be in compliance with the EPA's Code of Practice.

But the actual deal breaker for the treatment system would be that when you hook up a separate living unit to an existing system (regardless of populations) it is no longer in accordance with the EPA's Code of Practice as this only deals with systems serving single houses. Therefore the treatment system would need to be dealt with like a system serving multiple units, with all that this entails.

You mention that the house was designed for a family, now the kids have grown up and moved on leaving just 2 people in the house. Why not re-design the spare area possibly incorporating a small extension to get the space needed? You would have the bonus of it not being a separate living unit and therefore no need of additional works to the treatment system, etc.

Anyway, I'm sure your neighbour will get all this advice when s/he employs a professional.

martinn123

Poor Uncle Tom wrote: »

Why not re-design the spare area possibly incorporating a small extension to get the space needed? You would have the bonus of it not being a separate living unit and therefore no need of additional works to the treatment system, etc.

Anyway, I'm sure your neighbour will get all this advice when s/he employs a professional.

Short answer, he doesn't mind the Mother in Law, moving in,:D as long as its not into the house.

sydthebeat

martinn123 wrote: »

, for occasional occupation, or an elderly relative residence.

'Occassional occupation' for the ancillary enjoyment of teh home... exempt if under 25 sq m

elderly relative residence... requires permission.


In my experience planners frown upon detached 'granny flat' type developments. This is because if the development is attached it can be conditioned that the structure becomes 'absorbed' when it is no longer in use as a granny flat. However if it is detached it is impossible to condition this.
In theory this structure could be 'let out' when its no longer a granny flat, regardless of the conditions of planning.