What's the difference between a window and a rooflight

antiskeptic

I'm considering building a single storey, rear-of-house extension to an end of terrace house. The extension generally falls within the bounds of exempted development.

One side wall of the extension (along with the gable wall of the house it extends from) constitutes a boundary wall. There's a footpath on the other side of this wall.

I want to put glazing in this boundary wall at high level given the aspect is otherwise poor - but would fall foul of the exempted development requirement that stipulates that ground floor windows be 1 metre from the boundary which they face.

I gather rooflights aren't an issue however. If so, a simple workaround would be to construct a section of roof on top of this boundary wall at a steep angle (say 15 degrees from vertical) and fit rooflights to it at that same angle from vertical. A simpler alternative would be to build windows in the boundary wall itself but angle them backwards at 15 degrees.

See sketch:




Option 1 strikes me as a goer, option 2 not - even though they achieve the same thing (would cladding the upper section of option 2 with tiles constitute a roof )

So: what's the official difference between a window and a rooflight? Has anyone experience in dealing with this issue (with a view to being able to have the building signed off as conforming with planned regs)?

Thanks..


PS: what's the situation with glass blocks when it comes to planning. Are they considered windows?

DOCARCH

antiskeptic wrote: »

What's the situation with glass blocks when it comes to planning. Are they considered windows?

Yes.

Just a really quick response!

From what you describe/have outlined above, I would consider the provision of roof lights not to be exempt if less than 1.0 metre from the boundary.

I cannot give you a reference but as far as I can recall, I came across this situtaion before, where An Bord Pleanala, if a refferal, deemed roof windows to a single storey extension, less than 1.0 metre from a boundary, not to be exempt.

kkelliher

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm considering building a single storey, rear-of-house extension to an end of terrace house. The extension generally falls within the bounds of exempted development.

One side wall of the extension (along with the gable wall of the house it extends from) constitutes a boundary wall. There's a footpath on the other side of this wall.

I want to put glazing in this boundary wall at high level given the aspect is otherwise poor - but would fall foul of the exempted development requirement that stipulates that ground floor windows be 1 metre from the boundary which they face.

I gather rooflights aren't an issue however. If so, a simple workaround would be to construct a section of roof on top of this boundary wall at a steep angle (say 15 degrees from vertical) and fit rooflights to it at that same angle from vertical. A simpler alternative would be to build windows in the boundary wall itself but angle them backwards at 15 degrees.

See sketch:




Option 1 strikes me as a goer, option 2 not - even though they achieve the same thing (would cladding the upper section of option 2 with tiles constitute a roof )

So: what's the official difference between a window and a rooflight? Has anyone experience in dealing with this issue (with a view to being able to have the building signed off as conforming with planned regs)?

Thanks..


PS: what's the situation with glass blocks when it comes to planning. Are they considered windows?

I would agree that this is not except as otherwise everyone would do this.

Two other points of note:

(1) are you legally allowed to extend and build on the boundary?

(2) why would you want to place windows on the boundary from a security perspective? Surly you could put them on the roof itself?

antiskeptic

kkelliher wrote: »

I would agree that this is not except as otherwise everyone would do this.

Everybody does do it.

The angle of their roofs might vary and the distance from the roof light from the edge of the roof might vary - but you're looking at nothing other than that which graces extensions throughout the land. Velux windows set into single storey extension roofs.

What is permitted (or rather, exempted) regarding this, is the question

(1) are you legally allowed to extend and build on the boundary?

I would see it as less building on the boundary as attaching things to the boundary wall (after once raising it's height) .

But a good point: were is the boundary line for an end of terrace? Is it the line on which outer face of the boundary wall stands, or the middle of the wall (as with a party wall), or the inner face of the wall?

(2) why would you want to place windows on the boundary from a security perspective? Surly you could put them on the roof itself?

To workaround the poor aspect. At 11ft from the ground and in plain view, the windows wouldn't be the preferred route of entry for a robber. They'd also got the issue of the drop of 11ft once they've gained access through the window. There are easier routes into the building that this.

OBrother

The simple solution is to apply for a "declaration of exempt development" from your local planning authority, they should have full instructions on their website as how to do this. It just requires a few sketches and a map and complete a form.
The fee should be about €80. It will solve your problem and if you do get through, it will stave off any objections and allow you to sell your house at a later date without the problem of a non compliant extension.
Send a good letter with it stating why you need the extension.

A fella called fish

antiskeptic wrote:

I would see it as less building on the boundary as attaching things to the boundary wall (after once raising it's height

So you're building on the boundary wall...

Aside from the obvious Architectural/Planning and Security considerations noted above, I would also point out that most boundary walls have little or no founation and are mostly formed above the frost line. No doubt the Project's Structural Engineer will advise you on this.....

antiskeptic

A fella called fish wrote: »

So you're building on the boundary wall...

Which begs the question: where's the boundary line in an end of terrace boundary wall (bearing in mind the sketch at the OP which see's the gable wall of the house sitting on the same line as the boundary wall). I'd have thunk the whole width of the gable wall of the house belonged to the house (otherwise you couldn't paint it, for example)

Aside from the obvious Architectural/Planning and Security considerations noted above, I would also point out that most boundary walls have little or no founation and are mostly formed above the frost line. No doubt the Project's Structural Engineer will advise you on this.....

The Projects Structual Engineer (me) was planning on rebuilding the wall altogether adding foundations as we go.

antiskeptic

OBrother wrote: »

The simple solution is to apply for a "declaration of exempt development" from your local planning authority, they should have full instructions on their website as how to do this. It just requires a few sketches and a map and complete a form.
The fee should be about €80. It will solve your problem and if you do get through, it will stave off any objections and allow you to sell your house at a later date without the problem of a non compliant extension.
Send a good letter with it stating why you need the extension.

Thanks. I'll check this out.

I'd written a note to my local planning office in the interim and lo and behold, they got back pretty promptly.

He's digging up the Bord Pleanala references for me but says that the issue has to do with sympathy to the area - that roof lights should look like those being used around and about. I mentioned that fact that there's a hodge podge of rear extensions with all sorts being used as rooflights and he figured I'd not have a problem - espec if not overlooking anyone (which i'm not).

He referred to the option of submitting a "section 5" which might be what you're referring to but said it came with a yes/no answer (which mean a potential no). Going ahead without was, he said, slightly riskier, but if I thought I'd a good case then perhaps more certain a route

OBrother

A section 5 is the 'Declaration'. When you say that its only slightly riskier to go ahead, consider what others have said here in relation to their opinion as to whether it would be exempt. Push the council an the ABP case and try to get their view also in relation to what they might consider "sympathetic" to the area.

DOCARCH

If you look up the definition of what a window is - from the dictionary - it says:

An opening constructed in a wall or roof that functions to admit light or air to an enclosure and is often framed and spanned with glass mounted to permit opening and closing.

So, in my mind no real difference whether or not the window is in the wall or in the roof, vertical or sloped, a window is a window.

Exempted development regulations state that a window is exempt (from the requirement to obtain planning permission), if:

Any window proposed at ground level (in any such extension) shall not be less than 1 metre from the boundary it faces.

Sort of fairly clear cut....in my opinion....just sayin' like.

I would definitely suggest you go down the Section 5 route. If you were my client, that's what I would be telling you to do.

antiskeptic

A section 5 it shall be so.

Thanks to y'all for pointing the way..

LordSutch

Curious: Is a rooflight the same as a Skylight and would the same regulations apply?

antiskeptic

Alongside the rooflight question there was this issue:

antiskeptic wrote:

]Which begs the question: where's the boundary line in an end of terrace boundary wall (see sketch at the OP which sees the gable wall of the house sitting on the same line as the boundary wall between back garden and public footpath).

I'd have thunk the gable wall of the house / garden boundary wall fell within the curtilage of the house

How would one determine this with certainty?

Mellor

I think you're making some bad assumptions.

Option2: It's a window (in a wall) within 1m of the boundary. Not exempt, setting it at angle doesn't make it a roof light.

Option 1: This one hinges upon the opening being a rooflight. Which it might not be. Simply put, a surface that is tilted slightly away from vertical isn't automatically a roof.

I don't think 15 degrees from vertical is enough to be a roof.
In my understanding,
0-10 degrees: Flat Roof
10-70 degrees: Pitched roof
70-90 degrees: Wall

I can't remember where these came from off hand, but they're the numbers I've used since I was in college.

antiskeptic

Mellor wrote: »

I think you're making some bad assumptions.

I'm assuming nothing at the moment to be honest. Just shaking the tree to see what falls out. Through ignorance more than anything else, I built an extension a number of years ago which fell foul of the exemption rules on a number of scores. As it happens, no one objected but I'd prefer to get off on the right foot this time round.

Option2: It's a window (in a wall) within 1m of the boundary. Not exempt, setting it at angle doesn't make it a roof light.

I agree. It just struck me that if option 1 was a runner, there would be no material difference between what had been achieved between option 1 and 2. Rendering the law a bit of an ass.

Option 1: This one hinges upon the opening being a rooflight. Which it might not be. Simply put, a surface that is tilted slightly away from vertical isn't automatically a roof.

I don't think 15 degrees from vertical is enough to be a roof.
In my understanding,
0-10 degrees: Flat Roof
10-70 degrees: Pitched roof
70-90 degrees: Wall

So I should consider increasing the angle from 15 to 20.1 degrees?

I can't remember where these came from off hand, but they're the numbers I've used since I was in college.

So they should be called Mansard walls not Mansard roofs?

muffler

antiskeptic wrote: »

Through ignorance more than anything else, I built an extension a number of years ago which fell foul of the exemption rules on a number of scores. As it happens, no one objected but I'd prefer to get off on the right foot this time round.

You want to get it right but you are still grasping at straws. You were advised by several posters here to look for a Section 5 Declaration so why the reluctance to do so?

I have an idea where this is going so perhaps you wouldnt mind reading our forum charter particularity Section 6.

DOCARCH

antiskeptic wrote: »

So I should consider increasing the angle from 15 to 20.1 degrees?

A window is a window - whether it be in a wall or a roof.

If (part) of that window comes within 1.0 metres of the boundary, imho, it needs planning permission, not matter how you want to dress it up.

You really are not going to get the answer you want here - it would be folly for anybody to say to you to fire away...it'll be grand!

antiskeptic

muffler wrote: »

You want to get it right but you are still grasping at straws. You were advised by several posters here to look for a Section 5 Declaration so why the reluctance to do so?

I've already said that section 5 is the way I'll go (see a few posts above you). You responded thereafter and I'm responding to what you had to say.

I don't see the harm in seeking clarity so as to improve the chances of a "yes". Hence, for example, my enquiry into what constitutes a boundary line. I'd appreciate your view on that also.

I have an idea where this is going so perhaps you wouldnt mind reading our forum charter particularity Section 6.

I can't see anything in my response that does other than follow on from what you have to say. For example: considering altering the angle from 15 to 20.1 degrees to ensure I had a roof and not a wall - were it that a roof proved more advantageous than a wall.

In doing so I would be conforming to the law whilst taking advantage of what it permits. Is that out of order?

antiskeptic

DOCARCH wrote: »

A window is a window - whether it be in a wall or a roof.

I don't reckon it kosher to post what the local planning had to say but he made no mention of the 1 metre rule when faced with the same sketch posted in the OP. Rather, he referred to an An Bord Pleanala ruling on the matter (of rooflights (in the roof of the house proper) which were found to be exempt.

http://www.pleanala.ie/casenum/RL2284.htm


A rough measurement (from Google satellite view) indicates the second storey roof lights to be closer than 11m to boundary they face. The issue appears to have revolved around the matter of their harmonising with the surrounding properties

If (part) of that window comes within 1.0 metres of the boundary, imho, it needs planning permission, not matter how you want to dress it up.
You really are not going to get the answer you want here - it would be folly for anybody to say to you to fire away...it'll be grand!

Your view is appreciated. Truly. There's no big issue with me stepping back the roof by 1 meter (see sketch )- it could make an architecturally interesting feature. Constraints are what make things fun in life - no constraints is no fun. I'm just finding out what those are in order to be able to press up against them.


And view on what constitutes a the boundary line of the boundary wall shown in the sketch?

sydthebeat

antiskeptic wrote: »

And view on what constitutes a the boundary line of the boundary wall shown in the sketch?

in the vast vast majority of cases in ireland, the notional boundary line is the center of any shared boundary.

so in you case it is most probably the centre line of the wall you wish to remove.

have a read of this

muffler

antiskeptic wrote: »

I don't see the harm in seeking clarity so as to improve the chances of a "yes"

No harm at all in seeking clarity but that has been done and I think the majority of people who replied here pointed you in the right direction. You see, it doesn't matter what we think or what words of wisdom are imparted but the fact of the matter is that we cant give you any formal confirmation as to whether your proposal is exempt or not. That is a matter for your local planning Dept.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Hence, for example, my enquiry into what constitutes a boundary line. I'd appreciate your view on that also.

Same as above. We cant tell you where your boundary is. You need to check your deeds and accompanying maps.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I can't see anything in my response that does other than follow on from what you have to say. For example: considering altering the angle from 15 to 20.1 degrees to ensure I had a roof and not a wall - were it that a roof proved more advantageous than a wall.

We are sailing close to the wind with this angle (no pun intended) having regards to the forum charter. Basically you are nit picking definitions and making suggestions in the hope that someone will come up with an idea of how you could adjust the design in order to leave it exempt (possibly).

A general observation though is to ask why you dont want to proceed with the section 5 application and to go a step further why are you opposed to applying for planning permission for the proposed extension. Maybe Im missing something here.

antiskeptic wrote: »

In doing so I would be conforming to the law whilst taking advantage of what it permits. Is that out of order?

Certainly not out of order at all. But I still fail to see why you are looking at methods that would render the proposal more expensive to construct (exempted development) as opposed to going for a "straight forward" extension. I think the extra costs associated with the way you intend to build (assuming it is exempt) will far outweigh the cost of a planning application for a more standard type of extension.

antiskeptic

muffler wrote: »

No harm at all in seeking clarity but that has been done and I think the majority of people who replied here pointed you in the right direction. You see, it doesn't matter what we think or what words of wisdom are imparted but the fact of the matter is that we cant give you any formal confirmation as to whether your proposal is exempt or not. That is a matter for your local planning Dept.

Understood. But in going the section 5 route I want to avoid if I can, things that obviously trample over what planning would find acceptable. I've my local planner indicating "harmony" rather than 1 meter from the boundary being the issue. And others here pointing to the 1 meter

Based on what all say I'll find myself plumping for this or that design when submitting the section 5

Same as above. We cant tell you where your boundary is. You need to check your deeds and accompanying maps.

Fair enough. It struck me that the gable wall of an end of terrace house (the full thickness of it that is) would belong to the property (unlike the party wall which divides it from it's neighbour.

If that's not necessarily so then fine. I'm only asking

We are sailing close to the wind with this angle (no pun intended) having regards to the forum charter. Basically you are nit picking definitions and making suggestions in the hope that someone will come up with an idea of how you could adjust the design in order to leave it exempt (possibly).

A general observation though is to ask why you dont want to proceed with the section 5 application and to go a step further why are you opposed to applying for planning permission for the proposed extension. Maybe Im missing something here.

As mentioned already, a section 5 is the way I'm going but I'm trying to avoid wasting time and money by ascertaining what is likely to attract a yes rather than a no vote.

I see nothing untoward were I to establish that a roof begins at 20 degrees and a Velux in same is exempt. Why on earth would a person not understand and extract benefit from the rules as they stand instead of going down the more expensive route of a planning application?

Certainly not out of order at all. But I still fail to see why you are looking at methods that would render the proposal more expensive to construct (exempted development) as opposed to going for a "straight forward" extension. I think the extra costs associated with the way you intend to build (assuming it is exempt) will far outweigh the cost of a planning application for a more standard type of extension.

Illumination at that side elevation is critical so let's say it would be required whatever the planning route.

I've the choice of applying for relatively expensive permission (or do the it myself - which is costly in uber-restricted disposable time) which includes proposing whatever glazing I think might be granted approval on that side elevation. Unless I fancy rejection, I'd imagine I'd still be on here trying to find out which kind of design falls outside the kind of thing planners will pass. I'd still be talking constraints and would still find myself wanting to maximise benefit whilst falling within them.

Or I can go the relatively cheap section 5 route (my current preference)

Or I can assume rooflights are exempt based on what the local planner has said and referred to by way of ABP decision.


Question: is the planner going to utilise different evaluation criteria when faced with a full planning application vs. the criteria used when considering a section 5 application? If not then that would be one reason to dispense with a full planning application.

antiskeptic

sydthebeat wrote: »

in the vast vast majority of cases in ireland, the notional boundary line is the center of any shared boundary.

so in you case it is most probably the centre line of the wall you wish to remove.

have a read of this

Thanks Syd

I've only skimmed it ( I must say this whole area is fascinating) but this popped out on page 7..

Definition of works:

(a) carrying out works of adjustment, alteration, cutting into or away, decoration, demolition,improvement, lowering, maintenance, raising, renewal, repair, replacement, strengthening or taking down


-


The Rights of the Building Owner.

Section 44 of the Act confers a new statutory right upon landowners to carry out works on a party structure if a number of preconditions are met. The building owner is entitled to carry out the works for the following purposes:


(b) carrying out development which is exempted development or development for which planning permission has been obtained or compliance with any condition attached to such permission, or”

It would appear possible to both demolish (for it is falling down) the boundary wall and to rebuild it to a greater height for the purposes of and extension.

Which is of interest given the party wall on the other side is crumbling - although up to now, the idea was to build a new all inside it leaving it undisturbed.

sydthebeat

antiskeptic wrote: »

Understood. But in going the section 5 route I want to avoid if I can, things that obviously trample over what planning would find acceptable. I've my local planner indicating "harmony" rather than 1 meter from the boundary being the issue. And others here pointing to the 1 meter
.

in all due respect to that planner, s/he was only commenting on the exempted status roof rooflights in general... not the whole design you have proposed.

antiskeptic

sydthebeat wrote: »

in all due respect to that planner, s/he was only commenting on the exempted status roof rooflights in general... not the whole design you have proposed.

What's not general about my rooflights? It's a pitched roof with a coupla Veluxs in it

Anyway, they were asked to comment on roof lights in the context of sketch provided in post 1. And appeared not so much to say that rooflights were generally exempt but that I would be better protected from trouble (i.e. successful objection) were I to ensure the rooflights harmonised with the type being used in the area (which seems to be the basis on which the ABP 'defendant' was granted an exemption for his rooflights).

When told of the hodge podge of extensions and rooflights around the area he kind of shrugged his shoulders (in so far as one can detect a shoulder shrug during a phone conversation) in a "you have your answer" kind of way

muffler

antiskeptic wrote: »

(in so far as one can detect a shoulder shrug during a phone conversation)

In this business the issues debated/agreed/suggested or whatever in a phone call means sweet FA. Unlike ringing service providers like Eircom, Sky etc where phone calls are recorded you should follow up any phone conversation with something in writing.

Which brings us full circle - Section 5 declaration or planning permission.

antiskeptic

muffler wrote: »

In this business the issues debated/agreed/suggested or whatever in a phone call means sweet FA. Unlike ringing service providers like Eircom, Sky etc where phone calls are recorded

Who say's it wasn't

you should follow up any phone conversation with something in writing.

I did - I wrote to him giving the same sketch as in the OP and he wrote back summarising the contents of our telephone conversation.

Which brings us full circle - Section 5 declaration or planning permission.

From an earlier post:

antiskeptic wrote:

A section 5 it shall be so.

Is it okay if I proceed with my enquiries here on the basis of wanting to better construct my section 5 submission?

muffler

antiskeptic wrote: »

Is it okay if I proceed with my enquiries here on the basis of wanting to better construct my section 5 submission?

Carry on, providing your comments dont breach the forum charter

Oh, if you were suggesting you recorded a phone call without the other party's consent then you really need to brush up on the law.