PP for attic conversion

mickman

BryanF wrote: »

Know what? Without seeing drawings? Without receiving written correspondence?

know that all attic conversions need planning - unless of course the person tells them that it will be used for storage only

Mearfada

Equally so you cannot refer to text that states that permission is required for an attic conversion. I have been down this road numerous times and can tell you from my experience that its subjective and varies from authority to authority. IMO if its urban and connected to mains services and there are no significant elevational changes then it can be considered exempt but the grey area arises from a planning perspective in relation to the roof windows. any property with existing roof windows that can be manipulated and utilised to comply with regs should have no issues but then again as i say its subjective so i would advise seeking certificate of exemption.

In the UK the height of roof windows is a sensitive issue with regard to overlooking and for non bedroom conversions above eye level windows are acceptable. I have never had an issue with an internal alteration save for listed buildings..the most important aspect of conversions is safety and that it complies with the building regs but this is a separate to whether planning is or is not required. I have asked the dept to issue a guidance doc on this for clarity but they have so far refused to do so which only adds to the confusion

Gumbo

Mearfada wrote: »

Equally so you cannot refer to text that states that permission is required for an attic conversion. I have been down this road numerous times and can tell you from my experience that its subjective and varies from authority to authority. IMO if its urban and connected to mains services and there are no significant elevational changes then it can be considered exempt but the grey area arises from a planning perspective in relation to the roof windows. any property with existing roof windows that can be manipulated and utilised to comply with regs should have no issues but then again as i say its subjective so i would advise seeking certificate of exemption.

In the UK the height of roof windows is a sensitive issue with regard to overlooking and for non bedroom conversions above eye level windows are acceptable. I have never had an issue with an internal alteration save for listed buildings..the most important aspect of conversions is safety and that it complies with the building regs but this is a separate to whether planning is or is not required. I have asked the dept to issue a guidance doc on this for clarity but they have so far refused to do so which only adds to the confusion

Like this?

http://www.environ.ie/en/DevelopmentHousing/BuildingStandards/PublicationsDocuments/FileDownLoad,1657,en.pdf

mickman

the debate rages on!

RITwing

Mearfada wrote: »

Equally so you cannot refer to text that states that permission is required for an attic conversion.

But one can place duty of care to ones' clients to the fore. The risk to the safety of users of attic conversions have compeled me to take a very narrow view which is if it is not explicitly exempted - it requires planning permision - commenecment notice - building regs compliant design - site insepections and sign off upon completion.

RITwing

mickman wrote: »

the debate rages on!

grabs popcorn

Mearfada

the PDF link posted kceire is a best practise guide relating to construction and regs...take the time to read through it and show me where it clarifies the position on whether loft conversions are exempt or not?

What many people fail to understand is that their is a difference between Building Regs and Planning..Once a development of any kind complies fully with the regs irrespective of planning permission exemptions or planning requirements it is deemed to be built to spec for fire safety purposes etc etc...Planning on the other hand is largely an aesthetic process when it comes to modifications or extensions to domestic dwellings..when one applies for permission the level of drawing detail to be submitted for the Planning element is minimal in comparison to details required for Building Reg Compliance...planners are not concerned about the regs because its not their job...Planners have to look at issues around neighbours amenity, overlooking, scale, mass etc etc...the head height or the pitch of the stairs is not within a planners remit period

RITwing

Sadly what many people understand is that no need for planning permison = just get the builders in. And the hard lesson about building regulations is only discovered years later.

Mearfada

Very True RITwing...I strongly advise anyone getting substantial work done to research everything thoroughly in advance...i'm just clarifying the planning position as I see it...sadly many people interpret planning and building regs to be one and the same

kilclon

Am I right in saying that an attic conversion is a material alteration, and a material alteration requires a commencement notice, assigned certifier, builder, full set of construction drawings etc?
If all of this is required anyway, it wouldn't be a huge cost implication to apply for pp as well, although it would delay the project a few months.

The explanatory leaflet, although useful from a bregs point of view, doesn't adequately address the pp issue. It does however state this:

'In the case of older houses, particularly those of architectural / historic importance the application
of the guidance set out in TGDB (Fire Safety) on Part B of the Building Regulations will not
always be appropriate; and alternative approaches to meeting the fire safety requirements
of the Building Regulations will need to be considered. If your house is a protected structure
(or a proposed protected structure), under the Planning Act 2000, you may require planning
permission for an attic / loft conversion. You, or your professional adviser, should contact the
Conservation Officer in the local planning authority, well in advance of designing or
carrying out the work'

In my view, this implies that if the house is not a protected structure, planning permission is not required. However, as others have pointed out, I too haven't seen anything in the legislation backing this up.

mickman

i also heard someplace that the attic when converted has to be one open room - in other words it cant be divided up

is this true ?

sydthebeat

mickman wrote: »

i also heard someplace that the attic when converted has to be one open room - in other words it cant be divided up

is this true ?

no

mickman

sydthebeat wrote: »

no

second lat paragraph

http://www.atticconversionsireland.com/planningpermission.htm

sydthebeat

mickman wrote: »

second lat paragraph

http://www.atticconversionsireland.com/planningpermission.htm

did you even read that article?

mickman

sydthebeat wrote: »

did you even read that article?

?

yes

The last main point to avail of planning exemption is that the room must not be sub-divided. It must remain as one open space and even placing a toilet in the area renders it illegal from a planning point of view. This is a contentious issue with many people. Assuming planning permission is not necessary, they go ahead and convert the attic into a number of bedrooms, only to find if they go to sell or re-mortgage the house that an architect will not issue a planning compliance certificate.

sydthebeat

? you never mentioned anything about 'planning exempt'....

you asked

the attic when converted has to be one open room - in other words it cant be divided up

thats quite a simple statement, and one which is clearly incorrect.


looks its very simple.
an attic conversion which can be used for habitable purposes requires planning permission

if you have any doubts on this, contact your local planning authority.

edit: to flesh this out

Different councils are free to interpret the planning and development acts in whatever manner they deem fit, they are legally protected to do so AFAIK. This leads to loads of differing opinions throughout the country, when theres no statutory exemption on attic conversions.
All parties claiming conversions are exempt are referring to section 4 1 h of P+D act 2000. Local authorities have a very narrow view about what constitutes exemption in accordance to this section, whereas ABP and courts have been less restrictive in their decisions when asked.
These differing views leads to the complete mess we have currently...
for example some councils include attic conversion areas as cumulative when deciding if further extensions are exempt, whereas other LAs dont.
some LAs say that dormer windows require permission whereas rooflights dont.
some say only rooflights to rear are exempt (regardless of having no statutory basis to say so)
some say all windows to rear are exempt
some say the proposed use is the determining factor
some say the possible use is the determining factor


so in the light of all this mess, those of us who are left to certify these works as exempt or not take a very simple view of them....
readily habitable = permission required
uninhabitable = planning exempt.


if we go into an attic space that has a fixed stairs, a small rooflight high up and has a 6 1/2' floor to ceiling height, we generally would accept that the space isnt habitable. However if it has a fixed stairs, a fire escape rooflight, fixed heating system, decent floor to ceiling height (anthing above 2.1m is enough for me) then it can be used as habitable space and therefore requires planning.
if the client doesnt accept this fine, i walk, and suggest they apply for a section V declaration.

Poor Uncle Tom

sydthebeat wrote: »

those of us who are left to certify these works as exempt or not take a very simple view of them....
readily habitable = permission required
uninhabitable = planning exempt.

Simples

Gumbo

Mearfada wrote: »

What many people fail to understand is that their is a difference between Building Regs and Planning..Once a development of any kind complies fully with the regs irrespective of planning permission exemptions or planning requirements it is deemed to be built to spec for fire safety purposes etc etc...Planning on the other hand is largely an aesthetic process when it comes to modifications or extensions to domestic dwellings..when one applies for permission the level of drawing detail to be submitted for the Planning element is minimal in comparison to details required for Building Reg Compliance...planners are not concerned about the regs because its not their job...Planners have to look at issues around neighbours amenity, overlooking, scale, mass etc etc...the head height or the pitch of the stairs is not within a planners remit period

I have a distinct feeling, that I'm quite aware of that

Mearfada

Syd maybe if you qualified your statement on habitable attic space requiring permission as being your opinion and interpretation and one that you advance to clients who engage your services

RITwing

Can you re phrase ? Maybe what ?
It sounds like you left the point of your post out.
Certifiers are engaged to offer opinions on compliance with planning permision after all.

Mearfada

Rephrase what exactly?? I am saying that definitive statements like the one made by Syd in the last post should be qualified as being an opinion whether it be professional or otherwise. The truth of the matter is that there is no clarity and much ambiguity on this issue and in the absence of clear guidance it is a matter of interpretation by individual LA's.

I think what people reading this thread should take away with them is that they should endeavour to contact their local authority and act accordingly besides taking direction from an internet discussion portal

sydthebeat

I don't think i left any ambiguity in my post. I've stated what i, and other professionals whom i know who are asked to certify, state when faced with an attic conversion.

RITwing

Mearfada wrote: »

I think what people reading this thread should take away with them is that they should endeavour to contact their local authority

What permenantly useful thing will they gain by that action?

Not one thing.

For at the point of sale or remortgage the conveyancing solicitors will seek from you ( those with attic convesrions ) an architects opinion.

The LA will not offer any acceptable substitute.

RITwing

Mearfada wrote: »

there is no clarity and much ambiguity on this issue and in the absence of clear guidance it is a matter of interpretation by individual

There is. There is not. The interpretation of the LA is always trumped by http://conveyancinghandbook.lawsociety.ie/App03/A3-33.pdf. LA's will avoid at all costs taking a risk by actually excersing the powers confered on them by statute. When they are presented with such an opinion they politely go away. I have seen this more than once.

Mearfada wrote: »

besides taking direction from an internet discussion portal

My posts in particular. Follow my guidance at your own peril all who read it.

.

Mearfada

why an Architects opinion? why not a building surveyor, structural engineer, planning consultant?? how is an architect an expert on planning law at the exclusion of others?

ultimately an opinion that is given to a solicitor for conveyancing purposes could well transpire to be incorrect and may impact future sales down the line depending on the next conveyancing solicitor who may take a different view and who may receive an opposing view on the planning status of a development.

unfortunately an architects opinion in real terms is only that, an opinion. If there is genuine uncertainty around an extension or other modification I am advising people to go to the LA and seek a certificate of exemption or seek retention permission. This is the only opinion that will stand up to scrutiny for posterity

i have seen instance of sales going through all the "correct procedures" only to end in enforcement later. The local authority or bord pleanala are the only opinions that matter with regard to planning in this jurisdiction

RITwing

Mearfada wrote: »

why an Architects opinion? why not a building surveyor, structural engineer, planning consultant?? how is an architect an expert on planning law at the exclusion of others?

Indeed. It does excercise the Law Society - see here. Another official document which may lead to differing conclusions. But I read that architects are de facto "the choosen ones"

Mearfada wrote: »

ultimately an opinion that is given to a solicitor for conveyancing purposes could well transpire to be incorrect and may impact future sales down the line depending on the next conveyancing solicitor who may take a different view and who may receive an opposing view on the planning status of a development.

And yet is is the standard practice

Mearfada wrote: »

unfortunately an architects opinion in real terms is only that, an opinion. If there is genuine uncertainty around an extension or other modification I am advising people to go to the LA and seek a certificate of exemption or seek retention permission. This is the only opinion that will stand up to scrutiny for posterity

i have seen instance of sales going through all the "correct procedures" only to end in enforcement later. The local authority or bord pleanala are the only opinions that matter with regard to planning in this jurisdiction

One hopes the Law Society is reading this

mickman

sorry i opened this thread now :-)

sydthebeat

mickman wrote: »

sorry i opened this thread now :-)

not at all, it just goes to show the complete mess the whole situation is in.

the more i deal with civil servants and their output, the more i recognise their complete lack of "real world" understanding.

RITwing

mickman wrote: »

sorry i opened this thread now :-)

Yes go stand in a corner :-)

mickman

sydthebeat wrote: »

not at all, it just goes to show the complete mess the whole situation is in.

the more i deal with civil servants and their output, the more i recognise their complete lack of "real world" understanding.

i agree.

To be honest what i think is most sutiable to my situation is to build the conversion adhereing to building regs incl fire stuff but dont get planning

If i sell in future then get planning

i know ye are going to say thats wrong