Is garage built on gable of house exempt ?

joebre

Am looking at a situation where a garage was built onto the gable of a detached bungalow. The garage does not come forward of the building line, has the same ridge height as the bungalow and is less than 25m2. Is the garage exempt ?

Subsequently, the garage was converted to habitable by knocking through a door in the gable and putting in a new front window.
I know that the conversion of a garage is exempt, subject to limits, but the final conversion would only be exempt if the construction of the garage was exempt in the first place.

DOCARCH

What overall height would you estimate the garage (that was) to be, from ground level to ridge/highest point?

That's the only sticky bit.

joebre

Haven't seen the property yet. I am aware of the ridge limit of 4m, where there is a pitched roof.
This would appear to be the one scenario where you could build a garage on to the side of a house and subsequently convert to habitable, without having to go for planning permission.

RITwing

Extensions to the side of a property are not exempt.

Gumbo

RITwing wrote: »

Extensions to the side of a property are not exempt.

I thought as a garage use they are?

RITwing

No.
If the permitted layout included a garage attached to the side a house then you can convert that garage as exempt development.
But you cannot simply build a garage (or anything else) to the side without permision.

Gumbo

RITwing wrote: »

No.
If the permitted layout included a garage attached to the side a house then you can convert that garage as exempt development.
But you cannot simply build a garage (or anything else) to the side without permision.

I must have been getting my wires crossed but I've often heard (or thought I heard) planning enforcement officers saying a garage at side is exempt and that they use the shed exemption limits as guidance for the numbers involved.

joebre

No real proof yet saying you cannot build garage onto gable !
Provided not forward of building line and not larger than 25m2?

I have since seen this house and the garage has a ridge height of 5m, matching the original house.

That may be the one thing that prevents the garage from being exempt ?

RITwing

http://touch.boards.ie/thread/2057293559/1/#post92278308

No proof ? Let that guy know so.

BryanF

joebre wrote: »

No real proof yet saying you cannot build garage onto gable !
Provided not forward of building line and not larger than 25m2?

I have since seen this house and the garage has a ridge height of 5m, matching the original house.

That may be the one thing that prevents the garage from being exempt ?

Contact the council and ask for a letter from the planning department stating your garage is exempt from planning, please come back and let us know what they say.

sydthebeat

this is a sticky one.

a garage can be converted without permission.
a garage can be built "not forward to the front wall of a house" without permission

see pages 241 + 242 here

however, there is no mention that you can build a garage as an extension to the house without permission (its implied that its a separate structure), plus one of the conditions of the exemption status of a garage is that

The structure shall not be used for
human habitation

so with these two issues in mind, its easier to argue that whats was done in the OP requires permission, that argue its exempt.
Any certifier offering their opinion would have to satisfy themselves by picturing themselves in a court dock answering in front of a judge.

Corkblowin

sydthebeat wrote: »

(its implied that its a separate structure)

I don't think you can simply say its implied that the store or garage is a separate structure. The regs make no reference to position other than it must not be forward of the front wall - I'd find it hard to argue that the wording means a garage cannot share a common wall with the main house.

OP - I got a certificate of exemption for something very similar last year - mind you there was 10+ years between building the garage and converting it. Write to the council asking them to confirm your belief it is exempt, outlining your reasoning, and see how it goes.

RITwing

Corkblowin wrote: »

I don't think you can simply say its implied that the store or garage is a separate structure.

You can. At P 237 reference is made to a garage attached to the side. At P 242 reference is made to a garage being - placed - not attached to the side.

To recap - you may covert an attached garage if that garage formed part of the original consent

You can erect a detached garage.

Thats it.

The OPs case requires permission.

Corkblowin

RITwing wrote: »

Thats it.

The OPs case requires permission.

Thats me told. Must be fantastic to be so certain of ones own opinion. Perhaps you'd better write to the LA that granted my client an exemption and inform them of the error of their ways.

BTW, It says 'constructed, erected or placed' not just placed. Why can't it be placed right up against the house?

Anyway, not getting into a debate, the OP has his various advices - its up to him what to do from here.

RITwing

Ah CB do not misunderstand me I am not meaning to "tell" you or anyone else anything. In all I post on this there is a subtext which is - if the OP asked me for one of these would I prepare one for him ? Empahtically - no. But not because of certainties - because of doubts and uncertainties and syds posts touches on that very well.

Looking at the link he posted at P241 begins "Class 1 Extension of a house" and then states one may extend to the rear and/or convert to the side. at P243 "Class 3 The construction, erection or placing within the curtilage of a house" it goes on to include garage. If the (exempt) regulations were intended to mean that a new garage may be attached to the house then the word attached would appear in Class 3 description. I agree a garage could be placed alongside a house with say a 10mm separation gap and comply. That would not in due course trigger a Class 1 conversion - the garage is not attached. And if one "placed" the garage against the gable wall i.e. you build only 3 new walls to enclose the garage well that does not comply with Class 3 .

You say a client was granted an exemption - I assume that was a Section 5 Declaration. That means that in your clients case his LA took a particular view. They may not again in a similar situtaion - Murphys Law says they would not in me/my clients identical situtaion.

I have lost work, clients and even fallen out with family members over my stance on this issue and the equally exasperating issue of attic conversions.

But I am right.

.

Poor Uncle Tom

RITwing wrote: »

If the (exempt) regulations were intended to mean that a new garage may be attached to the house then the word attached would appear in Class 3 description.

If the (exempt) regulations were worded perfectly then that would be the case, as we are all too painfully aware the (exempt) regulations are anything but worded perfectly.

If your premis is correct the word 'awning' has no place in the same exempt grouping, as the regulations don't state specifically that it can not be attached to the side of a house, obviously it can.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Awning

RITwing wrote: »

I agree a garage could be placed alongside a house with say a 10mm separation gap and comply. That would not in due course trigger a Class 1 conversion - the garage is not attached. And if one "placed" the garage against the gable wall i.e. you build only 3 new walls to enclose the garage well that does not comply with Class 3 .

In my opinion, one has to make a far greater leap of logic to make your premis hold true, than it does to accept that a garage can be constructed onto the side of a house and be exempt.

By your logic, to be exempt a garage has to have four new walls. Does it also follow that if a garage is constructed against a boundary wall (with the relevant neighbours permission of course), that it can't be considered to be an exempt development?

RITwing wrote: »

That means that in your clients case his LA took a particular view. They may not again in a similar situtaion - Murphys Law says they would not in me/my clients identical situtaion.

It's all about how something is presented, for instance the (exempt) regulations as presented here are not very clear, if they had been we wouldn't be reading this thread.

RITwing wrote: »

I have lost work, clients and even fallen out with family members over my stance on this issue and the equally exasperating issue of attic conversions.

But I am right.

I'm afraid you have fallen at the last hurdle! (in my opinion only of course....:))

For the benefit of the Opening Post and the question asked I think the Opening Poster is aware that the garage he is speaking about is not an exempted development as the height is in excess of the stated limit. For the purpose of the discussion that ensued relating to the wording of the regulations, it is always wise to request confirmation from the LA as a letter of comfort on a file may help cure insomnia.

RITwing

So now it is my turn to be "told"

I think we can agree there are abiguities. Those lead me to a negative view for reasons I have posted and won't re hash.

But suppose the OP garage in question was within the premitted height - would you prepare an opinion for it ?

I have had (in a different circumstance) an occasion whereby I made an enquiry about a situation where I had a doubt about compliance. I was careful in my enquiries not to tell the LA the property location and asked a "hypothethical/what if" only. Just as well I did so for one may seek a letter of comfort only to recive an enforcement action....

.

Poor Uncle Tom

RITwing wrote: »

So now it is my turn to be "told"

Not at all, just stating my 2c....

RITwing wrote: »

I think we can agree there are abiguities. Those lead me to a negative view for reasons I have posted and won't re hash.

But suppose the OP garage in question was within the premitted height - would you prepare an opinion for it ?

I have had (in a different circumstance) an occasion whereby I made an enquiry about a situation where I had a doubt about compliance. I was careful in my enquiries not to tell the LA the property location and asked a "hypothethical/what if" only. Just as well I did so for one may seek a letter of comfort only to recive an enforcement action....

.

I can well understand that and I am always cautious when dealing with plannng or enforcement staff, as I am well aware they are pushing their own opinion of their interpretation of the regulations, but they tend to have a heavy hand when expressing their opinions. However they are not always right in their interpretation, hence the need for mediators, Section 5's, ABP, saltpeter primed 12 gauge, etc, etc....:P

RITwing

Poor Uncle Tom wrote: »

By your logic, to be exempt a garage has to have four new walls. Does it also follow that if a garage is constructed against a boundary wall (with the relevant neighbours permission of course), that it can't be considered to be an exempt development?

The number of new walls is not the salient point.

One may have an L shaped house and to create a garage space next to it one needs only 2 new enclosing walls. An alcoved formation requiring only one new wall to complete the enclosure.

The new garage - to be exempt - is either attached or it is not attached.

If it is not attached then subject to Class 3 it can be exempt.
If it is attached one cannot draw on texts which show it to be exempt.

RITwing

Poor Uncle Tom wrote: »

However they are not always right in their interpretation, hence the need for mediators, Section 5's, ABP, saltpeter primed 12 gauge, etc, etc....:P

And a regular supply of Jemmy and / or JD

Poor Uncle Tom

RITwing wrote: »

And a regular supply of Jemmy and / or JD

...and congruency ensues.....:pac: