Planning permissions - repairs vs change of use

WonkyMe

Guys, Ive an outbuilding which was once an old cowshed but had just been used for storing junk in recent years. It can't be used for animals any more as the land is now detached from the house.
Last winter some slates came off and i was worried that the roof might come off next winter so I asked a local builder about fixing it up.
Basically he has suggested to do a proper job to last decades, ie redo the roof, insert some rooflights and dampproof and concrete the floor. He has also suggested adding an outside toilet which would be useful.
Our intention would be to use the repaired building as extra spece, storage or maybe a kids playroom or whatever.
None of this would change the appearance of the building in any way (except perhaps the roof lights), but I am worried that it could be said to be a change of use (especially because of the toilet) and require planning permission.
Any opinions on whether this work would be classsed as repairs or change of use? I dont want to get into trouble but I also dont want to delay the works. If I ask the council I'm sure they will say apply anyway....
BTW the exemption for house extensions was used up some years ago.. and the shed is not attached to the house.

Michael D Not Higgins

Mod note: thread moved to Construction & Planning. The new forum charter applies.

Dudda

Ya unfortunately you need planning as it's habitable as a children's play room. If it was just for storage you could probably argue it's a free standing garage and if less than a certain area could be exempt. You could carry out the works and look for planning retention as it doesn't sound like you'd have any objections. The only issue I'd see is they could go looking for a report on the septic tank if you have one and condition you to upgrade that if you're looking at adding a toilet.

WonkyMe

Dudda wrote: »

Ya unfortunately you need planning as it's habitable as a children's play room.

Thanks. Is "habitable" the criteria and if so is there any definition of it. It sounds that simply fixing the roof and the floor could make it 'habitable'... so basically any work requires planning?

Gumbo

WonkyMe wrote: »

Thanks. Is "habitable" the criteria and if so is there any definition of it. It sounds that simply fixing the roof and the floor could make it 'habitable'... so basically any work requires planning?

It will not be habitable. It will be ancillary to the use as the main dwelling. Similar to a domestic shed situation.

Have you considered the exempted limits? Is your land farming, argricutural or residential?
A local professional might be able to advise you properly in person. It sounds to me like it's repair work but again it can depend if the building has been derelict for so long etc

dratw

WonkyMe wrote: »

Dudda wrote: »

Ya unfortunately you need planning as it's habitable as a children's play room.

Thanks. Is "habitable" the criteria and if so is there any definition of it. It sounds that simply fixing the roof and the floor could make it 'habitable'... so basically any work requires planning?

I work as a planner in England and in order to be considered 'habitable' it would generally have running water, a toilet and a shower. It generally depends on how arsey the planning officer is.

WonkyMe

dratw wrote: »

I work as a planner in England and in order to be considered 'habitable' it would generally have running water, a toilet and a shower. It generally depends on how arsey the planning officer is.

Thanks. I had been considering adding a toilet as it would be convenient but could just as easily leave it out. There is already water and electricity there.
It all seems very vague and I get the impression that the nicer a job you do, the more likely you are to need planning....

Obviously nobody can stop you repairing the shed and I suppose you should be encouraged to do so. However, what if, in a years time, since you already have electricity and water, you move a bed in there, then you certainly would have changed the use. But at that stage you wouldnt be changing anything physical in the building....
I suspect there must be case law on this somewhere.

Angry bird

It's a domestic she and once you don't stick a bedroom in there its fine. Repairs and maintenance are generally exempt from planning. Replacing starts a move into a grey area towards needing planning permission.

WonkyMe

Hi Guys, OP here. I found the situation incredibly vague and grey so I tried to look up the legislation. However I'm not familiar with planning law so what I found could be repealed or overruled by something else.

Anyway the Planning and development act 2000 (is it still the act in force?) stated the following;

4.—(1) The following shall be exempted developments for the purposes
of this Act—

(h) development consisting of the carrying out of works for the
maintenance, improvement or other alteration of any
structure, being works which affect only the interior of
the structure or which do not materially affect the external
appearance of the structure so as to render the
appearance inconsistent with the character of the structure
or of neighbouring structures;

(j) development consisting of the use of any structure or other
land within the curtilage of a house for any purpose incidental
to the enjoyment of the house as such;

As the shed is within the curtilage of the house, this would mean that any development, incidental to the enjoyment of the house, would be exempt, provided that any external modifications do not render the appearance inconsistent with the character of the structure or any neighbouring structures.

Is this the correct interpretation? I'll be happy bunny, if so.

dratw

WonkyMe wrote: »

Hi Guys, OP here. I found the situation incredibly vague and grey so I tried to look up the legislation. However I'm not familiar with planning law so what I found could be repealed or overruled by something else.

Anyway the Planning and development act 2000 (is it still the act in force?) stated the following;

4. (1) The following shall be exempted developments for the purposes
of this Act

(h) development consisting of the carrying out of works for the
maintenance, improvement or other alteration of any
structure, being works which affect only the interior of
the structure or which do not materially affect the external
appearance of the structure so as to render the
appearance inconsistent with the character of the structure
or of neighbouring structures;

(j) development consisting of the use of any structure or other
land within the curtilage of a house for any purpose incidental
to the enjoyment of the house as such;

As the shed is within the curtilage of the house, this would mean that any development, incidental to the enjoyment of the house, would be exempt, provided that any external modifications do not render the appearance inconsistent with the character of the structure or any neighbouring structures.

Is this the correct interpretation? I'll be happy bunny, if so.

Yes, that's correct!

WonkyMe

Purely for curiousity, what would happen if a planning officer passed by one day and decided that, in their opinion, an external modification under 4.1.h above was inconsistent with the character of the house, but in the owners opinion it was?

Would they ask the modification to be reversed or would they mantain that planning permission should hvae been applied for but was not?

In this case, I suppose the the owner could apply for retention, but if they were firm in their opinion that the modification was in character, therefore exempt from PP, and refused to apply for retention, who would decide on the consistency of the modification? a court? Does it happen and if so what kind of evidence is given, as it seems a subjective matter?

BryanF

WonkyMe wrote: »

Purely for curiousity, what would happen if a

1.
planning officer passed by one day and decided that, in their opinion, an external modification under 4.1.h above was inconsistent with the character of the house, but in the owners opinion it was?

2. Would they ask the modification to be reversed or would they mantain that planning permission should hvae been applied for but was not?

3. In this case, I suppose the the owner could apply for retention,
4. but if they were firm in their opinion that the modification was in character, therefore exempt from PP, and refused to apply for retention,
5. who would decide on the consistency of the modification? a court?
6. Does it happen
7. and if so what kind of evidence is given,
8. as it seems a subjective matter?

1. Owner should have Made a section 5 declaration
2. Possibly Both
3. Possibly
4. It would be foolish not to engage with the Coucnil
5. Yes
6. Yes
7. Specific to the case- it ranges from demolition to minor modifications
8. Not really. Apply for a section 5

Gumbo

WonkyMe wrote: »

Purely for curiousity, what would happen if a planning officer passed by one day and decided that, in their opinion, an external modification under 4.1.h above was inconsistent with the character of the house, but in the owners opinion it was?

Would they ask the modification to be reversed or would they mantain that planning permission should hvae been applied for but was not?

In this case, I suppose the the owner could apply for retention, but if they were firm in their opinion that the modification was in character, therefore exempt from PP, and refused to apply for retention, who would decide on the consistency of the modification? a court? Does it happen and if so what kind of evidence is given, as it seems a subjective matter?

This is exactly why planning enforcement and planning decisions are separated. So you don't get the planning englforcement guy that started proceedings deciding on your retention application. That's how it's done in Dublin. The 2 departments are separate and work doesn't cross over between the 2 sets of staff.

WonkyMe

I've been researching the condition "being works which affect only the interior of the structure or which do not materially affect the external
appearance of the structure so as to render the appearance inconsistent with the character of the structure or of neighbouring structures" especially the 'so as to render the appearance inconsistent with the character' part.

The situation indeed seems grey and subjective.

For example the oft quoted rule; ' velux rear exempt, velux front not' is nothing more than a rule of thumb applied by some authorities. Bord Pleanala has reverted to the wording of the legislation when deciding cases and determined, for example, that where front veluxes are consistent with neighboutring character (eg because veluxes are already common there), then they fall under the exemption.

In addition, you can place solar cells on your roof, under a different exemption, which are much more ugly and not in character with anything.

BryanF

WonkyMe wrote: »

I've been researching the condition "being works which affect only the interior of the structure or which do not materially affect the external
appearance of the structure so as to render the appearance inconsistent with the character of the structure or of neighbouring structures" especially the 'so as to render the appearance inconsistent with the character' part.

The situation indeed seems grey and subjective.

For example the oft quoted rule; ' velux rear exempt, velux front not' is nothing more than a rule of thumb applied by some authorities. Bord Pleanala has reverted to the wording of the legislation when deciding cases and determined, for example, that where front veluxes are consistent with neighboutring character (eg because veluxes are already common there), then they fall under the exemption.

In addition, you can place solar cells on your roof, under a different exemption, which are much more ugly and not in character with anything.

So your coming to the conclusion that planning legislation is in some ways subjective?