Exempted developement planning heights

quietsailor

I'm looking at putting up a garage on our property and have a question about the exemption rules. From what I understand the max area is 25sq meters and at least another 25sq meters of garden must be left. We're on a 1 acre site so I can easily meet that requirement, what I'm confused about is the height.

1. Where is it measured from?
The finished floor level when all is completed?
Is it the ground level outside the shed and as we're on a sloped site - highest or
lowest ground level along the shed wall?

2. 3.0m Vs 4.0m
I'd like to put in a curved roof, I've seen insulated roof cladding that comes pre-
raduissed - does curved roofs come in under the 3.0 or 4.0m rule?
Has anyone heard of a minimum pitch that is allowed to consider it a pitched as
opposed to flat roof?

DOCARCH

quietsailor wrote: »

Where is it measured from?

Ground level to the top of the structure.

quietsailor wrote: »

Is it the ground level outside the shed and as we're on a sloped site - highest or lowest ground level along the shed wall.

Lowest.

quietsailor wrote: »

...does curved roofs come in under the 3.0 or 4.0m rule?

I (personally) would consider that to be a 'pitched' roof (....it's not flat).

quietsailor wrote: »

Has anyone heard of a minimum pitch that is allowed to consider it a pitched as opposed to flat roof?

10 degrees.

If in doubt about anything to do with exempt development, seek a Section 5 declaration (....you can google that and/or have a look on your local authority website).

quietsailor

Huge apologies DOCARCH, I never followed this thread and never realised someone had answered. Thank you for all the replies, its made things clearer for me.

I'm going to try for a shed with 6m pitch so I'm going to use an architect now. For something this big DIY isn't the best option!!!

Lumen

DOCARCH wrote: »

Ground level to the top of the structure.

Lowest.

I found a reference in legislation to this.

In Schedule 2, unless the context otherwise requires, any reference to the height of a structure, plant or machinery shall be construed as a reference to its height when measured from ground level, and for that purpose “ground level” means the level of the ground immediately adjacent to the structure, plant or machinery or, where the level of the ground where it is situated or is to be situated is not uniform, the level of the lowest part of the ground adjacent to it.

My emphasis.

Source: PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, 2001
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2001/si/600/made/en/print

But under class 6 it is allowable to alter the level of the ground by up to 1m for landscaping purposes.

CLASS 6
(a) The construction of any path, drain or pond or the carrying out of any landscaping works within the curtilage of a house.

The level of the ground shall not be altered by more than 1 metre above or below the level of the adjoining ground.

... so it seems in practice to be within the law to do some minor slope adjustment such to bring the lowest part of the ground up a bit. What do you think?

Interestingly, slope isn't mentioned as it is in UK legislation (where the rule is the highest part of the ground, not lowest).

quietsailor

Lumen wrote: »

But under class 6 it is allowable to alter the level of the ground by up to 1m for landscaping purposes.



... so it seems in practice to be within the law to do some minor slope adjustment such to bring the lowest part of the ground up a bit. What do you think?

Interestingly, slope isn't mentioned as it is in UK legislation (where the rule is the highest part of the ground, not lowest).

the piece of ground I'm thinking of building the shed on is a 40m X 20m & there is a 2.8m fall. It's a pity it has to be measured off the lowest level as I could disappear a lot of the shed at the upper end of the slope into the ground.

Lumen

quietsailor wrote: »

the piece of ground I'm thinking of building the shed on is a 40m X 20m & there is a 2.8m fall. It's a pity it has to be measured off the lowest level as I could disappear a lot of the shed at the upper end of the slope into the ground.

A 40mx20m shed isn't exempted development, so it's irrelevant as you'll need planning permission.

Gumbo

Lumen wrote: »

A 40mx20m shed isn't exempted development, so it's irrelevant as you'll need planning permission.

I think he means the whole site is 40mX20m, not the actual size of the proposed shed.

Lumen

kceire wrote: »

I think he means the whole site is 40mX20m, not the actual size of the proposed shed.

Ah yes.

The 2.8m fall surely can't be in the immediate vicinity of the shed, it'd be a cliff.

As I imagine the planning enforcement (can you correct from experience?) the planner comes out with a measuring device of some sort and finds the lowest point "around" the structure, the objective being to make sure that planning isn't being gamed by (for instance) building a little mound next to each gable end.

Otherwise it'd be impossible to build anything planning exempt in a large sloped garden (mine has a 10m fall front to back).

Gumbo

Lumen wrote: »

Ah yes.

The 2.8m fall surely can't be in the immediate vicinity of the shed, it'd be a cliff.

As I imagine the planning enforcement (can you correct from experience?) the planner comes out with a measuring device of some sort and finds the lowest point "around" the structure, the objective being to make sure that planning isn't being gamed by (for instance) building a little mound next to each gable end.

Otherwise it'd be impossible to build anything planning exempt in a large sloped garden (mine has a 10m fall front to back).

Id imagine in that case then you cannot claim exemption as to hide the shed in the slope would involve digging and building more than 1m below existing ground level so could possibly pull you int9 the planning net?

Lumen

kceire wrote: »

Id imagine in that case then you cannot claim exemption as to hide the shed in the slope would involve digging and building more than 1m below existing ground level so could possibly pull you int9 the planning net?

No, because the legislation says "the lowest part of the ground adjacent to it". Adjacent, not anywhere on the site.

That's why I think that the two regulations, about height measurement and limits of landscaping, can effectively work together in the case of a sloped site. You can level the slope (say, by cut and fill) by up to 1m in the area adjacent to the structure, and then the max. ridge height is going to be 4m from the midpoint.

Which is exactly what a reasonable person would expect - a neighbour in this situation would be no more overlooked/overshadowed than the same structure built on flat ground.

Gumbo

Lumen wrote: »

No, because the legislation says "the lowest part of the ground adjacent to it". Adjacent, not anywhere on the site.

That's why I think that the two regulations, about height measurement and limits of landscaping, can effectively work together in the case of a sloped site. You can level the slope (say, by cut and fill) by up to 1m in the area adjacent to the structure, and then the max. ridge height is going to be 4m from the midpoint.

Which is exactly what a reasonable person would expect - a neighbour in this situation would be no more overlooked/overshadowed than the same structure built on flat ground.

Yes possibly. Haven’t come across a real world example yet.

quietsailor

kceire wrote: »

I think he means the whole site is 40mX20m, not the actual size of the proposed shed.

Lumen wrote: »

Ah yes.

The 2.8m fall surely can't be in the immediate vicinity of the shed, it'd be a cliff.

The picture is a site elevation plan (is that the correct name) that a friend of mine carried out for me. He then changed jobs and couldn't help me anymore which is why I'm going to an architect for help but would like to get as educated as possible before he gets onsite, hence this thread -- and thank you for all your help!


I must have been tireder than I thought posting replies earlier; I had a 40 FEET X 20 FEET shed size in my head so 12/13M X 6/6.5 (Length by width across the gable)

The plot size is weirdly shaped, it is close to 40m X 20m at its extremes but there is a 3.6m fall across it so we reckoned the front 9.9m X 28.7m might be flatter -- it "only" has a approx 2.8m fall across it. We are on a really, really sloped site!

All these thoughts are whirling around in my head and it's annoying me because I don't know enough to make a rational decision -- if i was a mechanical item I can but not at civils, better to ask the people who know what they're doing.

quietsailor

Lumen wrote: »

No, because the legislation says "the lowest part of the ground adjacent to it". Adjacent, not anywhere on the site.

That's why I think that the two regulations, about height measurement and limits of landscaping, can effectively work together in the case of a sloped site. You can level the slope (say, by cut and fill) by up to 1m in the area adjacent to the structure, and then the max. ridge height is going to be 4m from the midpoint.

Which is exactly what a reasonable person would expect - a neighbour in this situation would be no more overlooked/overshadowed than the same structure built on flat ground.

I think you're saying that in the drawing above, along the 28.7m side you would dig down in the top right corner, pull to the bottom left and the now "flat" part would be the (bottom left) 61.0m + approx 1.4 to get 62.4m?

Lumen

I'd reckon your best bet is to set it into the hillside, because while you won't get any light from that side, it's a shallow design facing south so they'll be plenty of light.

It'd also be completely hidden from the road, which will no doubt please the planners.

But I imagine there'd be a lot of groundworks to do and concrete to pour.

Not going to be cheap.

BryanF

If the shed, which needs planning, is very visible/exposed/obvious on the upper part of the site I

Lumen wrote: »

doubt please the planners.

but digging in will mean

there'd be a lot of groundworks to do and concrete to pour.

Not going to be cheap.

quietsailor

Lumen wrote: »

I'd reckon your best bet is to set it into the hillside, because while you won't get any light from that side, it's a shallow design facing south so they'll be plenty of light.

It'd also be completely hidden from the road, which will no doubt please the planners.

But I imagine there'd be a lot of groundworks to do and concrete to pour.

Not going to be cheap.

DJ, aka my friend who drew the site survey, suggested that but there would be a horrendous amount of earth works -- his back of the envelope calcs said 330 loads so it would destroy our driveway.

I'm probably going to have to go smaller and put it at the side of the house -- at least I won't have a long walk when I come in

Calahonda52

quietsailor wrote: »

DJ, aka my friend who drew the site survey, suggested that but there would be a horrendous amount of earth works -- his back of the envelope calcs said 330 loads so it would destroy our driveway.

I'm probably going to have to go smaller and put it at the side of the house -- at least I won't have a long walk when I come in

Some LA's now require soil from earthworks to be accommodated on site rather than sent off site

quietsailor

Calahonda52 wrote: »

Some LA's now require soil from earthworks to be accommodated on site rather than sent off site

We had the architect out on Friday & he looked at the site, he took the measurements & the site survey away and is going to come back to us with a few options costed out.

1. Dig out the height of the slope down to the level of the back yard so the shed is inset & under the slope -- probably not a runner as it involves huge earthworks and retaining walls plus damp proofing walls

2. put it at the gable end - again some retaining walls and also he feels that the planners will prefer to have it behind the back wall of the house.

3. put it up on top of the slope but drag the top right down to the bottom left and then put the workshop into that top right . He thinks levelling the site will drop it a meter or so (need to calculate it properly)

I'll let ye know what he calculates out is best