Velux Planning Permission

My interpretation is that it is how the house is viewed from outside - it specifically references appearance - although I wonder if the wording leaves it open to take other factors into account.

I think some ABP decisions have referenced window distance to boundaries. My own thoughts are that those window distances should should only apply to the relevant extensions for which they are cited.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120517891#Comment_120517891

Not to mention the two councils having opposing views too.

I assume that it makes no difference whether the roof light is casting light through the roof space to the 2nd floor or into a converted attic space and that it's purely about how the house is viewed from outside?

Yes - absolutely - not sure if it really helps at all in some respects - the problem is that 'guidance' and typical solutions or accepted solutions on these issues become the default and all too soon are taken as the rules and regulations.

Essentially there should be no difference in appraising whether rooflights are acceptable to the rear or to the front or elsewhere - and yet we all know that there is.

It is increasingly becoming enshrined in guidance on exempted development that rooflights to the rear are exempt and rooflights to the front are not exempt! Obviously planning laws do not state anything remotely like that.

And of course trying to address those issues and concerns on rooflights whilst PV panels are clearly exempt makes no sense at all.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120517481#Comment_120517481

Thanks for that. Those determinations are very interesting and certainly new to me and I'm sure some others. I would have made several applications for these over the years but as usual you have regulations that are as clear as mud on occasions with planning authorities having one view and ABP having an opposing view.

https://www.pleanala.ie/anbordpleanala/media/abp/cases/reports/rl3/rrl3396.pdf

Hi,

Sorry - only had those reference numbers to hand earlier - links now below.

https://www.pleanala.ie/anbordpleanala/media/abp/cases/orders/rl3/drl3392.pdf

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120515974#Comment_120515974

That case number shows nil results when searching

ABP Reference - 25M.RL.3392 - for rooflight to side elevation exempt.

Hi,

ABP Reference - RL06D.RL3396 - December 2015.

There may also be others - but it is clear in the decision that it very much a matter of fact and degree RE each case.

I have never seen any determinations by a planning authority or ABP that rooflights to the front of a house were exempt. But if you provide a link would be great.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119328707#Comment_119328707

My understanding is that rooflights are not specifically listed as being exempted development, but that does not necessarily meant that they require planning permission.

Generally, you can make alterations to your house, without requiring planning, which do not materially affect the external appearance of the structure.

Section 4(1) of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended refers to exempted development and Section 4 (1) (a) – (l) sets out what is exempted development for the purposes of the Act.

Section 4 (1)(h) states;

(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;

The difficulty arises in interpreting when alterations materially affect the appearance - obviously any such alteration will affect appearance - but the question is whether it materially affects appearance - there is a subtle distinction there. Unfortunately, there is never a easy answer to that question and each case needs to be judged on its own merits. Planning and ABP have ajudged some rooflights - on front, back and sides - to be exempt and others not to be exempt.

Any decision or determination may take account of the nature of the property, the local context, any area designations, other rooflights on the structure / adjoining structures, visibility, etc. That's one of the reasons it has become almost a default to consider rear rooflights exempt and front rooflights not exempt.

A Section 5 declaration can be sought to get confirmation from planning whether they consider a particular rooflight(s) exempt or not.

If a rooflight is already in place you can get a Section 5 declaration or seek planning approval (retention permission) for them - and/or you could get an 'opinion on compliance' whether the rooflight is exempt. If it is 7 years + and immune from any enforcement an opinion may be a satisfactory solution to any future sale of the property.

Former Former Former

it is laughable that a particular direction of planning can be circumvented subsequently and as long as it's not checked/opposed in a particular timeframe then it's fine. Only in Ireland.

As is always the case when someone uses this phrase, it absolutely isn't only in Ireland.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119328985#Comment_119328985

Normally referred to as a certificate of compliance but is actually an opinion of compliance which is issued by an architect etc to indicate that approved works have been carried out in line with the plans and planning conditions have been adhered to.

sweetie

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119329175#Comment_119329175

What's the cert of compliance? Is it something the vendor should have from the previous building works? It was myself who noticed this and brought to the attention of the surveyor and solicitor (who doesn't seem to be overly concerned with it preventing our mortgage from being drawn down) Not planning on moving again but who knows and would certainly like everything in order but I think the vendor would likely pull the deal if we insist on retention, not to mention the likely interest rate increase over the next few months. Many thanks for your input everyone.

chooseusername

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119329175#Comment_119329175

Not that it's likely to make much difference but;

" COVID regulations, the seven-year rule for development where no planning permission exists is now the seven-year-and-119-day rule. The time period for enforcement action where planning permission has been granted is now 12 years and 164 days from the date of the final grant of permission.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119329175#Comment_119329175

I see, so, in essence the Council can do nothing bar failing to issue a cert of compliance, so the poster concerned has nothing to worry about, bar if they come to sell themselves when the same issue will arise, and it's then up to the new buyer how concerned they might be about a non-issue. Makes sense!

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119329085#Comment_119329085

The simplest way to explain this is if an application is refused then any works commenced would be deemed unauthorised and there cant be any enforcement by the Council after a period of 7 years. This is the same when no application has been made.

However when PP has been granted it allows a period of 5 years for carrying out the approved works (its actually 5 years and 25 days) and then the 7 year rule kicks in after that. So in this case the Council would have 12 years (and 45 days) to detect any unauthorised development which includes non compliance with conditions of the PP and contact the owner. If they fail to do so within those time frames then there is the statutory bar (7 year rule) preventing them form instigating legal proceedings.

It should be noted that even where people avail of this legislation it does not provide any exemptions. This is something I have seen numerous times in this forum where some people think that once they get through that 7 year period the unauthorised works become exempt. Certainly not. When that happens there is a state of limbo ... the council cant prosecute but the person still doesnt have PP. Noting will happen until the owner goes to sell or mortgage the property and thats when the issues arise.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119328985#Comment_119328985

Now i'm confused. So if someone applies for PP and is refused but goes ahead anyway there is no time limit on the council issuing enforcement proceedings, but if someone didn't apply for PP at all and the development stands for 7 yrs the council can't do anything about it?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119328707#Comment_119328707

The OP indicated that there was a condition on the PP stating that velux were not permitted. The subsequent works would be in breach of that condition therefore they are unauthorised and no matter how many years they have been there wont make any difference as a cert of compliance cant be issued.

If the original PP was 2009 (you should check the actual date) then the 12 yrs has passed, so the only consideration is whether the velux were installed less than 7 yrs ago. If they were installed prior to 2015 then you should be fine.

But it is laughable that a particular direction of planning can be circumvented subsequently and as long as it's not checked/opposed in a particular timeframe then it's fine. Only in Ireland.

Generally think the whole frowning upon of front velux has disappeared with the mass granting of PP for developments with the attic bedroom in recent years. Funnily enough i got permission for a new build (within a housing estate with none) for front velux back in 2002.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119325168#Comment_119325168

I’d they lodge planning today, it’s a 3 month process to the final grant assuming all goes well.

It’s the only option, even though they were conditioned off the previous planning, retention can still retain them and therefore regularize the situation.

But it could be refused too so you may have to be prepared to ask the. Ensor to remove them.

The seller should do all of the above as if you buy, then it’s your problem.

Planning lasts 5 years and 45 days. That’s where that comes from. The 7 year unenforceable action begins after the 5 years and 45 days therefore giving the council 12 years and 45 days to take action.

sweetie

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119323037#Comment_119323037

Thanks for your input. This is at least a four month process I believe, and how likely is it to be successful?

Or do you mean get them to apply for retention and proceed with the sale? I'm not familiar with the 5yrs, 45 days thing?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119322535#Comment_119322535

Section 5 application will not help you here.

The condition attached to the planning is now controlled by the 7 year rule plus the 5 years and 45 days of the planning.

Section 5 application will tell you planning is required. Get the seller to apply for retention before purchasing.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119322535#Comment_119322535

They are not exempt as you put it in relation to the 7 year rule. In fact its 12 years when permission has been granted and that "rule" basically means that the planners cant instigate any enforcement proceedings against the owner. It certainly doesnt make them exempt.

Also if it was a condition of the permission that no velux be placed to the rear of the roof then the subsequent fitting of those velux would be in breach of the permission granted so thats another issue. Hard to advise without being familiar with the whole process from the time the permission was applied for.

sweetie

Currently sale agreed on a property and I noticed in the planning application for a big extension and attic conversion with Velux rooflights (circa 2009) that the planner granted permission with the caveat that no velux windows are allowed on main roof to rear (visual amenity.) We were informed they were installed at a later date and an architect addressed them in a letter stating that they were exempt as outside the 7 year window. This is obviously a concern and just wondering on best approach. Our surveyor suggested asking possibly about looking for a section 5. Any advice appreciated.

sydthebeat

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118839302#Comment_118839302

planners dont have a hierarchy of what is considered unauthorize development.

they would treat an illegal velux they same as they would treat an illegal extension

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118839302#Comment_118839302

They have nothing against them in my experience.

They simply require planning permission and the process needs to be followed.

The same process as a standard window would require, or any other non exempt works.

Ubbquittious

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118840274#Comment_118840274

I haven't had any personal experience. But I have heard of fellas having trouble with it before. It is an oddly specific thing for them to be complaining about.

You're in like a whippet defending the honour of all planners. Are you a planner? 😄

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118839302#Comment_118839302

I cant say I ever saw planners being anti velux. You obviously had a bad personal experience but dont let that be a reason to claim that planners dont like velux.

Ubbquittious

What do the planning crowd have against these windows? It seems absurd to me that they would pick on a certain type of window to have a go at, none of it makes any sense to me.