Attic Conversion Compliance

sydthebeat

Before I start, this is simply a request for advice (muffler )

I have been requested to apply for retention for an attic conversion, and i remember all the hullabollu before about whats exempt from planning etc.

It appeared at the time that 3 velux to the rear, along with the conversion, didnt require planning. My client would be delighted to hear this, but i want to have all my t's crossed and i's dotted.

Does anyone have a link to the specific regulation / act / SI / whatever that confirms
1. an attic conversion is exempt from planning
2. the addition of velux rooflights to the rear is also exempt.

I have found some information booklets that state this but i need to find the legal basis for this.

thanks in advance.

muffler

Oh no :eek:

havent time to reply in detail as Im rushing things here. Will post later.

muffler

Section 4.1(h) will cover the exemption of the conversion. I have used it on a few occasions in the past and it is acceptable by both the planning and legal professionals here in Donegal.

I need to delve a little more in relation to the velux.

Mellor

As far as I know, the velux element is not covered by any SI, its not in any list of exemption i've seen.
There is a good chance that it is a matter of LA policy

RKQ

Could we assume it falls (rooflight on rear roof) into exempted development as its to the rear and not higher than the existing ridge etc?
Its an interesting question Syd.

Poor Uncle Tom

I was told about two years ago, rooflights to the rear can be considered exempted. Even got letters of clearence stating "the inclusion of the rooflights/roofwindows as shown are not considered a material change to the planning permission as issued..." But I have also been told since then that any change/alteration to any elevation of a building is a material change to the planning as granted.

So basically, every job is different and it can be up to the individual planning officer whether they can be considered exempted or not.

Moral of storey: ask first.

Mellor

RKQ, thats a way of looking at it. Possible that it might be the source.

Uncle Tom, I'm happy that most LAs allow this as exempt, as is Syd I believe, but its the actual legal backing thats sought. For the times people do it off their wown bat

No6

I had to check it a few years ago and there are a number of appeals decided by an bord plaaela which refer to rooflights on the front, sides and rear, from what I remember rear is ok front & sides getting into slighly doggier terratory, however a question I would now have and this would probably have to be tested through an appeal is if you can put flat plate solar panels in or on your roof in any direction as exempted development should putting a velux in a roof also be considered exempt because they're quite alike inappearance.

As suggested above it could be down to individual planners or enforcement officers own personal opinions best to ask first and maybe send them a letter confirming that you discussed it with them or include a revised elevation showing the rooflights.

muffler

No6 wrote: »

if you can put flat plate solar panels in or on your roof in any direction as exempted development should putting a velux in a roof also be considered exempt because they're quite alike inappearance.

No appeal necessary at all. Solar panels are specifically covered under SI 83 of 2007

No6

muffler wrote: »

No appeal necessary at all. Solar panels are specifically covered under SI 83 of 2007

I Know that muffler my point is that rooflights are essentially very similar to flat plate solar panels which can be put on a roof as exempt! So perhaps they should be considered exempt too on all aspects of the roof. (thats what needs testing by appeal):)

muffler

I can see why you would make a comparison but given the fact that (A) solar panels have been given a specific exemption (B) they are intended for a completely different use than rooflights and (C) based on previous determinations by ABP it would be an awful waste of money. Id prefer to buy a few vodkas with the money instead of making any appeal in this regard.

However submissions could be made through representative bodies to the DoE minister to request a change in legislation regarding rooflights. That would be the way to go.

Poor Uncle Tom

Surely if they are retro fit velux/roof lights to the rear they are exempted under regs?

sydthebeat

Poor Uncle Tom wrote: »

Surely if they are retro fit velux/roof lights to the rear they are exempted under regs?

the problem is they are not mentioned in any of the exemption regs...

solar panel specifically are.

RKQ

I suggest the planning regulations came into effect to prevent bad planning, neighbours over-looking or over-shadowing their neighbours, sporadic unstainable development etc. These needs / safeguards have developed over time.

Solar panel flat plates look like velux, may be they were designed to look like velux, to be more visually acceptable and therefore more marketable.

Solar panels heat water and can not be used to invade your neighbours privacy!

Badly planned velux rooflights can affect neighbour privacy, thought this is normally not an issue, as they face directly opposite the roof ie not in gable etc so less likely to overlook etc.

I assume that anything to the rear, including in the roof structure, is exempt once it is lower that the ridge and under 40sqm - not visible from side and complies fully with S.I. No. 181 of 2000.

Its a pity roof-lights aren't listed in any document as exempt but then maybe they have never caused a problem to warrant their inclusion!
Traditionally, Irish houses would have an iron roof light in the attic.

I think we'll have to follow our common sense until something changes or refers specifically to roof lights. Interesting question....

grahamo1975

It seems to me that attic conversions can be built whether compliant or not. Usually because those using it will put up with the height restrictions. Problems only occur when you go to sell. Even then some are willing to purchase as they will use the conversion even though it is non compliant. One thing that doesnt seem to be considered is the effect if any on house insurance. Do you know if there is a problem like fire, is the house now not insured due to a non compliant conversion? Or if the conversion ticks all the boxes in terms of fire safety, is this sufficent for house insurance cover?

Mellor

grahamo1975 wrote: »

It seems to me that attic conversions can be built whether compliant or not. Usually because those using it will put up with the height restrictions. Problems only occur when you go to sell. Even then some are willing to purchase as they will use the conversion even though it is non compliant. One thing that doesnt seem to be considered is the effect if any on house insurance. Do you know if there is a problem like fire, is the house now not insured due to a non compliant conversion? Or if the conversion ticks all the boxes in terms of fire safety, is this sufficent for house insurance cover?

This was in relation to compliance with planning, so your certainly can't build if not compliant (even if you are willing to put up with it.)

grahamo1975

Strictly speaking, yes. But there are plenty of converted attics out there for "storage" but used as bedrooms, especially for children where height isnt such an issue. I live in an area of 1 storey terraced houses. Many have had a mezzanine floor put in for bedroom space. These definitely do not pass building regulations. I have reecently got planning permission to convert the attic of a house I have rented out. Condition is that its not to be used as habitable space. The architecht said really I can do what I like with the space, I just cant sell it on as an extra bedroom. Also the numerous builders I have had out for quotes say the same thing. None seem to know (including my home insurance company) what the affect is on my insurance its used as a bedroom & there is a problem. I will have a staircase, self closing doors, fire alarms etc. Its just the height wont fully meet building requlations. I asked my insurance company about this & they just sent me a form requesting me to increase the amount of the sum insured.

sydthebeat

I cant see why it would affect insurance, other than the fact your increasing the floor area and thus your premium may rise slightly. The conversion may not comply with ventilation regs but definitely should comply with fire regs at an absolute minimum.