changing roof from flat to apex?

mail

Do you need planning to replace a flat roof with an apex roof on a garage to the side and near the rear of the house

Poor Uncle Tom

It depends.

If the garage is considered to be an exempted development and the apex roof will not breach SI No. 600 of 2001 exemptions then you should be fine, but if the garage is not an exempted structure then it will need planning permission.

You should get a good local indemnified Architectural Technician in to determine that for you.

martinn123

Poor Uncle Tom wrote: »

It depends.

If the garage is considered to be an exempted development and the apex roof will not breach SI No. 600 of 2001 exemptions then you should be fine, but if the garage is not an exempted structure then it will need planning permission.

You should get a good local indemnified Architectural Technician in to determine that for you.

Would a visit to the local planning dept. be a simpler ( and cheaper ) way to find out.

I have found them generally helpful in answering questions regarding planning issues with some projects I have estimated recently. I do not want to do anyone out of a fee, but this seems a simple question, exempted or not.

muffler

martinn123 wrote: »

Would a visit to the local planning dept. be a simpler ( and cheaper ) way to find out.

I have found them generally helpful in answering questions regarding planning issues with some projects I have estimated recently. I do not want to do anyone out of a fee, but this seems a simple question, exempted or not.

"generally" being the operative word. Unfortunately I have experienced situations where people went to the planning office and had admin staff rhyme off various points about exemptions except they tend to forget the fine print.

For example I had a client who after checking with the local PA built a 40m2 extension (20 on each floor) to the rear of his house believing it was exempt as this was what he was told. But what he wasn't asked or told was the fact that his house was terraced and he could only build 12 m2 on first floor.

I had another case where a woman remortgaged her house to pay for her daughter's wedding. Cheque was in the solicitors office and she only needed a cert from me to confirm that everything was "alright on the site" but I discovered she had her 25m2 garage built with 4m ridge height in accordance with what she was told in the local planning office but unfortunately they forgot to tell her (or didnt know) that the roof could only be 4m high if it matched the house which was a slate roof.

The I had a case where the actual planner said that the conversion of an attached garage to habitable accommodation was not exempt as the replacing of the garage door with a window materially altered the external appearance of the house :eek:

Bottom line is to get a professional or get a written declaration from the PA but dont deal with admin staff or even verbally with (some) planners.

martinn123

Everyone has horror stories, however lets break down the original question.

Is a flat roof garage, at the side of a house, an exempted development,

Yes/no

Discuss.

muffler

Poor Uncle Tom wrote: »

You should get a good local indemnified Architectural Technician in to determine that for you.

martinn123 wrote: »

Would a visit to the local planning dept. be a simpler ( and cheaper ) way to find out.

martinn123 wrote: »

Everyone has horror stories

No, I wasn't relating horror stories but giving examples, in response to your previous post, of why people should avoid getting advice from admin staff in their local planning office.

martinn123 wrote: »

lets break down the original question.

Is a flat roof garage, at the side of a house, an exempted development,

Yes/no

One of those grey areas in the regs where a yes or no answer could be right or wrong. My reading of it would be as there is nothing specifically stated in the exemptions then yes it does require permission.

martinn123

muffler wrote: »

One of those grey areas in the regs where a yes or no answer could be right or wrong. My reading of it would be as there is nothing specifically stated in the exemptions then yes it does require permission.

In that case, you have just saved the OP the cost/fees of a good local Indemnified Arch/Tech as recommended by P.U.T and I think answered the original question.

I appreciate its not often a simple yes/no answer but I do dislike always suggesting engaging a professional, and spending good money, when that advice comes from a member of that profession.
Occasionally, and I appreciate in the simpler of cases, advice is what a poster asks, not a referral,

muffler

martinn123 wrote: »

In that case, you have just saved the OP the cost/fees of a good local Indemnified Arch/Tech as recommended by P.U.T and I think answered the original question.

I appreciate its not often a simple yes/no answer but I do dislike always suggesting engaging a professional, and spending good money, when that advice comes from a member of that profession.
Occasionally, and I appreciate in the simpler of cases, advice is what a poster asks, not a referral,

Ah if only life was that simple.

I didn't give the OP an answer but I did give my opinion and as I said its a grey area and what would be considered exempt by planners and professionals alike in my county may be deemed to require PP in your county.

Traditionally PA's have adopted their own "take" on the quite numerous grey areas of the regs and would stay with that interpretation/policy until such time as ABP would deem it otherwise.

So to the OP I would still agree with P.U.T and engage a local professional or if you are happy enough to deal with admin staff in the planning office then by all means go for it.

Poor Uncle Tom

martinn123 wrote: »

In that case, you have just saved the OP the cost/fees of a good local Indemnified Arch/Tech as recommended by P.U.T and I think answered the original question.

And if it turns out that planning permission is not actually needed you could end up costing the OP unnecessarily for a planning application. That is why my original post was:

Poor Uncle Tom wrote: »

It depends.

If the garage is considered to be an exempted development and the apex roof will not breach SI No. 600 of 2001 exemptions then you should be fine, but if the garage is not an exempted structure then it will need planning permission.

You should get a good local indemnified Architectural Technician in to determine that for you.

/and I believe this is still the best course of action.

martinn123 wrote: »

I appreciate its not often a simple yes/no answer but I do dislike always suggesting engaging a professional, and spending good money, when that advice comes from a member of that profession.

The trouble with asking a simple question on a forum thread is that the people being asked the question do not have the benefit of seeing the site or the prevalant conditions. Planning exemptions are very specific as to sizes, heights and locations as well as other restrictions.
Advising people to go one way or the other could put unnecessary costs on them, so for peace of mind and to get a definitive answer, in this case, it is best to suggest getting a pair of experienced eyes on the ground to make a determination, and it's best for everyone involved to make sure those eyes are indemnified.

I believe this could save costs in the long run, either way. (either applying unnecessarily for planning permission or having to make an application after the fact for a retention planning permission).

martinn123 wrote: »

Occasionally, and I appreciate in the simpler of cases, advice is what a poster asks, not a referral,

Just because we have little information in this case does not make it a simpler case.

We know absolutely nothing about the site conditions in this case, we don't know whether the garage was an exempted development to start with, we don't know what the wall height of the existing garage is, we don't know the floor area of the existing garage, we don't know what area of rear amenity space is to the dwelling house. So all in all we can't call this a simpler case.

Clerical staff in the planning office are not indemnified to make that judgement call either, and will not do so, most of the time....:D. (just saw muffler's last post)

martinn123

muffler wrote: »

Ah if only life was that simple.

I didn't give the OP an answer but I did give my opinion and as I said its a grey area and what would be considered exempt by planners and professionals alike in my county may be deemed to require PP in your county.

Traditionally PA's have adopted their own "take" on the quite numerous grey areas of the regs and would stay with that interpretation/policy until such time as ABP would deem it otherwise.

So to the OP I would still agree with P.U.T and engage a local professional or if you are happy enough to deal with admin staff in the planning office then by all means go for it.

Well the best thing is that you did give an opinion, now the OP can decide whether he wants to add the cost of Planning to the cost of replacing the roof.

The advice from P.U.T was to spend his money getting what would be also an opinion not an answer.

By the way I never mentioned admin staff. I did recommend a trip to the planning dept, what I had in mind was to request an opinion from the local planner, sorry if that was not clear.You expanded on this by recommending a written declaration from the Planning Authority.

I note you have nothing to say on my dislike of Professionals, always recommending taking Professional Advice.

bravojohnny

This is a grey area & councils / individuals differ in their responses.

To be honest it would always be better to have it in writing from the Local Co. Co. at least that way it won't come back to 'haunt' you.

I would suggest you meet your local planner talk it over.

If you don't get an 'answer' in writing, I would lodge a Declarationa Section 5 application (see below link)

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2000/en/act/pub/0030/sec0005.html

muffler

martinn123 wrote: »

I note you have nothing to say on my dislike of Professionals, always recommending taking Professional Advice.

Im not sure of the point you are trying to make here or how it is relevant (on topic) to this thread.

Can you explain please.

martinn123

Poor Uncle Tom wrote: »

And if it turns out that planning permission is not actually needed you could end up costing the OP unnecessarily for a planning application.

Well he might have gone to an Architect to prepare the application, who might have given an opinion that he does not need planning.

Winner all round and no outlay.

I accept your points as to whether this was a simple question, with no yes/no answer.

It might expand this Forum if you had requested further information, to a point where you could give an opinion, but I do not know if that is its purpose.

martinn123

muffler wrote: »

Im not sure of the point you are trying to make here or how it is relevant (on topic) to this thread.

Can you explain please.

Yes sure, my understanding and participation in various Forums, is based on
A Poster asks question
B Interested members respond, ask clarifications, generally throw out ideas, respond to suggestions, and try to help.
C ( and importantly ) other viewers read posts and get help with areas in which they are interested. Compare the number of Views to Replies in any thread. Viewers are reading posts in which they have an interest.

I noticed in a number of replies, from Poor Uncle Tom that the response was to seek Professional Advice, (but that that advice came from a member of the Profession concerned, to be honest annoys me ), as a first response, I would have no problem advising this once the problem has been kicked around a bit.

I am happy to give my opinion and have done so in areas in which I have some expertise,

So as to whether this is relevant, or on topic to this thread is for readers of this thread to decide, and perhaps to comment on.

sydthebeat

martinn123

do you think this public forum is to be used as a substitute for professional advice?

martinn123

sydthebeat wrote: »

martinn123

do you think this public forum is to be used as a substitute for professional advice?

Substitute, No, maybe as a help to posters who are looking for some help, before parting with hard earned cash.

Question, to sydthebeat, and muffler,...are you moderating here or commenting on my posts.

If you are Moderating I will stop now, as its against the rules, but if commenting then I will continue to argue my point, cheers

muffler

martinn123 wrote: »

I am happy to give my opinion and have done so in areas in which I have some expertise

As with every poster here we are happy to accept your opinion providing it is relevant to the topic at hand.

martinn123 wrote: »

So as to whether this is relevant, or on topic to this thread is for readers of this thread to decide

Er...........no. That would be for the mods to decide.

martinn123 wrote: »

Question, to sydthebeat, and muffler,...are you moderating here or commenting on my posts.

I have been actively posting for the most part but I did query a point you made as a moderator of this forum.

martinn123 wrote: »

If you are Moderating I will stop now, as its against the rules, but if commenting then I will continue to argue my point, cheers

I dont really understand this either

sydthebeat

correct, this forum is not a substitute for professional advice.

item 1.1 of our forum clearly states that
"It is not a consultancy service and it is strongly advised that you always appoint your own professional advisor(s). Be aware that being an open public forum you may not always get exactly the response you would hope for. You will find that there are plenty of posters who will help you here but if you don't like some posts or posters try to pass over them ."

so you can see straight away that EVERY user of the forum is advised to appoint their own professional advisor, where applicable.

The OP asked a question that has been clealy identifed as NOT being a simply yes or no question, which you seem to think it is. Therefore it would be disingenuous for anyone here to simply say yes or no.

You advised going to the local planning authority and asking. well, that in itself is also disingenuous as the only way you will get the planning authority to furnish an "opinion" on exemption from planning is to apply for a section 5 declaration, as bravojonny states. A verbal response to a question at the planing desk MAY land the OP in trouble, as has been substantiated here as well.

The OP is being given different options, its up to him/her to continue as they wish.


oh, and how we moderate this forum is up to us.

martinn123

muffler wrote: »

As with every poster here we are happy to accept your opinion providing it is relevant to the topic at hand.



Er...........no. That would be for the mods to decide.



I have been actively posting for the most part but I did query a point you made as a moderator of this forum.



I dont really understand this either

It gets confusing depending if I am replying to a poster or a Moderator, my understanding is you cannot argue with a Moderator within the thread has to be by PM. Got a yellow card for that a couple of weeks ago.

Poor Uncle Tom

martinn123 wrote: »

Well he might have gone to an Architect to prepare the application, who might have given an opinion that he does not need planning.

Winner all round and no outlay.

Your original point is mute as this is what I said from the start, get a professional on site to determine.......

Poor Uncle Tom

bravojohnny wrote: »

This is a grey area & councils / individuals differ in their responses.

To be honest it would always be better to have it in writing from the Local Co. Co. at least that way it won't come back to 'haunt' you.

I would suggest you meet your local planner talk it over.

If you don't get an 'answer' in writing, I would lodge a Declarationa Section 5 application (see below link)

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2000/en/act/pub/0030/sec0005.html

This is another option, however, it may cost as much as a planning application as the LA is going to require maps, plans and a specification as a minimum. Also, a small point but, the application
fee is usually €80 instead of the €34 for a planning application.

martinn123

sydthebeat wrote: »

correct, this forum is not a substitute for professional advice.

item 1.1 of our forum clearly states that
"It is not a consultancy service and it is strongly advised that you always appoint your own professional advisor(s). Be aware that being an open public forum you may not always get exactly the response you would hope for. You will find that there are plenty of posters who will help you here but if you don't like some posts or posters try to pass over them ."

so you can see straight away that EVERY user of the forum is advised to appoint their own professional advisor, where applicable.

The OP asked a question that has been clealy identifed as NOT being a simply yes or no question, which you seem to think it is. Therefore it would be disingenuous for anyone here to simply say yes or no.

You advised going to the local planning authority and asking. well, that in itself is also disingenuous as the only way you will get the planning authority to furnish an "opinion" on exemption from planning is to apply for a section 5 declaration, as bravojonny states. A verbal response to a question at the planing desk MAY land the OP in trouble, as has been substantiated here as well.

The OP is being given different options, its up to him/her to continue as they wish.


oh, and how we moderate this forum is up to us.

I already accepted P.U.T's point that its not a simple yes/no question.

I recommended the Local Authority as I have found them useful, others may not.
I have not in any way questioned how you moderate, kindly substantiate, or quote.

sinnerboy

sydthebeat

martinn123 wrote: »

I have not in any way questioned how you moderate, kindly substantiate, or quote.

erm.... quite obviously...

Question, to sydthebeat, and muffler,...are you moderating here or commenting on my posts.

anyway, i dont see any point in continuing any argument here.

The answer to the OPs question i squite simple:
1. cant be answered on a public forum.
2. requires someone to stand over opinion, which usually costs.

Mellor

i haven't posted as part of the discussion, so i'll step in as a moderator.

martinn123 wrote: »

It gets confusing depending if I am replying to a poster or a Moderator, my understanding is you cannot argue with a Moderator within the thread has to be by PM. Got a yellow card for that a couple of weeks ago.

I don't see how it's confusing.
If you are discussing the topic, various options and what must be done, then it should be quite obvious that you are reply to them as a poster. As anybody could of raised the same points.

If they are pointing out the rules, suggesting that you get back on topic, or refering to the charter, then it should be obvious again, as regualr poster don't behave like that.

Mellor

As for the issue at hand (a poster here btw).

Martin, lets look at some of the options suggested so far.

1. local indemnified Architectural Technician in to determine
2. a visit to the local planning dept
3. Section 5 Declaration

You have stated that you have a problem with number 1. Your basic point is that "why? If it can be solved here"
The simple anwer is it can't.
How is it possible to "kick it around" on a forum. We are not talking about a general situation were we could discussion how a flat to pitch roof conversation could be exempt (and in my opinion, it could be in some cases).
But a very specific situation, that needs a specific answer.

No.2, planning office, well for a start there is the admin issue. It's very unlikely that you can walk in and speak to a planner (although maybe in these times), plus a layperson is not even aware of the difference. But regardless, the problem here is that the planning office can only speak in generalities also. They won't have all the facts, and their answer means nothing more than maybe.

No.3 Section 5
This would be the option I would go for if there was any confusion about the regs, the councils policy or the conditions on site. @ out of 3 of these vary throughout the country.

martinn123 wrote: »

The advice from P.U.T was to spend his money getting what would be also an opinion not an answer.

But it would be advice based on all the information availible, and having seen the site. Do you honestly not see how that is superior to an opinion here? Really?

It might expand this Forum if you had requested further information, to a point where you could give an opinion, but I do not know if that is its purpose.

And what happens when somebody makes a mistake, didn't ask enough questions, or the wrong info was given. Who do you think is liable?
In short, that is simple a service that boards.ie cannot offer. For obvious reasons.

martinn123 wrote: »

I noticed in a number of replies, from Poor Uncle Tom that the response was to seek Professional Advice, (but that that advice came from a member of the Profession concerned, to be honest annoys me ), as a first response, I would have no problem advising this once the problem has been kicked around a bit.

hmm this part interests me. You mentioned it twice.
Why do you have a problem is PUT recommends an arch tech. more so than if he was recomending an engineer, or some other profession.

As as for having no problem if after kicking it around. Do you not consider, that maybe, due to both his experience on this forum, as well as his knowledge of the planning system, that he knows what the outcome of kicking it around will probably be. Believe it or not, a lot of these threads aren't new to a lot of the regulars here.

martinn123 wrote: »

Well he might have gone to an Architect to prepare the application, who might have given an opinion that he does not need planning.

Why exactly would only an Architect have done that? And not an AT?
Double standard prehaps.


Apologies, that was a bit longer than intended, but it your could answer my questions (as a poster btw) above it would be appriciated. Interested at this stage.

martinn123

Mellor wrote: »

i haven't posted as part of the discussion, so i'll step in as a moderator.


I don't see how it's confusing.
If you are discussing the topic, various options and what must be done, then it should be quite obvious that you are reply to them as a poster. As anybody could of raised the same points.

If they are pointing out the rules, suggesting that you get back on topic, or refering to the charter, then it should be obvious again, as regualr poster don't behave like that.

Hi Mellor, thanks for your comments ( as moderator ).

What I have found is that a discussion commences, usually with a question, to which replies are posted, when a moderator replies, ( as a poster ) the reply comes of course from their experiences, however if there is dissent to that reply, the Moderator hat goes on, and its confusing. I am not prepared to discuss topics one minute with a poster, next minute the poster has put on his moderator hat, called up his fellow moderators and to be frank, you cannot win, I am only expressing opinions, thats what we all do, its up to the OP to ignore if the opinion is wrong.

An example of this would be the post from sydthebeat at 16.46 where he selectively quotes part of my question, deleting the second half, which makes the question clear, and I am accused of questioning how the Forum is moderated ( sorry I cannot multiquote ). I was asking for clarification as to whether they were posting as Mod's or not. And if so I would withdraw.

With regard to your following post, (as a poster) I will attempt to reply later, yesterday was a slow day in office but today I am all over the place.

Regards

martinn123

Hi Mellor ( as poster ).

I will try to answer your questions not individually but as follows.

Let's assume we all read the Charters.
1.4 posters should make every effort to verify advice, by the appointment of an independant and knowledgable 3rd party.

OK so thats a given, advice given here should be verified.
So why not set up an automated response to any post, with the above and lock the thread........because we want to discuss, offer advice and ''kick it around ''.

I realise the thread will not produce a final solution thats not the purpose, and no one posting should be wary of litigation, thats why we use silly names.

My problem with immediately appointing an Arch/Tech, is the rush to spend cash, I did say I have no problem with seeking advice, once some comments have been offered in the Forum, but I do not recomment this as a substitute to advice.

Planning Dept, all I said here is that I have found them useful, maybe living in Fingal my planning dept is different to other areas, I cannot compare.
As an example I had a query on an extention regarding a previous planning application made in the 80's. I emailed details of the address, and home owners names to the Dept, and they came back with a detailed reply, which involved looking up the original application, a good service in that case.

Section 5 Dec. I made no comment.

Finally with regard to P.U.T recommending an Arch/Tech, I note again from the Charter........ it should be noted that the forum may not be used to promote any particular group or organisation....... a group of Arch/Tech ???

I do not question his qualifications, or experiences, lets hear about them, post an opinion.

I am merely suggesting in my posts that a question while not having a yes/no answer..(..your advice is at variance from Muffler......thats good,) debate, inform, then when the OP seeks professional advice he knows what questions to ask.

sinnerboy

mail wrote: »

Do you need planning to replace a flat roof with an apex roof on a garage to the side and near the rear of the house

.... assuming you are still reading ...... :rolleyes:

Whether to do , or do not will have to be certified at the point of sale or re mortgage of your property.

Certification takes the form of a formal document called an "Opinion on Compliance with Planning Permission". Only indemnified construction professionals* may furnish these documents to the satisfaction of The Law Society.

*Architects , Architectural Technicians , Engineers and Construction Surveyors.

Lets look at some scenarios. Assuming the pitched roof is built now .

1. It transpires you did not require permission . Until you sell or re-mortgage no action is required but at that stage you will require a construction professional.

2. It transpires you needed permission . You will require a construction professional to prepare a retention application ( 3 month process ) Then , if that application succeeds ( an application of that nature should - but it is not guaranteed ) to then prepare Certification.

In the unlikely event of a refusal - you would likely be subject enforcement action to reinstate the roof to flat.

If the roof works are not built yet - consult a construction professional to advise .

Mellor

martinn123 wrote: »

OK so thats a given, advice given here should be verified.
So why not set up an automated response to any post, with the above and lock the thread........because we want to discuss, offer advice and ''kick it around ''.

That would be rather silly. There are many threads/questinos that are very much black and white. These are the ones that posters can give a concrete answer. A quick glance about should turn up lots that fit this description.

I realise the thread will not produce a final solution thats not the purpose, and no one posting should be wary of litigation, thats why we use silly names.

It seems you are unaware of the issue here.
Websites, including message boards and forums, are considered published data. And its the website that is liable, not the poster. So if somebody here posted something that was wrong and ended up costing a person a reasonable sum of money they could seek damages from boards.ie
Which is why legal matter, structural matters etc are automatically off the table.

My problem with immediately appointing an Arch/Tech, is the rush to spend cash, I did say I have no problem with seeking advice, once some comments have been offered in the Forum, but I do not recomment this as a substitute to advice.

If this current market, I would be surprised if you had to pay cash for an initial meeting with a construction professional.

Finally with regard to P.U.T recommending an Arch/Tech, I note again from the Charter........ it should be noted that the forum may not be used to promote any particular group or organisation....... a group of Arch/Tech ???

Architectural Technologists aren't a group or organisation. That line in the charter refers to the use of the forums to promote unfairly organisations like CIAT/RIAI/CIOB/IATGN etc. All are free to post here in an official capacity (and some do) but it isn't our place to push one over he other here.

I am merely suggesting in my posts that a question while not having a yes/no answer..(..your advice is at variance from Muffler......thats good,) debate, inform, then when the OP seeks professional advice he knows what questions to ask.

Nobody here is going to stiffle debate if its there is a place for it.
Our long time posters will remember a similar thread were the requirement of planning permission in attic conversation was discussed at some length.