Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Changes to planning requirements for skylights

  • 07-12-2023 10:49am
    #1
    Registered Users Posts: 225 ✭✭


    Hi everyone,

    I was discussing getting our attic converted recently with an architect and he said that there’s some CC’s the Dublin area changing their requirements for planning permission being required for skylights to the front of house.

    We are in the Fingal CC district and I wanted to reach out to any of the above CC’s before I contacted FCC.

    Would be willing to wait a short while if this requirement was changing.

    Is anyone aware of any changes or could point me in the right direction?

    Thanks very much.



Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 46,270 ✭✭✭✭muffler


    Interpretation of the Planning and Development Acts particularly the part of the regulations that covers exempted development has been shown to vary all round the country. Over the years most Planning Authorities took the view that up to 3 rooflights to the rear of a roof was exempt but rooflights to the front required permission. I'm fairly sure there was a recent determination by An Bord Pleanala that rooflights to the front were also exempt. I suspect that is what your architect is alluding to.

    If I can find a link to that case I'll post it up here later.



  • Subscribers Posts: 41,787 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    the only case that i can find where rooflights were deemed exempt to the front was a case in clare where there was already existing rooflights to the front. therefore the addition of more was deemed to be consistent with the existing.

    there is plenty of cases, even recent ones, where new rooflights to the front were deemed not exempt.


    i personally have not heard of anything coming down the tracks to clarify this complete clusterfcuk of a situation.


    a section 5 application is ALWAYS advisable in these cases



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 46,270 ✭✭✭✭muffler


    One case I did find was for 1 roof light on the front of the roof together with a host of other renovations and improvements back in 2016. ABP reference number is 25M.RL.3392. Westmeath Coco reference number is S5-5-15.



  • Registered Users Posts: 225 ✭✭CantThinkOfANam


    I forgot to mention that the architect stated the reason for some CC’s change of mind was that there’s no permission required for solar panels.

    I just found case: RL06D.RL3396 and OBP decision was to exempt front skylights on the basis of the follow extract from the Planning and Development Act:

    “Section 4 (1)(h) which 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;”

    There are a few houses in my estate that have front skylights (with planning permission) so I don’t see why I couldn’t argue that.

    I have contacted OBP but not sure if they will respond.



  • Subscribers Posts: 41,787 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    These things are on a case by case basis though. There's not one rule to cover everything.


    Even reading the reason the inspector came to the conclusion in your above case shows this:

    The 6 no. subject rooflights as stated above are relatively limited in scale.

    Having regard to the orientation of the dwelling on site and its set back from

    the public road of circa 20m combined with the degree of screen planting

    along the front boundary provides that the rooflights are not highly visible from

    the public domain and are only visible from close range views from the south-

    east and from the north-west on Torquay Road. Furthermore, rooflights are a

    feature of existing properties within Foxrock Architectural Conservation and

    therefore the installation of rooflights of this scale and number would be

    consistent with the particular special character of the area. Accordingly, the

    six rooflights would not materially affect the character of Foxrock Architectural

    Conservation Area.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 225 ✭✭CantThinkOfANam


    Yes that’s very true. I’m probably loosing a fighting battle but just exploring any way to save having to go down the planning permission route just for 2 or 3 skylights.



  • Subscribers Posts: 41,787 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat




  • Registered Users Posts: 225 ✭✭CantThinkOfANam


    Thanks. Would I better off trying to get an opinion from OBP or do they even accommodate that?



  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 39,709 Mod ✭✭✭✭Gumbo




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 46,270 ✭✭✭✭muffler




  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 39,709 Mod ✭✭✭✭Gumbo


    In that case, would I be correct in saying, they will not give an opinion so a pointless exercise?

    As it is currently, the Act doesn’t allow them so planning required?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 39,565 ✭✭✭✭Mellor


    There's enough wiggle room in the act that they could be allowed as exempt if a council wanted to.

    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;”

    Suitably vague and unqualified as to what counts are "materially inconsistent".

    Solar panels are specifically listed as exempt in the Planning regulations under Class 2? That wouldn't be transferable.



Advertisement