S
Hi
Planning law is open to interpetation and different local authorities take different attitudes, you would be better to talk to a planner in your local Co. Co. I believe in your case, you would need planning permission, as although you are replacing an existing structure, it will be considered to be a new structure...
Hi,
We are in the throws of a refurb. We have full planning permission for a one story kitchen extension to the rear of our edwardian building. It is not a protected structure but is in a conservation area.
The existing building has an L shape extension that was built with the house. We are taking out the lower half of that extension to make our kitchen.
My question is can we demolish and rebuild the top part of that extension...exactly as is but with better insulation and getting around all the drop floors rise ceilings issues....without permission.
Help as steel order needs to go in!
Stoli123
Thank you all for your very full responses. They were a great help and we easily made our decision from them.
We decided not to demolish and put tell tails on the upper part of the extension so we would know if it became unsafe.
Stoli123
Stoli123,
Only demolitions which are necessary and consequential part of exempted development extensions do not need permission.
Demolition of a habitable house or part of a habitable house - other than those described above - is not considered exempted development.
Even where permission has been granted, demolition must be limited to what is reasonably required to give effect to it.
If you unwisely neglected to include wholesale demolition and rebuilding in your permission, you are bound by what you have permission for.
FWIW
ONQ.
[broken link removed]
It is very important to be aware of the Limitation to Exempted Development for extensions to dwellings as set out in SI 235 of 2008.
Class 50 has been amended to now explicitly state that in relation to
(b) The demolition of part of a habitable house in connection with the provision of an extension or porch in accordance with Class 1 or 7, respectively, of this Part of prescribed Schedule or in accordance with a permission for an extension or porch under the Act.
that
1. No such building or buildings shall abut another building in separate ownership.
If you are intending to build an extension as exempted development, it WILL REQUIRE PLANNING PERMISSION if any structure to be demolished abuts a neighbouring property.
DBK100
http://www.mesh.ie
ONQ,
SI 235 of 2008, Class 50 gives the relevant limitation to the exemption.
See: http://www.environ.ie/en/Legislation/.../FileDownLoad,18013,en.pdf (www.environ.ie/en/Legislation/.../FileDownLoad,18013,en.pdf)
(Page 4).
The descriptions of what the exemptions are use the words:
The demolition of a building, or buildings within the curtilage of - (i) a house...
and
The demolition of part of a habitable house in connection with the provision of an extension...
The Limitation / Condition in the second column being that
"No such building or buildings [to be demolished] shall abut on another building in separate ownership.
So, is a garage a part of a habitable house? When it is attached to the house, and additionally, attached to the neighbouring house, the answer could very well be yes.
One can assume that this limitation was introduced to provide the adjoining owner with a right to comment or object to the demolition of a structure attached to his/her property. This is a very reasonable thing that closes a previous hole in the exempted development regulations.
With respect to 'demolition' versus 'partial demolition':
The amendment's use of only the word 'demolition' and not the words 'partial demolition' was most likely a conscious decision. The legal eagles who draft these regulations tend to be very precise with words.
My understanding would therefore be that 'demolition' means the full demolition of a structure or full demolition of a part of a house, i.e. the full demolition of a garage or lean-too which form part of a house.
Partial demolition in my opinion is not what is mean't here. I think the words partial demolition would have been employed in the regulation.
I would therefore think it acceptable to remove an element of a structure which abutted another property, and renew or replace it, without that work being considered as demolition as stated in the regulation.
If this were not the case, we would be into very grey territory. If one neighbour wanted to renew slates on his lean-too, is he carrying out a temporary demolition which abuts his neighbour's roof? Where would the line be drawn? If you remove the felt, the joists..? When does partial become full demolition?
I'm open to hearing other's views on this.
By the way, it seems that some of the planning dept. staff in Dublin C.C. are entirely unaware of this amendment. We were told this morning that we didn't need planning permission to demolish a lean-too abutting a neighbour's.
Beware: Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Even when that ignorance comes from the quasi-judicial body charged with enforcing that law!
DBK100
http://www.mesh.ie
DBK100,
Back to the Act and its a bit fascist, in that it appears to permit trespass to carry out works that have not been agreed to, but maybe that's my jaundiced mis-reading of it.
I would appreciate comments on this one and perhaps we should make a key post on this forum - even if that might double the one on the Law forum.
Have to think about that, but my concern is to centralise a planning and planning law resource and this goes to the heart of planning law.
You can see several discussions both here [this forum and the law forum] and others about party wall issues.
This information should be widely dispersed.
ONQ.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?