Planning issues - post them here MOD WARNING post #1

muffler

sydthebeat wrote: »

does this apply to someone building an extension to the rear of their dwelling???

say a standard extension of 28 on GF and 12 on FF.....

if their rear garden space was reduced to less than 65m2... can it still be consider exempt??

First of all the requirements for development plans including regional planning guidelines are set out in Part 2, Chapter 1 of the 2000 regs (now encompassed into the 2001 regs).

To answer your question above. It depends on when the permission was granted for the original house. Say a house got permission and was built last year and the owners now wish to erect an extension as you described then it would require PP as it would contravene a planning condition. Houses granted permission under the current Co. Devp. Plan all have conditions that the rear gardens must have a min. area of 65m2. This of course is in urban locations.

muffler

RKQ wrote: »

The rear garden must maintain at least 25sqm open space

Im curious now. Apart from the exempted development conditions and the conditions applied on foot of local development plans where is this 25m2 area contained in the P & D regs?

sydthebeat

muffler wrote: »

First of all the requirements for development plans including regional planning guidelines are set out in Part 2, Chapter 1 of the 2000 regs (now encompassed into the 2001 regs).

To answer your question above. It depends on when the permission was granted for the original house. Say a house got permission and was built last year and the owners now wish to erect an extension as you described then it would require PP as it would contravene a planning condition. Houses granted permission under the current Co. Devp. Plan all have conditions that the rear gardens must have a min. area of 65m2. This of course is in urban locations.

but the problem with this is that the CDP is a policy document that sets out strageties and objectives. There always room for permissions to be granted that dont meet CDP requirements... ie brownfield sites, renovations etc....

i honestly cant see how a CDP suggested policy can supercede a planning regulation..... without direct reference in the planning act, obviously.

The planning act sets out the requirements fo rthe drafting and implementation of the CDPs, but it doesnt set out its policies as legislation.

Poor Uncle Tom

SI No. 600 of 2001 superceeded SI No. 80 of 1994, but what came before the latter? All regarding private open space to the rear of a dwelling.

RKQ

Poor Uncle Tom wrote: »

SI No. 600 of 2001 superceeded SI No. 80 of 1994, but what came before the latter?

Nothing! Off the top of my head I think 1994 was the first time minimum rear garden area was addressed.

As regards 25sqm its mainly confined to exempted development. It may be relevant to the OP, as its better to be aware of all possible FT / problems before jumping head first.

As I implied above, its a rule it may not be relevant to a permission application but human nature being what it is you could have difficulty getting Planners to ignore a rule. 5sqm isn't big and it is worth having otherwise one might feel they live in a slum.

Interpretation, rules, regulations, good practice, professional opinion - all points of interest and conflict in our daily profession. Sure its great to debate. And we have all come across "difficult" individuals who misinterpete things.

Now back to the OP - lots of really good info here - a nice comprehensive reply to your query. ( I hate one word answers!!!:D)

muffler

sydthebeat wrote: »

i honestly cant see how a CDP suggested policy can supercede a planning regulation..... without direct reference in the planning act, obviously.

It wouldn't be "suggested policy", it would be an objective. In the case we both refer to re extending a house to the rear where the planning regs would normally indicate that it would be exempt as you well know the exemptions are based on certain conditions being met.

Now this is the trick. If a PA grants permission for a house with the condition that the rear garden has to be 65m2 min then any subsequent extension to the rear of the house will only be exempt if there is still 65m2 of garden space remaining.

The Planning & Development Acts are quite clear in this regard insofar as the extension is only exempt providing that it does not contravene a planning condition. The same Acts also provide for Planning Authorities to formulate and implement their own development plans and said plans will be used as the yardstick for planning control.

sydthebeat

muffler wrote: »

It wouldn't be "suggested policy", it would be an objective. In the case we both refer to re extending a house to the rear where the planning regs would normally indicate that it would be exempt as you well know the exemptions are based on certain conditions being met.

Now this is the trick. If a PA grants permission for a house with the condition that the rear garden has to be 65m2 min then any subsequent extension to the rear of the house will only be exempt if there is still 65m2 of garden space remaining.

The Planning & Development Acts are quite clear in this regard insofar as the extension is only exempt providing that it does not contravene a planning condition. The same Acts also provide for Planning Authorities to formulate and implement their own development plans and said plans will be used as the yardstick for planning control.

if there is a specific condition that states 'no development shall take place that will reduce rear garden space to less than that recommended in teh CDP"... then fine, i would completely agree with you...

personally, i have only ever seen conditions that state something like "no development shall take place within the curtilage of the site, notwithstanding exempted developemnt conditions, without a planning application to the local authpority"....

however, if such a condition does not exist then i would argue that a rear garden CAN be reduced to 25sqm by construction of an 'exempt' extension and/or 'exempt' garage.....

maireadmarie

Good Evening. I notice a few posts here mentioning building near a boundary. A neighbour has built a garage on our joint boundary and is now converting this to a house. He has come into the garden twice to paint the soffit already - I do not want to lose our privacy like this. He has a very large garden and did not need to build on our boundary wall, which he incidentally built at the time he built his house, removing our joint fence to do so, but he has no permission for a garage, only a house, so therefore the garage and the new conversion are unauthorized.
However, someone told me that there is a rule whereby if some years pass without his unauthorized dwelling being discovered by the local council, they will be unable to make him take it away, and the only difficulty for him will be that he cannot sell his house.

Some time ago a single-storey bungalow was given permission in the area, but a two-and a half storey house was subsequently built, and the permission was not amended. Because this house was in situ for longer than seven years before neighbours realised there was no permission for this house which overlooked all of their gardens, the council were unable to act. Does anyone know what this rule is called and where I could find out about it? Obviously I don't want this to happen with my neighbour's unauthorised building, the gable of which is firmly on the boundary of our garden, the lower part of the gable being part of the garden wall so that it appears that we have a house gable on our garden boundary.

smashey

maireadmarie wrote: »

Good Evening. I notice a few posts here mentioning building near a boundary. A neighbour has built a garage on our joint boundary and is now converting this to a house. He has come into the garden twice to paint the soffit already - I do not want to lose our privacy like this. He has a very large garden and did not need to build on our boundary wall, which he incidentally built at the time he built his house, removing our joint fence to do so, but he has no permission for a garage, only a house, so therefore the garage and the new conversion are unauthorized.
However, someone told me that there is a rule whereby if some years pass without his unauthorized dwelling being discovered by the local council, they will be unable to make him take it away, and the only difficulty for him will be that he cannot sell his house.

Some time ago a single-storey bungalow was given permission in the area, but a two-and a half storey house was subsequently built, and the permission was not amended. Because this house was in situ for longer than seven years before neighbours realised there was no permission for this house which overlooked all of their gardens, the council were unable to act. Does anyone know what this rule is called and where I could find out about it? Obviously I don't want this to happen with my neighbour's unauthorised building, the gable of which is firmly on the boundary of our garden, the lower part of the gable being part of the garden wall so that it appears that we have a house gable on our garden boundary.

This post has litigation written all over it so we won't be able to give any advice on it.

What I'd suggest you do is call your local planning office and speak to the enforcement officer.

muffler

smashey wrote: »

This post has litigation written all over it so we won't be able to give any advice on it.

What I'd suggest you do is call your local planning office and speak to the enforcement officer.

Agreed.

And I would request that no one else responds to this query.

Poor Uncle Tom

RKQ wrote: »

Nothing! Off the top of my head I think 1994 was the first time minimum rear garden area was addressed.

Yes I think so, but SI 80 of 1994 deals with exempted developments in general and not just minimum rear garden area. As we know there were exemptions from planning permission pre 1994, and I'm trying to remember in what document they were listed (was it 1977 Planning Regulations?) Sorry for being so vague, I just wonder if anyone remembers.

muffler

Poor Uncle Tom wrote: »

Yes I think so, but SI 80 of 1994 deals with exempted developments in general and not just minimum rear garden area. As we know there were exemptions from planning permission pre 1994, and I'm trying to remember in what document they were listed (was it 1977 Planning Regulations?) Sorry for being so vague, I just wonder if anyone remembers.

A long time ago but if my memory serves me right (cant be arsed looking back through old regs) then the garden/open space area to be retained in the exempted devp.situations was never an issue then.

Poor Uncle Tom

muffler wrote: »

..cant be arsed looking back through old regs

...:D

The memories seem to have sorted themselves out in my head, went on to deal with something else in the meantime and now its all clear, getting old is kicking in I guess.

The planning regulations encompassed all exemptions up until 1994 when the exemptions were all put together in a seperate SI. 1994 was the first time amenity space was taken consideration of in the planning regulations and only in relation to exempted development.

Thanks, I need a fag now.

muffler

I think that is spot on Tom (while puffing a Major)

I remember the time too that there was no limit on the floor area of a detached garage. Height was a factor I recall but not area.

maireadmarie

I really appreciate the replies and will contact the planning office as advised.
Best wishes to you all!

Poor Uncle Tom

muffler wrote: »

while puffing a Major

Hexactly that,

sweet afton, No.6 or players would also have got the points.

muffler

maireadmarie wrote: »

I really appreciate the replies and will contact the planning office as advised.
Best wishes to you all!

Im sorry we couldn't have been more helpful but our charter does not allow us to discuss anything of a legal nature or is likely to end up in litigation of some sort.

Juantorena

Apologies if this is getting too close to legal territory, remove if is the case

Hi,

Our site (in Galway county) has three granted permissions - one for extension to cottage, one for new build out back of cottage, final one for re-design of new build out back.

When we decide to build to one of the permissions, do/can any of the conditions outlined in the other two grants apply? Or are you required to build to satisfy only the conditions laid out in the applicable granting? For example, if we decided to build the extension - would any conditions of the two subsequent grantings apply?

Secondary slightly related question - development contributions, none of the three permissions we have mention anything regarding contributions to co. council. It has been suggested to me that, therefore, I need not pay said fees...any comments? For instance, how does one establish your/the level of - liability for these fees?

RKQ

Hi Juantorena I'm afraid your query is too vague to answer, regarding 3 permissions to the same structure.

It would be too easy to be contradicted on the info supplied. Seek professional advice from those that submitted your drawings. ( Common sense could assume that all conditions are contained inthe latest grant of permission!)

Secondly if no contributions are listed in your Conditions of Permission then there are no contributions to pay / make - its an existing dwelling - so it has its own water and sewerage facilities!:)

rodred

Hi, first time on heargettin loads of great info.

i have a planning app. in with DLRCOCO, there has been an objaction
from the neighbour beside where we are going to build. we bought a side garden site, the back of the house will be at a 90 degree angle to there front driveway. with the 2 upstairs bedrooms facing here driveway.
does anyone know what the proceedure is, does this mean we will not get the permission? any info would be much appreciated. i hope i have put this in the right thread.

Thanks
Rob.

muffler

I'd agree with RKQ. Its impossible to say without actually seeing all 3 grants of permission as there could be conditions that are inter-linked.

smashey

rodred wrote: »

Hi, first time on heargettin loads of great info.

i have a planning app. in with DLRCOCO, there has been an objaction
from the neighbour beside where we are going to build. we bought a side garden site, the back of the house will be at a 90 degree angle to there front driveway. with the 2 upstairs bedrooms facing here driveway.
does anyone know what the proceedure is, does this mean we will not get the permission? any info would be much appreciated. i hope i have put this in the right thread.

Thanks
Rob.

It doesn't mean that you won't get permission. The planners will have to look at the objection and take it into consideration when making a decision.

Juantorena

RKQ wrote: »

Hi Juantorena I'm afraid your query is too vague to answer, regarding 3 permissions to the same structure.

It would be too easy to be contradicted on the info supplied. Seek professional advice from those that submitted your drawings. ( Common sense could assume that all conditions are contained inthe latest grant of permission!)

Secondly if no contributions are listed in your Conditions of Permission then there are no contributions to pay / make - its an existing dwelling - so it has its own water and sewerage facilities!:)

muffler wrote: »

I'd agree with RKQ. Its impossible to say without actually seeing all 3 grants of permission as there could be conditions that are inter-linked.

Thanks for the responses, guys.

Would it be appropriate to post links to the grants, I'm not sure?

Engineer who submitted the latest/last application is of the opinion that (assuming we build to that application) the conditions of that last granting are what we need to build to. RKQ, regarding common sense - from my and others' reading of it the last granting has omitted certain conditions which were included in the previous grants - hence my question. I understand you are flying blind regarding this without being privy to the actual text...

I was hoping that the fact we already have sewage and water supplies on site negate the council fees, thanks!

Poor Uncle Tom

Generally,
A planning permission and associated conditions is a stand alone legal document. If you have more then one on any given site, then the adoption of one will normally negate the others. You can not mix and match. Whichever permission you choose you will have to work to that permission and conditions and associated drawings and specifications. If the adopted planning permission has not got a contribution condition then none has to be paid.

muffler

Poor Uncle Tom wrote: »

Generally,
A planning permission and associated conditions is a stand alone legal document. If you have more then one on any given site, then the adoption of one will normally negate the others. You can not mix and match. Whichever permission you choose you will have to work to that permission and conditions and associated drawings and specifications. If the adopted planning permission has not got a contribution condition then none has to be paid.

True.

But what I see the planners doing here in the situation where someone applies for example for a change of house type is putting a condition in the grant of the second permission stating that all conditions applied on the grant of the first permission are to be complied with. In fact I seen this as a single condition on a few of them

Juantorena

Thanks for your reply, Poor Uncle Tom.

I'll take all replies as suggestions based on posters experiences/knowledge but I will certainly look for confirmation from the local authority. It does appear, however, that the lack of any mention of contributions on the grants does mean that they are fees I'm not liable for.

Regarding the multiple grants - I think I'll leave it there as it is unfair to posters to comment without having the text in front of them.

muffler

rodred wrote: »

Hi, first time on heargettin loads of great info.

i have a planning app. in with DLRCOCO, there has been an objaction
from the neighbour beside where we are going to build. we bought a side garden site, the back of the house will be at a 90 degree angle to there front driveway. with the 2 upstairs bedrooms facing here driveway.
does anyone know what the proceedure is, does this mean we will not get the permission? any info would be much appreciated. i hope i have put this in the right thread.

Thanks
Rob.

You may/may not get permission but its generally not accepted practice to have windows overlooking a neighbour's property unless you are about 25 metres from it. If its less than 25 metres then your neighbours will loose their residential amenity and that is grounds for a refusal.

rodred

thanks for the info, its much appreciated

Poor Uncle Tom

muffler wrote: »

But what I see the planners doing here in the situation where someone applies for example for a change of house type is putting a condition in the grant of the second permission stating that all conditions applied on the grant of the first permission are to be complied with. In fact I seen this as a single condition on a few of them

Yeah I've seen that too, it's the lazy way out, imo.

Macroom Man

muffler wrote: »

You may/may not get permission but its generally not accepted practice to have windows overlooking a neighbour's property unless you are about 25 metres from it. If its less than 25 metres then your neighbours will loose their residential amenity and that is grounds for a refusal.

Guy near me was given permission subject to not having a window which might overlook neighbour ( as you said). He ignored that and put window in: what is likely to happen now?
It does not affect me but people who want to build below him will be affected.