Planning issues - post them here MOD WARNING post #1

tenoldpence

Hello all,

A developer has applied to build some houses to the rear of my property. The council asked him to raise the finished floor levels of the houses in order to facilitate the use of a gravity foul sewer (rather than a pumping station) which he has done (on his proposal). The new houses are marked with GFL 50 on the plans, whereas they were GFL 47.5 before. What I want to know is if these numbers signify 'metres' above some level and if the new figure of GFL 50 means that the houses are 2.5 metres higher than they were before.

smashey

tenoldpence wrote: »

What I want to know is if these numbers signify 'metres' above some level and if the new figure of GFL 50 means that the houses are 2.5 metres higher than they were before.

That would be correct. All levels are given in metres.

pseudo-tech

tenoldpence wrote: »

Hello all,

A developer has applied to build some houses to the rear of my property. The council asked him to raise the finished floor levels of the houses in order to facilitate the use of a gravity foul sewer (rather than a pumping station) which he has done (on his proposal). The new houses are marked with GFL 50 on the plans, whereas they were GFL 47.5 before. What I want to know is if these numbers signify 'metres' above some level and if the new figure of GFL 50 means that the houses are 2.5 metres higher than they were before.

Yes i have to agree with smashey. There should be a benchamark (temporary or permanent) on the drawings that these figures relate back to.

tenoldpence

smashey wrote: »

That would be correct. All levels are given in metres.

Thanks smashey. Following on from that, the developer has left the rear gardens sloping down to their original floor level. In most cases that means a 3 metre slope from GFL50 to GFL47. The gardens are 11m long, but I guess the foundations of the house will stretch out for at least 2m of those 11, still at GFL 50. That would leave a 3m drop over the remaining 9m. To me that sounds crazy, but I'm not a developer! Is this as crazy as it seems?

sydthebeat

tenoldpence wrote: »

Thanks smashey. Following on from that, the developer has left the rear gardens sloping down to their original floor level. In most cases that means a 3 metre slope from GFL50 to GFL47. The gardens are 11m long, but I guess the foundations of the house will stretch out for at least 2m of those 11, still at GFL 50. That would leave a 3m drop over the remaining 9m. To me that sounds crazy, but I'm not a developer! Is this as crazy as it seems?

no, foundations only extend, on averag 300mm beyond the rear wall face.

but still.... 2.5 m drop over a distance of 11m is HUGE!!!!

The ground levels should have been raised, at either the developers design stage, or by the local authority. if they didnt spot it... well....

tenoldpence

sydthebeat wrote: »

no, foundations only extend, on averag 300mm beyond the rear wall face.

but still.... 2.5 m drop over a distance of 11m is HUGE!!!!

The ground levels should have been raised, at either the developers design stage, or by the local authority. if they didnt spot it... well....

Thanks, I'm new to all this so I don't know what developers try and get away with, just what commonsense dictates is silly in my own mind! (The actual drop would be 3m over 10m which, like you say, is HUGE!!) The latest plans were by way of FI and I have until the end of this week to reply. Decision is due by the end of the month.

To the rear and one side of these houses are fields. To the other side is a private garden. If the planners insist on the GFL being raised to a uniform 50 for the gardens as well, how would a developer go about this, or would he be allowed? Cheers

Poor Uncle Tom

Also please remember that anyone can change the level of their ground by up to 1 metre with out planning permission.

tenoldpence

Poor Uncle Tom wrote: »

Also please remember that anyone can change the level of their ground by up to 1 metre with out planning permission.

Would that be true even if they had just been granted planning permission based upon submitted ground levels?

Poor Uncle Tom

If they were specifically told to keep to the levels provided, then they must do so until the Certificate of Compliance is issued. Then their exemptions kick in and the ground level can be changed. Probably unlikely in your case.

tenoldpence

Poor Uncle Tom wrote: »

If they were specifically told to keep to the levels provided, then they must do so until the Certificate of Compliance is issued. Then their exemptions kick in and the ground level can be changed. Probably unlikely in your case.

Does the developer ask for the Certificate of Compliance when he has satisfied himself that he has completed the site and complied with all the conditions on his grant of planning permission? Does he have the whole five years of the permission to do so? Or does it work some other way?

Poor Uncle Tom

Each individual house property needs a Certificate of Compliance which will be used for the registration of title for that individual property.

The overall estate requires its own Certificate of Compliance for services to be taken in charge by the LA or by a Management Company until a LA decides to take control.

The solicitors for each of the property buyers will ask for the COC for the individual properties. The solicitors for the Management Company or the LA will ask for the COC for the estate services.

The developer has 5 years to bring the development to substantial completion. There is no timeframe on providing a COC but the solicitors involved in the various sales will not close sale without it.

tenoldpence

Thanks everyone for all the information so far. A couple more questions for those in the know about these things. (The first question is just a repeat of one above so that it doesn't get lost).

1) A developer is proposing to raise the GFL of some houses by 2.5m, but is not proposing to raise the levels of the gardens, leaving them sloping for anything between 2 or 3 metres over an 11m length. The gardens are bounded on two sides by fields and on one side by a long private garden. Firstly, would a developer get away with this? Secondly, presuming the council order him to also raise the levels of the gardens, how would he go about this? Is it possible to simply build a 3m wall around the site and fill the land up to the wall (and obviously way above surrounding lands)?

2) The developer was originally asked for further information and given 6 months to respond. Just before the 6 month deadline, he requested and was granted a 3 month extension. Were the council obliged to notify me about this extension? The day before the extra three months ran out, the developer supplied FI to the council. The council sent me a letter informing me of this and gave me 2 weeks to respond. The council will then give a decision 2 weeks after that. Has the correct procedure been followed here? Is it possible that the council could go back to the developer again with a second request for further information, or has the FI process finished completely for this application? If FI is allowed for a second time, can this process go on indefinetely?

All replies greatly received

rayjdav

Yes is the simple answer. Once you were informed of the receipt of the RFI. They can, and probably will, ask again for CLARIFICATION of the F.I. They can only request Clarification on any of the items though that were originally raised in the initial Request for Further Information. Once again, they will notify you if they go this route. They must them make a decision on what, if any, clarification information is submitted.

On point one, I lived in a development in Waterford where 3 storey houses had ridiculous rear gardens. About 2-3m of level ground to rear and then graded up by about 5-6m over 10-12m. Madness but all sold quickly.

tenoldpence

Thanks rayjdav. (That Waterford development sounds as crazy as this one!)

I have a few questions on boundaries if someone can help please - (sorry if I'm hogging the thread, but I'll try and make the questions generic so that they help people googling for information in the future - that's how I found this site!)

At the moment, the developer has merely noted that the backland of the site, a field, is surrounded by post and wire fencing on three sides - two other fields and a long private garden - and has marked 'to be retained' on the plans (which is big of him considering the fencing actually belongs to the adjacent properties). He has not indicated that he intends to build walls or suchlike at the end of each garden backing onto the adjacent land. Should he be obliged to build walls?

To the front of the site is a commercial building along a busy street, next door to and about 10m away from our bungalow. The developer wishes to demolish the current building in order to facilitate a new access road leading to the housing development at the rear. However, he then wants to build a replacement commercial building just 3m away from our bungalow, right up to the boundary wall between our properties. The new building will be slightly over 10m tall to the ridge of the roof, about 1.5m taller than the current building. It has a flat gable wall (with no windows). Our gable wall has windows for two bedrooms. Although the building wouldn't be directly blocking sunlight, it would obviously take away a substantial amount of natural light. The patch of land currently between the two existing buildings has never been built on before, and our property is roughly 40 years old. Would the planners let the developer get away with this - they didn't mention it in the RFI?

TIA for any advice. The world of planning is interesting and intricate, but I wish I wasn't on the receiving end of it!!

rayjdav

Refer to your local County (Town) Development Plan. Under development standards usually there are the locally enforced standards re types/densities/boundaries/landscaping etc etc etc. They all differ slightly so you need to read YOUR one. This stipulates usually boundary treatments expected. Walls, not neccessarily so. But would you buy a house in an estate that is not bounded securly?????
The other important thing to consider is the fact that if he wants to demolish a building (commercial say) and rebuild another one, and if the land is NOT zoned so, you may have him by the short and curlies.... Once again refer to YOUR C.D.P. If it is ok, you can object and request that the planners seek daylight and shadow studies/noise pollution reports etc etc.. They will, most of the time, take this on board....
Hope of some use.
It sure is fun.......

sofia11

I have a query about planning for a two storey house behind our house, our house is a bungalow. We are the only house at this crossroads at present and we just want to know if ridge heights are a factor as this will be two metres over us, we will be over looked totally house and garden. We've expressed our concern and asked at least the house be turned out to the road (at right angles to each other) as we have seen all houses in the local area are turned out to the road,(especially at other crossroads and share similar ridge heights as well) The planner has asked for F1 but indicates the ridge heights are to stay and the direction of the house isn't changed. The ground is also rising slightly from us so it will give extra height about 2 metres in difference.

muffler

sofia11 wrote: »

I have a query about planning for a two storey house behind our house, our house is a bungalow. We are the only house at this crossroads at present and we just want to know if ridge heights are a factor as this will be two metres over us, we will be over looked totally house and garden. We've expressed our concern and asked at least the house be turned out to the road (at right angles to each other) as we have seen all houses in the local area are turned out to the road,(especially at other crossroads and share similar ridge heights as well) The planner has asked for F1 but indicates the ridge heights are to stay and the direction of the house isn't changed. The ground is also rising slightly from us so it will give extra height about 2 metres in difference.

Unfortunately different planners have different views on these things. You have obviously made a submission but have you pointed out all of the above in that submission.

How far is the proposed house from your house?

tenoldpence

rayjdav wrote: »

Refer to your local County (Town) Development Plan. Under development standards usually there are the locally enforced standards re types/densities/boundaries/landscaping etc etc etc. They all differ slightly so you need to read YOUR one. This stipulates usually boundary treatments expected. Walls, not neccessarily so. But would you buy a house in an estate that is not bounded securly?????
The other important thing to consider is the fact that if he wants to demolish a building (commercial say) and rebuild another one, and if the land is NOT zoned so, you may have him by the short and curlies.... Once again refer to YOUR C.D.P. If it is ok, you can object and request that the planners seek daylight and shadow studies/noise pollution reports etc etc.. They will, most of the time, take this on board....
Hope of some use.
It sure is fun.......

Thanks. Going through the plans at the moment. Lots of discrepancies! The developer's okay with the zoning though. The LAP and CDP don't say anything about overshadowing and such. I was hoping there was some sort of a general principle about building very tall buildings next to bungalows, e.g. "you can't do it!"

tenoldpence

I've been told that planning consultants have been dropping their fees due to the recession. Does anyone know if this is true? What would be a reasonable hourly/daily/weekly fee for a consultant who was preparing an objection?

sofia11

Hi Muffler, just to answer your question, yes we have made a submission and included ridge height diff and requesting turning the house out to the road. We didn't point out about other houses 1 or 2 km away as regards ridge heights, facing public road etc, would a planner like this pointed out to them? We are using our single bungalow as a point of reference in this case. Like tenold pence has asked are there particular guidelines here?

A bit of background here, the same applicant put in application for a bungalow futher up the field facing into the back of our property about 150 m away. we didn't put in a submission as it was single storey, 150 m away and on a slight slope, (difficult to turn out to road) but it was withdrawn as applicant couldn't fulfill all critera for planning ie not living in area. It now has 'slid down' on flatter ground and is now storey and 2 thirds and about 100 m from us.
Question is does the original ridge height and direction have a legal standing even though it was never granted?

rayjdav

Sofia11, if I understand your situation then the simple answer is NO. Each application is taken on its own unique merit, assuming that this is a new seperate application. He can, and probably did, change a lot to suit the new location.
One thing you said though, he did not meet the local needs last time??? Why? Look into this if you really want to but remember, if he gets permission, he WILL BE your neighbour......

sofia11

thanks for reply, but we we happy to have person building but changing from a bungalow to 1 storey and 2 thirds and moving nearer is rather irritating as we didn't object to first application in fairness.
The applicant has parents with 150 acres, 5km various roadfrontage other better views, not limited to building behind a bungalow, actually have other site for sale in another field!
The F1 was because of new design of house, lots of glazing, balconies more belonging to urban setting according to planner, no concessions there actually pushed the boat out a bit as we seem to be quite naive/ stupid neighbourly people.

muffler

Any proposed development in close proximity to existing structures should not be overbearing nor should it impinge on the residential amenities of your home and should be designed and located to integrate with the surrounding landscape. Thats a general sweeping statement but would apply to all proposed developments.

Established precedent will also be looked at but really and truly what may have been permitted a mile away would not necessarily be a yardstick to measure from and hence may not be applicable in this instance. If the orientation and heights of houses within say 400 metres of the site are taken into account then that precedent or the established development pattern are taken into account then the new proposal would need to conform to those.

As stated previously it varies from site to site.

sofia11

it is good to get another perspective on this, thanks to muffler and rayjdav. We wanted to be reasonable and neighbourly and we were ok to let the first application go ahead.
Now the F1 asked for the applicant to submit a house more in keeping with a rural dev plan but the planner has decided the ridge height stays 2 metres over our bungalow and the orientatation of the house remains ie totally oeverlooking our house and garden.
When the new submission is made as requested by the planner, are we notified and what further recourse have we got with the new submission?

davidoco

tenoldpence wrote: »

At the moment, the developer has merely noted that the backland of the site, a field, is surrounded by post and wire fencing on three sides - two other fields and a long private garden - and has marked 'to be retained' on the plans (which is big of him considering the fencing actually belongs to the adjacent properties). He has not indicated that he intends to build walls or suchlike at the end of each garden backing onto the adjacent land. Should he be obliged to build walls?(

Regarding boundary walls, have a read of this communities fight to have a basic proper boundary wall built around a development in their village. I don’t even think there were any properties behind the development. It highlights the issues surrounding getting developers to even comply with conditions attached to grants of permission.


http://www.ballonvillage.com/BIG%20updates.htm - letters mixed in among other correspondence

muffler

sofia11 wrote: »

but the planner has decided the ridge height stays 2 metres over our bungalow and the orientatation of the house remains ie totally oeverlooking our house and garden.

Are you sure about this? Is this confirmed in writing?

sofia11 wrote: »

When the new submission is made as requested by the planner, are we notified and what further recourse have we got with the new submission?

You will be invited to make fresh submissions so its probably better that you engage someone in that area who is familiar with the planning system and can help you accordingly.

tenoldpence

davidoco wrote: »

Regarding boundary walls, have a read of this communities fight to have a basic proper boundary wall built around a development in their village. I don’t even think there were any properties behind the development. It highlights the issues surrounding getting developers to even comply with conditions attached to grants of permission.


http://www.ballonvillage.com/BIG%20updates.htm - letters mixed in among other correspondence

Thanks. It's an interesting site in general. They seem to have had many of the same problems that we've had with our village.

wonky79

Hi, hoping for some advice. I have a semi-d house in Dublin, with a party wall out the back between me and the neighbour. My neighbour informed me that he is going to be building an extension in a few weeks and was letting me know as he will need to take the party wall down to lay the foundations. He is a nice man and a builder so when he told me he doesn't need planning permission I just nodded. What is the story with the party wall...is he allowed to use that as the side of his extension or should he build a wall within his side of the party wall? any advice would be greatly appreciated. While i do not want to fall out with them, I realise i will be hindered in the future as I will not be able to build an extension if he is using the wall as a structure wall.

Poor Uncle Tom

If you know exactly where the boundry line is (half way on the party wall, I presume) then the party wall cannot be removed unless both sides agree.

I think you need to read up on Planning and Development regulation S.I. no 600 of 2001. go to Schedule 1, Part 1, Class 1 and read the conditions
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2001/en/si/0600.html#partii

RKQ

I agree with Uncle Tom.
To be classed "exempted development" and not require Planning Permission - no part of the extension should overhang the boundary line of the party wall. This means the rain-water gutter, downpipes and fascia should be on your neighbours side of the boundary line (centre of boundary wall)

Hopefully your neighbour wants to temporarily remove the party wall in order to build his new external wall and plaster same before reinstating the original party wall.

Good luck, I hope it works out.