Planning issues - post them here MOD WARNING post #1

almae

we submiited plans for the extension and renovation of existing dwelling and outbuilding including the relocation of existing septic tank and percolation area.

Our decision was due 19/05 and we got a letter of further information required.

Out AT looked at it and as are we is dumb founded at the following they want.there was 4 pages in total which all are easy enough but the below is a issue.

2. Having regard to the vernacular architectural, local and historical merit of
the cottage and in order to enable the planning authority to further assess the
impact of the proposed development, the applicant is requested to submit the
following information:

(a) Please submit a detailed and comprehensive internal and external
photographic survey of the existing structures.

(b) Please submit a detailed historical survey of the existing building, prepared
by a suitably qualified and experienced Conservation Architect in conjunction
with a local historian if necessary.
(c) Please submit a detailed and comprehensive report prepared by a suitably
qualified Conservation Architect indicating how the new development will be
integrated into the existing traditional fabric of the building.
(d) Please provide a detailed method statement on the conservation works for
the protection of the historic fabric of the structures.
(e) Please submit a detailed design rationale for the proposed design
approach.
Please note that the Conservation Architect employed must have previous
relevant experience in dealing with similar structures.

any advice would be appreciated as this is an unlisted building.

Cuauhtemoc

I would also be interested in any opinions on the above post.
Where would that leave our FI request if the structure turned out not to be protected?

Thanks,

C.

mylesmcd

Hi,
I have installed solar panels on a flat roof and now find I may need retention. Seems like I need help interpreting section 3 of the planning regulation that sets out what solar panel installations are exempt from planning:

3. The distance between the plane of a flat roof and the panel shall not exceed 50 centimetres.

My panels are at an angle on frames putting the uppermost edge of the panel about 1m off the plane of the flat roof. The lower edge of the panel is about 20cm off the plane of the flat roof. I interpreted the 50cm rule to apply to the lower edge - am I right?

Has anyone run into this before?

Poor Uncle Tom

mylesmcd wrote: »

Hi,
I have installed solar panels on a flat roof and now find I may need retention. Seems like I need help interpreting section 3 of the planning regulation that sets out what solar panel installations are exempt from planning:

3. The distance between the plane of a flat roof and the panel shall not exceed 50 centimetres.

My panels are at an angle on frames putting the uppermost edge of the panel about 1m off the plane of the flat roof. The lower edge of the panel is about 20cm off the plane of the flat roof. I interpreted the 50cm rule to apply to the lower edge - am I right?

Has anyone run into this before?

My interpretation of No. 3 is the maximum distance between the plane of a flat roof and the panel shall be 50cm. therefore you have exceeded the distance allowable, imo.

mylesmcd

Thanks Uncle Tom - I suppose my beef is that the 50cm maximum limit is being applied to the uppermost point of the panel - not the nearest point of the panel to the roof i.e. the lower edge (I thought the 50cm rule was to prevent panels from being on large frames above the flat roof).

The condition means that effectively no panels on a flat roof are exempt from requiring planning as no manufacturer seems to offer panels that, even when in landscape orientation, would satisfy the constraint that their upper edge be 50cm from the roof - no panels I've seen are that narrow!

Daisy87

Hi,
Ive never used his before so i hope this goes ok.:(

I have recently put in for planning permission for a two story house, nothing mad just your typical 4 bed two story, out in the countryside.

Anyway the other day it came back for further infomation and one of the problems is that the planners have deemed the house to big. its only around 2300 sq ft, i wouldnt have thought this overly massive esp considering some of the other houses which have been recently built on the same road. they have told us to reduce the size of it and also to do up a good landscape plan.

im not too worried about the landscape plan but i am curious to what people think. is it too big?! any thoughts would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks a mill.:o

smashey

Daisy87 wrote: »

Hi,
Ive never used his before so i hope this goes ok.:(

I have recently put in for planning permission for a two story house, nothing mad just your typical 4 bed two story, out in the countryside.

Anyway the other day it came back for further infomation and one of the problems is that the planners have deemed the house to big. its only around 2300 sq ft, i wouldnt have thought this overly massive esp considering some of the other houses which have been recently built on the same road. they have told us to reduce the size of it and also to do up a good landscape plan.

im not too worried about the landscape plan but i am curious to what people think. is it too big?! any thoughts would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks a mill.:o

When they say 'too big', do the mean the floor area or the ridge height? You should take photos of the other houses in the area as precedent could come in to play.

Daisy87

Hi Smashey,
No its the floor area that is deemed too big. my dad also suggested taking pics of other housesi just wondered what others thought. it was the last thing i was expecting them to come back with!

smashey

Daisy87 wrote: »

Hi Smashey,
No its the floor area that is deemed too big. my dad also suggested taking pics of other housesi just wondered what others thought. it was the last thing i was expecting them to come back with!

Precedent works sometimes. Your agent should meet with the planner and get exactly what reduction they are looking for and maybe even argue the case if the precedent is there.

No6

Daisy87 wrote: »

Hi Smashey,
No its the floor area that is deemed too big. my dad also suggested taking pics of other housesi just wondered what others thought. it was the last thing i was expecting them to come back with!

or do they mean that the roof span is too large, they have recently restricted us here in Mayo to 8m so avoid big large span roofs. Its a complete pain in the ****.

sofia11

Sorry to hear about your story Daisy. What county do you live in because here in County Cork we have gone from one extreme to the other. A few years ago even single storey were reduced or refused outright and now the flood gates have opened, build as big as you like and its granted. I see permissions going in from persons refused in 2006/7 so now they have resubmitted in 2009 so word is the planner is changed which is the case............. so now is the time. Ireland needs a NATIONAL strategy like France where square footage and height is specified and the design is within those parametres. At least there are no nasty surprises in store.

curlylocks

Daisy87 wrote: »

Hi,
Ive never used his before so i hope this goes ok.:(

I have recently put in for planning permission for a two story house, nothing mad just your typical 4 bed two story, out in the countryside.

Anyway the other day it came back for further infomation and one of the problems is that the planners have deemed the house to big. its only around 2300 sq ft, i wouldnt have thought this overly massive esp considering some of the other houses which have been recently built on the same road. they have told us to reduce the size of it and also to do up a good landscape plan.

im not too worried about the landscape plan but i am curious to what people think. is it too big?! any thoughts would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks a mill.:o

Hi Daisy,
Are you in Co. Galway? I know they have a policy that the house size must be in portion to the site size, therefore a site of 2000sqm (1/2 acre) will allow a maximum house size of 200sqm. For house sizes over 200sqm the site size shall increase by 10sqm for each square meter of dwelling. Its DM Standard 9 in their new County Development Plan.

I'm not sure if any other local authorities have similar policies.

Bitten & Hisses

Having gone through the mill with planning since April of last year, I can sympathise with Daisy. I for one cannot understand planners' obsession with ridge heights in areas which are not beauty spots. We had a lot of discussion with our planner about ridge heights, which eventually led to us reducing by 1 metre, even though the previous planner told us at pre-planning that what we were intending was ok. Of course, this wasn't documented in the record, so the new guy wouldn't entertain that and sent out a request for FI on the day that we were due our initial decision :mad: . I have looked at many houses recently and asked myself, would there be a big blight on the lanscape if these houses were a metre higher? I can't say that it would in most cases.
In our case, we commissioned an excellent architectural practice, who came up with beautiful designs, nothing very contemporary. These guys have won awards for their developments and have an excellent reputation, but they are becoming utterly frustrated with the attitude in the County Council.

Poor Uncle Tom

Bitten & Hisses wrote: »

In our case, we commissioned an excellent architectural practice, who came up with beautiful designs, nothing very contemporary. These guys have won awards for their developments and have an excellent reputation, but they are becoming utterly frustrated with the attitude in the County Council.

You're preaching to the converted here, well with me anyway. It gets very frustrating talking to a planner about a project who gets hung up on minor items and bogged down on bits and pieces only to find another planner wouldn't have asked for half the detail.

But I do believe a 1m height difference is a big deal. I would fight that one if one planner led me to believe there was no problem and another one told me drop the height by 1m.

Bitten & Hisses

Poor Uncle Tom wrote: »

But I do believe a 1m height difference is a big deal. I would fight that one if one planner led me to believe there was no problem and another one told me drop the height by 1m.

I can see how it would possible be a big deal if you were living in an especially scenic area, but in a normal, run-of-the mill site like mine, which incidentally is set well back from the road (5 acres of ground in total) I can't see why it should be relevant.
Anyway, this planner's arrogance is breathtaking. When trying to refer back to the previous planner's guidance, this guy doesn't want to know. "I'm the planner now" is his favourite statement. Fighting this is just not an option. The only way I can see to challenge him is to get a refusal and go to An Bord Pleanala, which is lunacy in my opinion.
I suppose what annoys me most is the complete lack of consistency in the area. I'm all for proper planning and design which is sympathetic to the area, but these people are like bloody dictators.

Poor Uncle Tom

Bitten & Hisses wrote: »

I can see how it would possible be a big deal if you were living in an especially scenic area, but in a normal, run-of-the mill site like mine, which incidentally is set well back from the road (5 acres of ground in total) I can't see why it should be relevant.
Anyway, this planner's arrogance is breathtaking. When trying to refer back to the previous planner's guidance, this guy doesn't want to know. "I'm the planner now" is his favourite statement. Fighting this is just not an option. The only way I can see to challenge him is to get a refusal and go to An Bord Pleanala, which is lunacy in my opinion.
I suppose what annoys me most is the complete lack of consistency in the area. I'm all for proper planning and design which is sympathetic to the area, but these people are like bloody dictators.

I completely agree with you.

fitzie79

Bitten & Hisses wrote: »

I suppose what annoys me most is the complete lack of consistency in the area. I'm all for proper planning and design which is sympathetic to the area, but these people are like bloody dictators.

lack of consistency is my biggest gripe as well. we were refused permission for a 1.5s tory because there was a bungalow on either side of us. one of those bungalows had dormer windows but we weren't allowed them.... similar situation 1/2 mile away (and higher up the hill but they got 1.5 stories even though it was next to a bungalow

however, all the planning delays saved us a lot of money because it meant we got tenders that were 30% cheaper than at the peak

muffler

fitzie79 wrote: »

however, all the planning delays saved us a lot of money because it meant we got tenders that were 30% cheaper than at the peak

Cloud/silver lining and all that jazz

galhalmur

Hi
Can anyone tell me where i can find a Qualified Archaeologist to carry out a Pre-development testing at a site for a stand alone house in Cork county.
Al does anyone know how much this costs and has the cost come down in the last few months

Thanking you all

muffler

galhalmur wrote: »

Hi
Can anyone tell me where i can find a Qualified Archaeologist to carry out a Pre-development testing at a site for a stand alone house in Cork county.
Al does anyone know how much this costs and has the cost come down in the last few months

Thanking you all

No idea myself as to who you'd get in Cork but maybe look up the old yellow/golden pages. Do shop around for quotes as you will find substantial differences.

Out of curiosity why do you need a pre devp. test done?

galhalmur

muffler wrote: »

No idea myself as to who you'd get in Cork but maybe look up the old yellow/golden pages. Do shop around for quotes as you will find substantial differences.

Out of curiosity why do you need a pre devp. test done?

The Cork Co Co want me to do it as part of a planning application, because in the next field which does not belong to me there is surpossed untouched burial site dating back 800 years on scrub land. But I know that burial site has been filled in with a lot of stones in the past 40 years by the council when widening the roads and by farmers who made fields bigger by removing ditches.
My plan is to build behind the cottage where there is currently a lot of work sheds that were erected in the past 15 years.

Bitten & Hisses

There's an archaeological survey crowd based in Tralee which you'll find in the golden pages. Somewhere on Princes Street I think.

smeedyova

Hello, my house is on much higher ground than my neighbours house. My side garden is level and has an oil tank. My garden ends right behind the oil tank. Then, on his side, the garden slopes down at a very steep angle. This makes a bank in his garden and there is a retaining wall. He has just removed this wall and the slope and now, right behind my oil tank, there is a sheer drop of about 10 feet. An engineer looked at it for me before the neighour removed it and told him that he couldn't remove it or else my whole garden, followed by my house, would subside. However, the neighour went ahead and did it. I've spent the morning calling the local council, etc., but nobody seems willing to help. What can I do?

muffler

smeedyova wrote: »

Hello, my house is on much higher ground than my neighbours house. My side garden is level and has an oil tank. My garden ends right behind the oil tank. Then, on his side, the garden slopes down at a very steep angle. This makes a bank in his garden and there is a retaining wall. He has just removed this wall and the slope and now, right behind my oil tank, there is a sheer drop of about 10 feet. An engineer looked at it for me before the neighour removed it and told him that he couldn't remove it or else my whole garden, followed by my house, would subside. However, the neighour went ahead and did it. I've spent the morning calling the local council, etc., but nobody seems willing to help. What can I do?

I am sorry to hear about your predicament but the only practical solution you would have if Im reading the description correctly is to move your oil tank, excavate down on your own side of the boundary and build your own retaining wall.

But you and I and everyone else know that there is most likely going to be only one outcome to all this and that is to see a solicitor. We dont do the legalities here unfortunately and as its written into the forum charter I would ask people to refrain from commenting on any legal aspects of this problem.

Poor Uncle Tom

Make a written submission to the enforcement department of the relevant LA and hand it in directly, detail in the letter your dissatisfaction with the handling of the case yesterday by the LA. Then get yourself to your solicitor.

smeedyova

muffler wrote: »

I am sorry to hear about your predicament but the only practical solution you would have if Im reading the description correctly is to move your oil tank, excavate down on your own side of the boundary and build your own retaining wall.

But you and I and everyone else know that there is most likely going to be only one outcome to all this and that is to see a solicitor. We dont do the legalities here unfortunately and as its written into the forum charter I would ask people to refrain from commenting on any legal aspects of this problem.

Thanks for your reply. The engineer says that the retaining wall must be built at a 45 degree angle and the only way that is possible is by having such a wall on my neighbour's land. So, I can't excavate. How can it be possible that a neighbour can remove a retaining wall and that there is no authority who is willing to come out and make him put it back? Is there no way for me to solve this without it costing me a fortune in legal fees?

muffler

How old is the house? Is it part of a scheme? depending on circumstances there may be a possibility that this wall was included as part of a planning application. You may need to visit the local planning office and check the files and then as poor Uncle Tom suggested above you could make a formal complaint to the enforcement section of the planning department.

Oh, you could do worse than contact your local Building Control department about this.

smeedyova

Hi, it's a semi-detached house that was built about 40 years ago. The same contractor built 10 houses at the same time. Thanks for the advice. I'll follow that up.

All the houses have a 'step' between them because the the road is on a hill. All the other neighbours have removed these banks over the years but you can see that the their garden walls are now cracked and bowed. However, the height difference between my house and my neighbour's is much, much greater than the difference between all the other houses. So much stress...

smeedyova

Hi, I just got a call in response to my detailed letter to the planning office. I was told that I was wrong in believing that a neighbour cannot dig down further than 3 feet at a boundary. Am I wrong? My neighbour has gone down 10 feet. She told me that she would not respond to me in writing to stand over any of her statements and told me to get a solicitor. My opinion is that I've been paying taxes long enough to keep these people in jobs and it is their job to enforce the law and not mine. I'd be grateful for any help... Many thanks for your time. Why do we have planning laws if, when people violate them, we are told to pursue the matter ourselves?

Poor Uncle Tom

Any excavations over 1m deep require planning permission and warning/enforcement proceedings can be brought against a party to reinstate grounds of apply for retention planning permission.

The only 'grey' area I can see in your case is that the offending ground area had been previously worked during the original construction, therefore it could be argued that the new levels are within 1m of the original ground levels. However, this is merely speculation on my behalf as I don't know the particular situation.