Planning issues - post them here MOD WARNING post #1

Rio_2010

Thanks for swift reply Muffler,

I guess best option is to reapply for planning with changes Ive outlined in my previous post. Trouble is, original planning will expire in ~7 mths (hence the reason for good price on site). Applying for new permission at this stage is likely to set me back too far (expiry date is 5 yrs from original approval date) and wont have the time left to bring it to roof level before planning expires.

I think I can apply for an time extension if there is a considerable amount of work complete and there is a reasonable time schedule in place to complete the build but not sure if I can get to this point if I need to go back to planning first.

Im guessing Ill have to take my chances?!?

All comments and advice greatly appreciated,


Thanks

Rio

Noon

Hi Sydthebeat
As expected our lovely neighbours have gone to An Bord. We were granted planning permission and the planner actually refuted the relevant points made in the ojbection letters. Our Architect was gobsmacked. Surely we dont have to wait 18 weeks+ because the neighbours are clearly being spiteful, vexatious and deliberately trying to delay things??? Can we not write to An Bord and ask them to view the file before October?

reddy_873

Hi guys,

Quick question - I'm confused about the necessity for a part V exemption certificate for an extension to a house I'm about to submit for planning.

Do I need an exemption cert for a private domestic extension?

Thanks in advance.

sydthebeat

reddy_873 wrote: »

Hi guys,

Quick question - I'm confused about the necessity for a part V exemption certificate for an extension to a house I'm about to submit for planning.

Do I need an exemption cert for a private domestic extension?

Thanks in advance.

no,

part v only is applicable where the development is for the provision of a 'new' dwelling or dwellings.

note an application for a granny flat can be construed as a new dwelling.

reddy_873

Phew, thought that - managed to panic myself there.

Thanks for the quick reply Syd.

zelemon

Hi folks,

Can anyone advise on planning residency clauses>
I have a friend who has go planning for their dream home but now they have got cold feet so they want to build the house & rent it? the plannig has a clear condtion stating that its for the "sole occupation for danny & trinny" etc. Is it ok for them to build & then rent the house? ************

edit: read the forum charter please, regarding planning issues

syd

sydthebeat

zelemon, ill let you off with that last question even though it was breach of our charter.

the firm and clear answer is no, they cannot rent it out if the planning condition states it is for sole occupation by the clients.

do not ask for ways around this.

BenK

Well it would be unauthorised development as it's not being built in accordance with the planning permission. As you say it has a clear condition stating who has to occupy the dwelling.

edit: removed syd

Edit: Sorry just saw your post there sydthebeat. You can remove if you want.

zelemon

Thanks Syd, can you please let me know where i can view the charter?

muffler

zelemon wrote: »

Thanks Syd, can you please let me know where i can view the charter?

Forum Charter

will3001

Folks

Neighbours are planning a new house in the field where their own house is located. This field overlooks our house and I'm not happy about it being built there. It will most definately affect our privacy.

Their original septic tank was built too close to our house and for some reason was never requested to be moved I think primarily because the council did not know of the existence of our house soo close to it. I'm also quite sure it is partly pumped to a stream running along the road front

We often have problems with water run-off from thier elevated site and I'm thinking an additional building will not help this.

I dont know if they are planning a new entrance but the distance between their origianl entrance and our is quite short.

So my questions:

What is my best course of action for objections. Certainly privacy.

The elevated site with water run-off issues would be a real nightmare.

If anadditional house goes up that surely means new percolation and or a second pipe running into a septic tank already too close to us and not working porperly.

Is their a minimum requirement for road frontage for a new entrance if they decide to do one.

Does it matter that the neighbours already have land not attached to their and not overlooking ours that they could build on but are not choosing to.

Thanks for any info

Will.

rayjdav

Will3001,

Have they already applied? If not, can you not approach them and discuss your concerns? If rural, ie small community, this may well be the best first course of action. I did one of these in a small rural Cork village for a client a while ago, similar situation, and now there is VERY bad feeling locally, split on both sides.

If it is already lodged, view the council files. When you say "I'm also quite sure it is partly pumped to a stream running along the road front" this is not good enough. You have to have FACT. A vexacious objection will not be entertained.

One treatment system/One house. They will not be allowed in this day to "share" tanks.

Privacy: You can argue this but, they are well entitled to apply for what they want. Sorry. Have a look at the drawings lodged and if you feel that windows may overlook your house, state this in your letter.

Each council have their own Development Standards, and they can be relaxed in certain circumstances, depending on the situation.

Request that all works be certified i nrelation to effluent, which is standard anyway, but also in relation to SW run off.

Would be advised again to get someone to have a look at the file for you and prepare well worded letter if not familar with the process.

They are entitled to apply as much as you are entitled to object.
Once again, if not submitted, talk to them first. Best resolution before anything offical is started. We all just want a quiet life in the end...

sydthebeat

will3001 wrote: »

Folks

Neighbours are planning a new house in the field where their own house is located. This field overlooks our house and I'm not happy about it being built there. It will most definately affect our privacy.

Their original septic tank was built too close to our house and for some reason was never requested to be moved I think primarily because the council did not know of the existence of our house soo close to it. I'm also quite sure it is partly pumped to a stream running along the road front

We often have problems with water run-off from thier elevated site and I'm thinking an additional building will not help this.

I dont know if they are planning a new entrance but the distance between their origianl entrance and our is quite short.

So my questions:

What is my best course of action for objections. Certainly privacy.

The elevated site with water run-off issues would be a real nightmare.

If anadditional house goes up that surely means new percolation and or a second pipe running into a septic tank already too close to us and not working porperly.

Is their a minimum requirement for road frontage for a new entrance if they decide to do one.

Does it matter that the neighbours already have land not attached to their and not overlooking ours that they could build on but are not choosing to.

Thanks for any info

Will.

some questions:

1. is this field adjoining you, or is it opposite you?
2. have you seen the proposed plans? is this single or two storey?

some points:

1. side windows on first floor gables tend to be refused by councils. if they are planning side windows on the first floor you have reason to object on privacy grounds if it adjoins you.
2. front and rear first floor windows do not constitute overlooking and cannot be objected to if the same building line is maintained.
3. ground floor windows do not constitute overlooking.
4. 2 houses on one septic tank is frowned upon. i think you will find the new house proposes its own treatment system. This new proposal has strict guidelines it has to adhere to in order to be considered suitable. Dont object on this ground unless you are sure it contravenes some of these requirements. this may require professional input on your behalf.
5. a new entrance will also have strict requirements which need to be met. Your local authority will have a county development plan in which these requirements are stated. Adequate Sightlines fron this new entrance is the most important requirement to be met. Again, you may need professional input to advise you on this one. Sometimes shared entrances are allowed, and some counties actively encourage shared entrances.
6. adequate site frontage will be required, most counties have a 30m rule. sometimes relaxations can be made if this is the only family land or if it is an in-fill site.
7. water run off from the developments should not be an issue. All the storm water must be collected and disposed of adequately. If anything, a development there would actually reduce the quantity of run-off onto your site. Living downhill has its own inherent issues that need to be dealt with, most importantly that of water run off from higher lands. this can be done by installing by-pass channels or french drains.
8. where they choose to apply is up to them, but the council are very much within their rights to deem this site unsuitable if there is a "better" site available on the same landholding.


some questions:
1. how do you know the original septic tank is too close to your house? was your house there first... or theirs?
2. its highly unlikely the se[ptic tank is "partly pumped" to a stream. If it is then its wholly pumped and not part pumped. This would require a discharge license which they may very well have. Its more likely that this is either a separate "grey" water system taking drainage from sinks, washing machine etc or its their rainwater system piped to stream. This is a common way to discharge storm water.

will3001

So I haven't spoken directly to my neighbours but my mother has and she says that they are in the process of digging percolation holes so as you would gather the actual submission/application has not been lodged to the best of my knowledge.

Field is adjoining me and as mentioned no sign of application or plans yet.

I am fully aware that speculation is not entertained but I know that their septic tank is piped to the stream since the guy who dug out a second percolation area for our tank as us where we would like to direct it to the stream. He assumed we'd want it that was since thats what he did with the neighbours. Also you can see the pipe in the stream at the road.

Also according to my mother they submitted plans (years ago) for the septic tank without our house on it. I would need to check this at the office itself but I'm prett sure the tank is way too close to our house. I would say less than 15m.


I suppose until the plans go in I cant go into it fully but I am trying to ready myself.

I fully appreciate that the council have the right to grant it and that he has the right to apply.

Thanks for your comments

rayjdav

will3001 wrote: »

I am fully aware that speculation is not entertained but I know that their septic tank is piped to the stream since the guy who dug out a second percolation area for our tank as us where we would like to direct it to the stream. He assumed we'd want it that was since thats what he did with the neighbours. Also you can see the pipe in the stream at the road.

This I am confused about. Piping your septic tank to a stream. If done under SR6:1991, it must be done to a percolation area. Unless there is permission for this, your digger driver CANNOT take it on himself to divert percolation to s local stream. This is a serious breach of regulations.

Keep us informed of progress....

muffler

will3001 wrote: »

I am fully aware that speculation is not entertained but I know that their septic tank is piped to the stream since the guy who dug out a second percolation area for our tank as us where we would like to direct it to the stream. He assumed we'd want it that was since thats what he did with the neighbours.

So you consider this practice of piping the septic tank overflow to a stream acceptable when its done on your own property but you think the council should be alerted to the fact that your neighbour has done the same?

Double standards or am I reading this wrong?

will3001

reading wrong...we had to add some drainage around our percolation area and when the guy came to do it he assumed that we would want it piped to the stream as he had previously done for our neighbour..needless to say we declined the offer

sydthebeat

you are incorrect about your separation distance with septic tanks. SR 6 and EPA allows a septic tank to come within 7 m of a dwelling.

EPA can allow a percolation area within 10 m of any dwelling.

rayjdav

Syd, just so as not to confuse Will, the septic tank can come to within 7m but, from memory, and I stand corrected, SR6:1991 states that the seperation distance for the actual percolation distance is 20m from any habitable structure? I assume the way the post is presented that this is not under the EPA regs as it appears to be insitu for a number of years, ie all existing areas.
Also, Will, check for the percolation area of same. The tank will have a vent but the end of the perc area should too. Totally seperate vents. 2nd vent should be at least 20m from your house. A lot of people do get confused about this...
Also Will, is there not a chance that the pipe you can see going into the stream at the road is in fact a SW runoff pipe. I'd be very surprised if they were leaving untreated effluent into a local stream..:eek: They live there.....
Anyway, thats going a tad of topic.......

will3001

Cheers guys
Yes I would need to check out all of the above but the advice is very well received..

martinn123

Hi Guys

would appreciate some feedback. Client wants balcony area unclosed, as two kids have arrived, as he feels they will bungy jump in time.
standard Conservatory glazing, with glass roof, plenty of ventilation.

My query, is planning reguired, have a look at picture, the area is level with ground at front of house, but as ground falls, he has an underground garage, with balcony overhead. So its 10 ft above ground at back of house. size 10m X 3.5m so its below the 40 sqm if that counts.

wouls appreciate any thoughts

BenK

I'd suggest the best thing to do would be to obtain planning permission. I don't think the 40 sq.m. rule applies in this instance because at the rear of the house you are effectively talking about a 2 storey dwelling and presuming the house is detached, you can only extend up to 20 sq. m. at first floor level.

DOCARCH

Tricky one that. I'd say planning probably is required. Might be worth doing a Section 5 on it? Certainly I would not be happy confirming something like that is exempt without getting a Declaration.

RKQ

martinn123 wrote: »

Client wants balcony area unclosed, as two kids have arrived, as he feels they will bungy jump in time.

Define "enclosed".:rolleyes:
1500mm high Glass panels used as walls set behind the existing metal railing, similar to many pubs smoking areas would probably be exempt.
The glass panels would prevent any child access to climb on or over the railing.

A flat glass roof is interesting. Where a canvass awning could be exempt.
I agree with DOCARCH. I would not be happy confirming something like that is exempt without getting a Declaration. Lots of grey areas to this query.

I advise OP to contact their local planner. Could be a very interesting pre-planning meeting!:D

martinn123

RKQ wrote: »

Define "enclosed".:rolleyes:
1500mm high Glass panels used as walls set behind the existing metal railing, similar to many pubs smoking areas would probably be exempt.
The glass panels would prevent any child access to climb on or over the railing.

A flat glass roof is interesting. Where a canvass awning could be exempt.
I agree with DOCARCH. I would not be happy confirming something like that is exempt without getting a Declaration. Lots of grey areas to this query.

I advise OP to contact their local planner. Could be a very interesting pre-planning meeting!:D

Thanks for the input, plan is to demolish the stone piers, and remove the railings, glazed frames at 2100mm, double doors to side, a Double Hip glazed roof, not a flat roof, with a structural Box Gutter fixed to house wall above door, and below facia.

How would the planners view the fact that its not an extention, just enclosing a patio area, or an I dreaming, and while its two storey at rear, the house levels are single storey at front, and the patio is at ground floor level, when viewed from front, garage is underground. Yes its a detached bungalow.

DOCARCH

A conservatory would be classed as an extension. Afterall, as you say, you are 'enclosing' open space. From the picture, the garage would not appear to be 'underground', it looks more like the house is single storey to the front and two storey to the rear.

I think your suggested extension/conservatory could/would be deemed by planners as a first floor extension. If in excess of 20.0m.sq. then, in my opinion, planning would definitely be required. If less than 20.0m.sq. and all other exempt development critera are met (including distnaces of 11 metres from windows/glazing to boundaries they face), then it may be considered exempt.

mredbird

Hi,

I have planning permission but want to put in different windows to what is in the plans. For example the plans have traditional style windows with glazing bars. However, I would like to put in aluclad windows without glazing bars (Cheaper but I think look better)....will this cause a problem with the planners or can it be done and then apply for retention? Or is this a no go? Thanks for your time.

DOCARCH

mredbird wrote: »

Hi,

I have planning permission but want to put in different windows to what is in the plans. For example the plans have traditional style windows with glazing bars. However, I would like to put in aluclad windows without glazing bars (Cheaper but I think look better)....will this cause a problem with the planners or can it be done and then apply for retention? Or is this a no go? Thanks for your time.

As long as you do not change window sizes or positions, and the type/break up of glazing was not specifically stipualated in the planning (or it is a protected structure), I do not see a planning issue with the proposed change.

mredbird

DOCARCH wrote: »

As long as you do not change window sizes or positions, and the type/break up of glazing was not specifically stipualated in the planning (or it is a protected structure), I do not see a planning issue with the proposed change.

Cheers DOCARCH. Will take a look at the planning again but am pretty sure there is no specification about the type/break up of the glazing.

nbk7fr2

I am in Dublin City and my immediate neighboor is planning an extension to his terraced property. In reviewing his plans I notice that the proposed site coverage of the proposed development (new and retained) is approx 55% of the total site area (398m2) - I am wondering whether this is considered excessive? Is he likely to secure permission on this basis?