Planning issues - post them here MOD WARNING post #1

pad180

hi im just in the early stages of building a shed out my back ( council house and renting for 30 years )size roughly 20ft long 7ft wide height from floor is about ten cavity blocks , it consists of a standard weather glassed door and two standard sized weather glassed windows , flat roof .
anyway im just wondering what is the legal limits im aloud before i start or if i should start at all .iv two good neighbous either side of me that have said they have no problems with what i plan to do . but i just want to make sure what my legal planning is before i waste money
any help would be great
thanks

muffler

pad180 wrote: »

hi im just in the early stages of building a shed out my back ( council house and renting for 30 years )size roughly 20ft long 7ft wide height from floor is about ten cavity blocks , it consists of a standard weather glassed door and two standard sized weather glassed windows , flat roof .
anyway im just wondering what is the legal limits im aloud before i start or if i should start at all .iv two good neighbous either side of me that have said they have no problems with what i plan to do . but i just want to make sure what my legal planning is before i waste money
any help would be great
thanks

This is what you need to look at initially to ensure you can comply with the sub conditions

The construction, erection or placing within the curtilage of a dwellinghouse of any tent, awning, shade or other object, greenhouse, garage, store, shed or other similar structure.

Sub conditions:

1. No such structure shall be constructed, erected or placed forward of the front wall of the dwellinghouse.

2. The total area of such structures constructed, erected or placed within the curtilage of a dwellinghouse shall not, taken together with any other such structures previously constructed, erected or placed within the said curtilage, exceed 25 square metres.


3. The construction, erection or placing within the curtilage of a dwellinghouse of any such structure shall not reduce the amount of private open space of the dwellinghouse to the rear or to the side of the dwellinghouse to less than 25 square metres.


4. The external finishes of any garage or other structure constructed, erected or placed to the side of a dwellinghouse, and the roof covering where any such structure has a tiled or slated roof, shall conform with those of the dwellinghouse.


5. The height of any such structure shall not exceed, in the case of a building with a tiled or slated pitched roof, 4 metres or, in any other case, 3 metres.


6. The structure shall not be used for human habitation or for the keeping of pigs, poultry, horses, ponies or pigeons or for any other purpose other than a purpose incidental to the enjoyment of the dwellinghouse as such.

If all of the above is in order you will still require written consent from the local authority as you are renting the house and obviously the property is still in it's ownership. A quick letter to the housing office normally suffices.

AckwelFoley

In relation to planning permission or moreover the need of..

what does the term "material change" of a building mean

I see this on the planning form and dont understand it.. does it mean a major refurb or does it mean change of use?

rayjdav

AckwelFoley wrote: »

In relation to planning permission or moreover the need of..

what does the term "material change" of a building mean

I see this on the planning form and dont understand it.. does it mean a major refurb or does it mean change of use?

Re Material Alteration.
Extract from the Building Control Regulations 1991:

Application to alterations and extensions.
10. (1) Subject to articles 6 and 7, these Regulations shall apply—
(a) to all works in connection with the material alteration or extension of an existing building (whether or not such building was erected before the operative day); and
(b) to every part of an existing building as affected by a material alteration or extension but only to the extent of prohibiting any material alteration or extension which would cause a new or greater contravention, in the existing building, of any provision of these Regulations.
(2) for the purposes of this article, "material alteration" means an alteration where the work, or any part of the work, carried out by itself would be subject to a requirement of Part A or B of the First Schedule.

arikv

arikv wrote: »

Hi, we've recently bought a house with an old extension.
We've knocked it down (fully to rear of house, size is circa 12sqm) to aloow for building a new extension (exempt as it would be less that 24sqm and fully to rear).
we've informed neighbours about work starting and what we're about to do, also telling them we'll be happy to sit down and show drawings (it is exempt as my Architect said) and no one asked to see drawings

Here's what we do not understand- a week after we've started when the extension was just being demolished (no other work done as of yet) we received a warning letter from the LA for demolishing an inhabitable house (which we didn't).
We've replied to the LA the same day and got an email (again that was before we even finished demolishing existing) stating that we're about to only rebuild extension, fully to the rear, no overlooking windows, no building onto boundary wall.
We got an email from them to confirm receiving our email and nothing since.
What should we do?

Just to let you know, we had an inspection late last week, inspector took measurements and also took picture of drawings, he confirmed it was exempt and will issue a letter in the next few days. he also said that the letter I got is normal practice.

arikv

arikv wrote: »

Just to let you know, we had an inspection late last week, inspector took measurements and also took picture of drawings, he confirmed it was exempt and will issue a letter in the next few days. he also said that the letter I got is normal practice.

We got the letter today to say that we're compliant (as we expected it to be), they've closed the "case". No mention of fees, but I'll be reluctant to pay any fees if they do try and bill us for the inspection.

sydthebeat

arikv wrote: »

We got the letter today to say that we're compliant (as we expected it to be), they've closed the "case". No mention of fees, but I'll be reluctant to pay any fees if they do try and bill us for the inspection.

you will not receive a bill for that inspection.

The Aussie

Hello all, Just a quick question, the Wife and I are looking at buying in a certain area but you and your family have to have lived there for 293 years sort of thing, so we are looking at an old house that has not been lived in for 30+ years.

Its a 4 bed Bungalow in a good location, so my question is would we be able to buy and subject to planning laws build another 4/5 bed dwelling on the same site

Poor Uncle Tom

The Aussie wrote: »

Its a 4 bed Bungalow in a good location, so my question is would we be able to buy and subject to planning laws build another 4/5 bed dwelling on the same site

That's a loaded question. You are basically asking us for the results of a Pre-Planning without us having any details of the site whatsoever.

What you are describing is the sub-division of an existing site. The Development Plan for the area will most likely have a section on this which will have a direct bearing on you. You could also ask a good locat AT or set up an actual pre-planning meeting to discuss it with planners.

sydthebeat

The Aussie wrote: »

Hello all, Just a quick question, the Wife and I are looking at buying in a certain area but you and your family have to have lived there for 293 years sort of thing, so we are looking at an old house that has not been lived in for 30+ years.

Its a 4 bed Bungalow in a good location, so my question is would we be able to buy and subject to planning laws build another 4/5 bed dwelling on the same site

generally not.

Check the county development plan. The council will usually have specific rural housing guidelines which stipulate a period for which you would have to be living in an area in order to be considered "local". I have seen examples of anything from 3 to 14 years.

+1 on what Tom says above though. This is very specific to the local authority and more specifically, the area in which you are looking.

bold_defender

Got refused on the waste water treatment plant. Think we got caught up and spat out by the system. Advised to resubmit by arch and eng with 3 additional pieces of info and it will sail through. But thats what we were told months ago. Wife wants to go have meeting with env officer. Eng says could be counter productive. Planning have no issues and perculation tests are grand. Sounds like 3 makey up reasons for fail.

Too close to site boundary, even though well within guidelines.
Something about well distance. We are not boring a well.
No french drain show on plans across top of site to take surface water.

Eng+arch say, extend site a bit, get letter from group water scheme with permission to connect and add french drain to plans. Resubmit and wait a few weeks.
Don't know whether its the Env Off, the Arch or the Eng that is spoofing.

BryanF

bold_defender wrote: »

Got refused on the waste water treatment plant. Think we got caught up and spat out by the system. Advised to resubmit by arch and eng with 3 additional pieces of info and it will sail through. But thats what we were told months ago. Wife wants to go have meeting with env officer. Eng says could be counter productive. Planning have no issues and perculation tests are grand. Sounds like 3 makey up reasons for fail.

Too close to site boundary, even though well within guidelines.
Something about well distance. We are not boring a well.
No french drain show on plans across top of site to take surface water.

Eng+arch say, extend site a bit, get letter from group water scheme with permission to connect and add french drain to plans. Resubmit and wait a few weeks.
Don't know whether its the Env Off, the Arch or the Eng that is spoofing.

be interested to know the history of the env off (new to the job etc), it may be a case that he was not consulted at pre-planning, and with all the newish EU septic tank stuff, this may have been the issue. imo there's no harm in having a chat with the Env off, but you must watch your temper and your team are right : the decision is made, with no chance of overturning it unless you go to ABP and to be honest a fresh app is quicker! best of luck

bold_defender

BryanF,


Planning went in without percolation tests. We had old ones from 2002/03 but they're out of date. So we had a further information request for them. Dug holes and end up moving plant to top of site. Had to extend boundary to accommodate. FI went in and Eng spoke to Env Off about tests etc and all parties appeared to be happy. Almost had the champagne on ice.

sydthebeat

"well distances"

There may be an existing well somewhere close to the site that environmental officer saw thats your team didnt.

also, you are now being advised to get a letter from the group scheme to connect. If you havent got that already what water source was specified in your application?? a well perhaps, as its the only other possibility???
This is a question on the application form so it will be obvious what was selected.

"too close to site boundaries"
again a very strange reason for refusal as these separation distances are clearly prescribed in EPA document. Also, its very simply to condition that the system comply full with EPA requirements. This sounds very much like a 'filler' reason for refusal that i often see.

I cant see any harm coming from a meeting between you, your arch and the env off to clarify exactly what mush be done to sort out the issues.
Perhaps the eng and arch are wary of you talking to the env off because he may knock the standard of their application?

bold_defender

sydthebeat wrote: »

"well distances"

This is a question on the application form so it will be obvious what was selected.

Thanks for this nugget of info. Asked what the form said and he had marked well.
So no need for meetings just for us to be more diligent in checking what arch is doing I suppose.

mari2222

AckwelFoley wrote: »

In relation to planning permission or moreover the need of..

what does the term "material change" of a building mean

I see this on the planning form and dont understand it.. does it mean a major refurb or does it mean change of use?

It used to be the case (not familiar with current) that a material change of use requires permission - that means for example a house could not be used as a shop without pp. There was some case law to the effect that an intensification of use could constitute a material change also - e.g. a use that was occasional like 9pm-5pm, in becoming 24/7, could be a material change.

Hope that helps, others may be more up to date on this

ljinno

Hi,
Guidance needed. I am planning a two storey building at the end of my garden (30m away from main house). Main purpose is accommodation for my son, basically it’s a two storey dwelling with bathroom bedroom kitchen / living area incorporating a garage.
Somebody said I would not get planning for a residential dwelling as it backs on to a lane. Is this correct?

BryanF

ljinno wrote: »

Hi,
Guidance needed. I am planning a two storey building at the end of my garden (30m away from main house). Main purpose is accommodation for my son, basically it’s a two storey dwelling with bathroom bedroom kitchen / living area incorporating a garage.
Somebody said I would not get planning for a residential dwelling as it backs on to a lane. Is this correct?

this is incorrect. what has your architect suggested? i would recommend you & your arch attend a Pre-Planning. and have pre-empted the usual planning issues: access, ownership, water, waste & foul + neighbours & dev plan. I have been successful on similar applications but it all depends on the particulars and often times your neighbours objections/interests. best of luck.

tbukela

Got told we'd been refused for planning today. Short version is put in outline planning application for a dwelling house on a 1.5acre site on family farm in county cork. I was told this morning that planning was refused on heritage grounds and we'd know more when the written notification was received, he had just spoken to someone in the planning office on the phone. Engineer said he had a look at some old maps and that there was what looked like a fairy fort in the next field over. His suggestion is to wait for the written notification and have a meeting with the heritage officer and planner and agree on a more suitable site.
I've had a look at the county development plan and can't see anything specific to fairy forts and the criteria about building near them etc. Just wondering if people might have had similar experiences or advice on this situation.

muffler

tbukela wrote: »

Got told we'd been refused for planning today. Short version is put in outline planning application for a dwelling house on a 1.5acre site on family farm in county cork. I was told this morning that planning was refused on heritage grounds and we'd know more when the written notification was received, he had just spoken to someone in the planning office on the phone. Engineer said he had a look at some old maps and that there was what looked like a fairy fort in the next field over. His suggestion is to wait for the written notification and have a meeting with the heritage officer and planner and agree on a more suitable site.
I've had a look at the county development plan and can't see anything specific to fairy forts and the criteria about building near them etc. Just wondering if people might have had similar experiences or advice on this situation.

Not that uncommon to be honest. I have come across a few of these over the last 10 years or so and have to say that we overcome the problems by hiring an archaeologist.

Wait for the refusal to come through as this will identify the monument by national reference and then you/your engineer can initially take the matter up with the heritage people in the DOE.

DeepSleeper

tbukela wrote: »

Got told we'd been refused for planning today. Short version is put in outline planning application for a dwelling house on a 1.5acre site on family farm in county cork. I was told this morning that planning was refused on heritage grounds and we'd know more when the written notification was received, he had just spoken to someone in the planning office on the phone. Engineer said he had a look at some old maps and that there was what looked like a fairy fort in the next field over. His suggestion is to wait for the written notification and have a meeting with the heritage officer and planner and agree on a more suitable site.
I've had a look at the county development plan and can't see anything specific to fairy forts and the criteria about building near them etc. Just wondering if people might have had similar experiences or advice on this situation.

Ringforts (often called 'fairy forts') are protected under the National Monuments Act and so you would not be allowed to build on one. However, it seems a little odd to be refused permission to build in the next field - the normal way to deal with this would be to ask the developer to hire an archaeologist to ensure nothing is disturbed on the site of the development (since there is a higher-than-normal chance of something being there if you are close to a ringfort). It could be that your proposed house would have a direct impact on some feature of archaeological importance that you're not aware of - best wait and see what the refusal notice says I suppose.

In the meantime however, if you are curious, you can check out the known archaeological sites here...

http://webgis.archaeology.ie/NationalMonuments/FlexViewer/

... either Zoom in to the map or else use the QUERY DATABASE option to search by County and Townland...

PM me if you need further advice if you like

tbukela

Thanks for the replies. Got the reply from the council, there is a ring fort in the very corner of the field, just inside the boundary of the proposed site. Dates back from an 1842 OS map. Hoping to meet the heritage officer next week to see if that field is completely ruled out.

woody1

technical query..re further information and clarification of further information..
it was always my impression that a clarification of further information request could only refer to the information submitted as further information..and not back to anything on the original application..something the planner may have missed or become concerned about since...

ive seen a few clarification requests lately that barely refer to the further information at all and refer back to the original application..so in essence its a second further information request..

i know it makes no difference as its way easier and quicker to roll with the punches and submit the stuff as they want it than challenge them on it, but id like to know if im right about the procedure as its meant to be applied , then again maybe im wrong...

muffler

woody1 wrote: »

technical query..re further information and clarification of further information..
it was always my impression that a clarification of further information request could only refer to the information submitted as further information..and not back to anything on the original application..something the planner may have missed or become concerned about since...

ive seen a few clarification requests lately that barely refer to the further information at all and refer back to the original application..so in essence its a second further information request..

i know it makes no difference as its way easier and quicker to roll with the punches and submit the stuff as they want it than challenge them on it, but id like to know if im right about the procedure as its meant to be applied , then again maybe im wrong...

You are correct. They basically get one bite of the cherry and they must make sure that any info they require is requested at the one time.

Its akin to putting your car through the NCT and have it fail/advisory fail. They give you a list, you get the items on the list sorted and take the car back in again. They cant then refuse it or look for more work to be done on something they have previously checked.

As you say its better to play ball with them though.

sydthebeat

woody1 wrote: »

technical query..re further information and clarification of further information..
it was always my impression that a clarification of further information request could only refer to the information submitted as further information..and not back to anything on the original application..something the planner may have missed or become concerned about since...

ive seen a few clarification requests lately that barely refer to the further information at all and refer back to the original application..so in essence its a second further information request..

i know it makes no difference as its way easier and quicker to roll with the punches and submit the stuff as they want it than challenge them on it, but id like to know if im right about the procedure as its meant to be applied , then again maybe im wrong...

what you say is what ive always been led to believe. I cant find exactly where it states as such in the planning regs, but any planner ive ever dealt with has had that opinion.

Where it can fall down is if the further information received has an impact on another separate aspect of the original application, it can then be argued that the clarification is associate.

however, i definitely see it as a way of councils 'dragging out' an application that they can insert a condition of planning on.

woody1

thanks for confirming that for me..or semi confirming it..
my issue is that it can make us on the architect/engineer/whatever side of things look terrible..
you get your f.i. sorted and you think your on the way to a grant and then you get hit with another request..
the one thats irritating me at the moment is relating to a perc test..it was done a while ago, and put in reasonably recently, p tests werent done as at the time the council didnt look for them if the t tests were ok and depth to water / rock was okay,
so in f.i. they look for p-tests, fair enough, got them done all fine and put them in..
now theyve come back on other parts of the perc test..small queries on small stuff, dotting i's and crossing t's stuff, they wouldnt normally bother with it, its a bone dry site, no water or rock anywhere,no ponding, no rushes,p and t times are fine.. a blind man can see its fine, but they come out for more f.i., il get it done, if i challenge them on it i guess theyl say it all relates to the perc test and isnt a seperate request, but its nice to know im right on the mechanics of it and i may mention it in the next planning meeting im in just to see the reaction...

No6

I am having this problem with FI after FI on two sites and in fairness to the planner they are doing it because its the area engineer who is the problem, He is insisting on sighline distances which are beyond what is permissable under the development for the type of road they are on and I just cannot give him what he wants so they keep looking for almost the same thing, its crazy.

rayjdav

sydthebeat wrote: »

I cant find exactly where it states as such in the planning regs...

Article 33(3):
(3) A planning authority shall not require an applicant who has complied with a requirement under sub-article (1) to submit any further information or evidence save-
(a) as may be reasonably necessary to clarify the matters dealt with in the applicant's response to a requirement to submit further information or evidence or to enable them to be considered or assessed, or
(b) where a request for further information is made under article 108(2) or 128(1).

As you (Woody1) said, they will just state in this case it is relevant to the original RFI as they cant make an uneducated guess:rolleyes: about the treatment of foul waste on the site without all info. Covering their own ass basically. You should consider yourself lucky as I've seen them refuse outright for lack of information, I mean information that they should have requested but omitted from the RFI. As stated above, they cannot request something directly left out of the RFI under clarification

archtech

rayjdav wrote: »

Article 33(3):
(3) A planning authority shall not require an applicant who has complied with a requirement under sub-article (1) to submit any further information or evidence save-
(a) as may be reasonably necessary to clarify the matters dealt with in the applicant's response to a requirement to submit further information or evidence or to enable them to be considered or assessed, or
(b) where a request for further information is made under article 108(2) or 128(1).

As you (Woody1) said, they will just state in this case it is relevant to the original RFI as they cant make an uneducated guess:rolleyes: about the treatment of foul waste on the site without all info. Covering their own ass basically. You should consider yourself lucky as I've seen them refuse outright for lack of information, I mean information that they should have requested but omitted from the RFI. As stated above, they cannot request something directly left out of the RFI under clarification

I know at least one local authority whom don't request clarification of FI, but whom review the FI on receipt of same and if not adequately addressed will advise that it is incomplete.

woody1

I know at least one local authority whom don't request clarification of FI, but whom review the FI on receipt of same and if not adequately addressed will advise that it is incomplete

my neighbouring council which we would have a few applications in, are somewhat similar, they generally come straight out about a week after the application is lodged looking for whatever extra information they feel is neccessary,almost like saying that your application is incomplete but not invalid, they dont call it a request for further information either ( suppose that leaves the door open to come out for f.i. later ), and they tend to be very tight on validation, id never drop an application in there and leave, i always hang around to see what theyl find, in fairness whilst they are tight , they generally give as much of a chance to fix any problems as they can...not a good place to leave an application in on the last day of a paper notice though...