Planning permission for small porch

ASIL1983

My parents want to build a small front porch onto their house. The house is in a small estate where a couple of other houses also have porches. As far as we are aware the people in those houses never had permission. Is it absolutely necesary and is there a maximum size that you can build?

RKQ

Check out these pages:

http://www.environ.ie/en/Publications/DevelopmentandHousing/Planning/FileDownLoad,1585,en.pdf

http://www.environ.ie/en/Publications/DevelopmentandHousing/Planning/FileDownLoad,1586,en.pdf

You can build a porch without planning permission, as long as it does not exceed 2 square metres in area and is more than 2 metres from any public road or footpath.
Where the porch has a tiled or slated pitched roof, it must not exceed 4 metres in height, or 3 metres for any other roof type.
A front porch within these limits is the only type of development allowed to extend beyond the front wall of the building (the building line) and still remain exempted.

arcon

RKQ wrote: »

Check out these pages:

You can build a porch without planning permission, as long as it does not exceed 2 square metres in area and is more than 2 metres from any public road or footpath.
.

above potentially can be misleading. not always this is the case. assumptions can be dangerous and very expensive.

smashey

arcon wrote: »

above potentially can be misleading. not always this is the case. assumptions can be dangerous and very expensive.

Would you care to elaborate on that?

arcon

subject to planning permission conditions for house/estate and if the house is protected structure (i assume its not but..) one of my clients recently decided to change railings to the front of the house and removed some bushes and was asked to restore original state or pay 8 million euro.

smashey wrote: »

Would you care to elaborate on that?

RKQ

arcon wrote: »

above potentially can be misleading. not always this is the case. assumptions can be dangerous and very expensive.

Theres nothing misleading about a quote. I wish people would familiarise themselve with Planning Law before contradicting me.... A little knowledge is a dangerous thing!:cool:

Arcon I suggest you read the Government leaflet - its a direct quote.
Please understand planning law before contradicting a "direct quote".

Chect out page 1, point 8 of PL 5 -Doing Work around the House –The Planning Issues
http://www.environ.ie/en/Publication...ad,1586,en.pdf

arcon

RKQ wrote: »

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing!:cool:

indeed it is

muffler

You've said your piece arcon so leave it at that.

And please be careful with the wording of any future posts

Mellor

arcon wrote: »

subject to planning permission conditions for house/estate and if the house is protected structure (i assume its not but..) one of my clients recently decided to change railings to the front of the house and removed some bushes and was asked to restore original state or pay 8 million euro.

To be honest, it was quite obvious that RKQ was refering to the limits imposed on front porches.
And while you technically correct that they are not always, the sole conditions.
The following.....

above potentially can be misleading. not always this is the case. assumptions can be dangerous and very expensive.

.........only serves to create confusion.

The purpose of these posts is to help, generally the quicker and easier the better.
Flagging every post that omitts even single iota of obscure info, yet not mentioning what the omission was, serves no purpose.

A far better, post would of been

Bear in mind that there may be conditions attached to the housing estate that contravene normal law, and also the above doesn't apply to protected structures

arcon

You're dead right. I phrased it somewhat unfortunately. And

Mellor wrote: »

The purpose of these posts is to help, generally the quicker and easier the better.
Bear in mind that there may be conditions attached to the housing estate that contravene normal law, and also the above doesn't apply to protected structures

is much more down to it.
Nonetheless I don’t agree that what RKQ wrote and referred to is obvious to everybody.

sydthebeat

arcon wrote: »

You're dead right. I phrased it somewhat unfortunately. And

is much more down to it.
Nonetheless I don’t agree that what RKQ wrote and referred to is obvious to everybody.

What RKQ posted is what is applicable in the vast majority of cases, and entirely acceptable as an assumption as to it being the correct information to give the OP.
Your 'addendum' to his post is applicable in the vast minority of cases, and can be considered an obscure assumption of the OPs case.

arcon

sydthebeat wrote: »

Your 'addendum' to his post is applicable in the vast minority of cases, and can be considered an obscure assumption of the OPs case.

but 'vast majority of cases' can cost somebody in excess of 20000 euro.
look, i've just wanted to point this out. i regret that i even mention it.
i do not understand that hostility.

muffler

arcon, do you understand that re registering and creating another account is a site bannable offense?

You just cant help yourself can you?

sydthebeat

sorry, i dont mean to be hostile at all....

i was just pointing out, to you, that what RKQ posted was 'applicable' to most... not 'obvious to everybody' as you posted.....

arcon

sydthebeat wrote: »

sorry, i dont mean to be hostile at all....

i was just pointing out, to you, that what RKQ posted was 'applicable' to most... not 'obvious to everybody' as you posted.....

i just got that impression. not just from yourself but in general.
'obvious to everybody' referred to mellor's post.

muffler wrote: »

arcon, do you understand that re registering and creating another account is a site bannable offense?

You just cant help yourself can you?

i do. and i know that you know that i know : ) . i appreciated advice about future posts : ). i got lots of help re my bike from people in boards.ie so figured i can help or make aware sb too. this situation with protected structure was unusual one but it cost somebody whole hip just to restore it to square one.

Mellor

To be honest, I dont feel bad for the person with the protected structure.

If you are lucky or unlucky enough to own a protected structure. Then I was make sure I knew exactly what that meant. Even the most basic of research will show you are PS are almost never exempt for anything.*


*And please, nobody reply that this is wrong yada yads, PSs can be exempt. It might just be the outside etc.