Treehouse - Planning

Poor Uncle Tom

Is anyone following the "does a treehouse need planning permission" debate? It has currently gone to ABP for judgement I think as the LA thinks a treehouse needs planning permission as the exemptions are 'silent' on the matter and the person building it reckons since it is not a habitable structure and under 4m in height it doesn't need planning.

smashey

That would be why ABP can't keep to their deadlines.

archtech

Poor Uncle Tom wrote: »

Is anyone following the "does a treehouse need planning permission" debate? It has currently gone to ABP for judgement I think as the LA thinks a treehouse needs planning permission as the exemptions are 'silent' on the matter and the person building it reckons since it is not a habitable structure and under 4m in height it doesn't need planning.

You might keep us post on the boards findings.

sydthebeat

I read it in one of the papers... funny stuff...

I think the neighbours that objected should be ashamed of themselves.

No6

Bets on the Board deciding treehouses do need planning!!! Compliance with building regs will be fun!!! It could be a lucrative new market for us in these recessionary times just think of the fees a second hand lollipop and a few cola bottles!!!!:D

muffler

Tree houses could possibly equal perv posts :eek:

As an aside there are regs in Scotland (Id imagine all the UK would be the same) that require multi storey residential buildings to be something like 400m min. from playgrounds. Dont know the exact details but a friend of mine told me about this some time ago. And the regs are there to prevent the pervs from peeping at the kids.

Mellor

sydthebeat wrote: »

I read it in one of the papers... funny stuff...

I think the neighbours that objected should be ashamed of themselves.

any idea of what paper it was in? and maybe a date


As for "is planning required?"
My own view is that it should be exempt, and therefore has to come under an exemption class. My view would be that class 3 covers it.

CLASS 3
The construction, erection or placing
within the curtilage of a house of any
tent, awning, shade or other object,
greenhouse, garage, store, shed or other
similar structure.

I think that a reasonablr case could be made that "tent, awning, shade" and especially "or other object" could apply to a treehouse.
But then the conditions have to be met.

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

2. The total area of such structures
constructed, erected or placed within the
curtilage of a house 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 house of
any such structure shall not reduce the
amount of private open space reserved
exclusively for the use of the occupants
of the house to the rear or to the side of
the house 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 house, and the roof
covering where any such structure has a
tiled or slated roof, shall conform with
those of the house.

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, pigeons, ponies or horses,
or for any other purpose other than a
purpose incidental to the enjoyment of
the house as such

Conditions 4 & 5 are the likely spots to fail. Finishes to match if to the side, and height can only be 4m with a tiled or slated room, 3m otherwise.

Poor Uncle Tom

Mellor wrote: »

any idea of what paper it was in? and maybe a date

I first saw it on the Times on Sunday, also saw it on two daily's yesterday.

smashey

I really think this is an absolute waste of ABP's resources. :mad:

It's a feckin treehouse.

sydthebeat

part 5 is the problem...

the structure is less than 4 m high, but its flat roofed and has a '2 storey' aspect to it....

but personally i think its ridiculous.... its quite obviously NOT development... its in no way habitable, theres no doors or windows.....

theres no difference in having this in their back yard, as opposed to the kids climbing the tree... the neightbours have complained about lack of privacy... feck sake!!

I hope the bord threat this with the distain it deserves...
however, i fear this may happen

i think the paper was either sundays 'independant' or yesterdays 'star'...

RKQ

A decision from ABP on a tree house!
Thats crazy!

What a waste of the Boards resourses.:)

pseudo-tech

A third-Party has a statutory right to appeal. I would have thought however, that the neighbour would have had the decency to ask, was it alright to erect a structure that was going to have an obvious impact on someone's privacy. It seems general standards and common decency are dropping.

No6

Sounds like a real nice friendly area, a great place for kids ot grow up!!!:rolleyes:

pseudo-tech

If the parents did not have the decency to discuss it with their neighbours, you could only imagine what the kids are like. Again, respect is what is required. The Country is gone mad Ted!

Mellor

Red tape for the PC brigade.
Do you discuss every action you take in the home with your neighbour, I doubt it. Some neighbours complain over everything.
As for privacy, i've no idea if the tree has any impact on privacy. Does anyone have an idea of scale and sitting? I can only imagine that if there is a tree big enough to erect a treehouse circa 4m high, then its a large garden.

Mellor

http://www.thetreehouseguide.com/forum/forum.php?req=thread&id=47&page=1

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2117951/Boy-ordered-to-tear-down-treehouse-over-planning-permission-row.html

some links to similar situations in the UK, unsuccessful
afaik, the UK exemption limits are the same as here

pseudo-tech

Mellor, you make many assumptions about the situation, as i suppose i did also. However, there is a difference in common decency and what you would call the P.C. brigade. I would agree that you do not need to consult your neighbour about every matter concerning works to your house, but if what you are doing has a negative impact on the quality of ones life, i believe that it is a matter of courtesy to discuss it with who is naturally affected. Horses for courses.

muffler

pseudo-tech wrote: »

If the parents did not have the decency to discuss it with their neighbours, you could only imagine what the kids are like. Again, respect is what is required. The Country is gone mad Ted!

Please stick to the topic.

muffler

I just seen the last post. This thread is about discussing the planning aspects of a tree house and certainly not parental issues.

Any further off topic posting and it gets locked.

Mellor

pseudo-tech wrote: »

Mellor, you make many assumptions about the situation, as i suppose i did also. However, there is a difference in common decency and what you would call the P.C. brigade.

I don't believe I made any assumptions.
I see you made another with confusing decency and the PC brigade.
I'm all for decency towards neighbours, but the fact is we have no idea of the above situation, so I think its really silly to assume that there is a privacy voilation (I refered the the assumption of a privacy voilation as the PC brigade). There may well be, its likely. But considering this is an active ABP case, with media coverage, assumptions about it on one of the busiest irish websites are not a good idea.

The neighbour my be 3m away in an urban context, or 50m in a rural.

Hence, why I asked as anyone got more info on specifics, re scale and sitting.

I would agree that you do not need to consult your neighbour about every matter concerning works to your house, but if what you are doing has a negative impact on the quality of ones life, i believe that it is a matter of courtesy to discuss it with who is naturally affected. Horses for courses.

Sadly, I've came accross people who complain at every aspect of neighbour interaction. I tend to take complaints with a pinch of salt until I know the facts.

And of course it a matter of courtesy to discuss any issue that has an impact on quaility of life. Where did I say different? I agree with this, but we simple don't know if this is the case.

And making comments about a families character without any info is uncalled for, and lacks decency imo.
There may or may not be an impact,
They may or may not have approached the neighbour,


Everyone is free to discuss the planning aspect, but until specifics are known, try not to make assumptions that may actually be false (applies to everyone obviously)

RKQ

Mellor wrote: »

http://www.thetreehouseguide.com/forum/forum.php?req=thread&id=47&page=1

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2117951/Boy-ordered-to-tear-down-treehouse-over-planning-permission-row.html

Looking at the photos of the treehouseguide, I can't see what all the fuse is about. Its a tree house constructed from waste timber, in a field in the middle of nowhere.

Its a temporary structure for recreation. I don't agree with the refusal - its built in a tree - its a treehouse - some think its unsightly others may think its cool and want to climb into it!

Personally, its a temporary structure for kids to play in. It shouldn't be the subject of retention. There are enough unauthorised developments out there that require legal proceedings - that are unsightly, illegal and should IMO be demolished.

I wonder now if Bill Oddie will have numerous applications for wildlife hides?
Does a timber swing with slide and playhouse now require permission?

Where do you draw the line?

sydthebeat

From what i remember of the picture, it was clear that the structure did not exceed 4 m in height... it was nothing close to the pic RKQ linked to...

again from memory, i think the construction started at the ground and basically was a 2 storey 'den' built around a tree... so 2 floors of rought 1.9 m high... i wouldnt say the floor was any more than 2.0 x 2.0 even if that...

my whole issue is with the neighbours..... what in gods name have they to hide from a a few kids playing in a treehouse....

if they want solitary confinement let them sell up and go buy a cottage on inishbofin or something... i feel some peoples perception of urban living is warped.. they want to have the urban assetts of being close to social infrastructure, shops entertainment etc, yet on the other hand they want to exist in a world devoid of neighbourly contact, development plans restricting development to 2 storey sprawl type estates, 30m separation distances...

how in gods name would these people living in cities like prague, paris, berlin, rome etc where balconies over look rear gardens, streets, other balconies... roof gardens have vistas over most of the adjoining residences etc....

i think the neighbours who objected and the enfocement officer who classed it as development should be deeply ashamed of themselves!!!

pseudo-tech

I have to disagree again. People for too long in Ireland felt they had the god given right to build what they wanted, when they wanted. Third-Party right of appeal is here to stay and you either accept the rules or you don't.
If the tree is in a rural context it may be appropriate if its in an unrban context it is totally inappropriate. Not enegaging with all the stakeholders involved in the planning process is not good practice.

sydthebeat

pseudo-tech wrote: »

I have to disagree again. People for too long in Ireland felt they had the god given right to build what they wanted, when they wanted. Third-Party right of appeal is here to stay and you either accept the rules or you don't.
If the tree is in a rural context it may be appropriate if its in an unrban context it is totally inappropriate. Not enegaging with all the stakeholders involved in the planning process is not good practice.

:eek:

My god, is this what we have become.....

pseudo-tech

Professional and considerate? Hmmm

RKQ

As a citizen I have a right to object to a neighbouring building that interfers with my rights- over-looking or building on my boundary etc.
I agree fully with this right but our Enforcement is weak, unlike the UK. Ireland rarely has unauthorised structures demolished.

IMO All unauthorised structures should have one opertunity to apply for retention, if retention is refused the structure should be demolished.

Our Councils lack funds to persue all unauthorised structures. Cases that can be won are persured as Court costs are high.

IMO a childs treehouse is a temporary structure, a toy without a proper concrete foundation.
Constructed of disguarded timber, it can be readily removed compared to a house or steel framed shed.

Complaining about such a play house is a waste of valuable resourses, money which could be spent persuing real unauthorised structures.

Sometimes you have to draw a line in the sand and use common sense.:)
IMO this story seems petty and vindictive and it will damage public opinion of planning law.

sydthebeat

pseudo-tech wrote: »

Professional and considerate? Hmmm

... exactly what i hope the bord officials will be.....

topcatcbr

RKQ wrote: »

Sometimes you have to draw a line in the sand and use common sense.:)
IMO this story seems petty and vindictive and it will damage public opinion of planning law.

Damage Public opinion on planning law

pseudo-tech

As you mentioned RKQ, Planning Law in Ireland is not enforced in any meaningful way by the Local Authorities. Parish pump politics damages any possibility of a coherent set of rules as when the Council try to impose sanctions, the favoured local councillor is called in to sort it out. Banana Republic or what?

If the rules are clear everyone will know where they stand (like in England).

muffler

I've seen enough.

Thread locked.