# Development site next door



## velosolex (6 Nov 2009)

Next door a developer got approval, with conditions, from An Bord Pleanala, I did object but to no avail, do I have any grounds to appeal this as the issues I raised in my appeal were not taken into consideration. eg: The plans submitted by the developer were out of date and did not show my house extension which is adjacent to the development. If this goes ahead I will have the rear of six houses with 11 meter gardens terminating at the boundary and my extension is only a further two meters from same (13 meters between my gable with 4 living / bed windows and the rear of the proposed houses).
Also what is the position with the existing mature trees which were planted 30 years ago by my family but the developer proposed a two meter wall right through the middle of the trees while stating also retention of the trees! Can the developer cut down the trees without my permission? Note the previous owner put a single wire attached to the development side of the trees as a demarcation line, other wise there is no fence.
Has anyone succeeded in reversing a decision of An Bord Pleanala?


----------



## Brendan Burgess (6 Nov 2009)

You would need to  take legal advice.

I would guess that the only thing you could do is to ask for a Judicial Review by the High Court. 

Brendan


----------



## Guest122 (9 Nov 2009)

As far as I know you can only appeal An Bord Pleanala’s decision through the Courts, and that the Court will only look at the legality of the processes involved.

In other words they don’t care about the merits of planning, only that procedures were followed properly.


An Bord Pleanala’s decision is final and thus is subject to the whim of whatever pleb dealt with your appeal, so long as they followed all the correct procedures in dealing with the case in question.



DoI – I Found An Bord Pleanala to be less than useful in a previous life, and would love a 13m gap between structures/windows.


I don’t know about your boundary query and you would be best to get legal advice as Brendan suggested.


----------



## onq (10 Nov 2009)

Hi velosolex,

I'm afraid you may not have much of a case, if my reading of your distances is correct: 
(11 + 13) = 24 metres between your existing house and the developers proposed houses
22 metres is the rule of thumb for directly opposing rear windows in mature residential areas.

Unless the trees are on your land the developer does not need your permission to cut them down.
However if he has undertaken to retain them as part of the formal planning process then he must do so.
It may well have been the undertaking to keep the trees that persuaded the Board of Appeal to grant the permission.
That is to say, the tress will preserve the privacy of the houses and in that context their continued good health is material to the development

In relation to the trees having a wall going through them, this doesn't seem to make sense - it must be to one side or another.
If it lies within a certain distance [a rule of thumb is within the crown spread] then building a conventional block wall with strip footing and piers wall may well kill or destabilize the trees.
Cutting through the root system on one side will probably do both.
In addition there may well be a protected zone required in the planning permission to protect the trees - say 1.5 M outside the crown spread.
At this point the developer may be required to erect a temporary fence to ensure that the trees are not damaged - this is incompatible with building a conventional wall
That's not to say there isn't a way to build a wall;

one way to build a block wall is to use piles through the root system and ground beams with a base resting on the top of the soil
another way is to use a standard rear garden system of lightweight pre-cast piers with concrete planks at the bottom between them and timber infill panels above these.

You may be able to view the application drawings online or you may wish to have a building professional research them for you and issue a planning file report.
If you are concerned with the measures approved to protect the trees, you may raise the matter with the Parks department.
This is not to object to the development, but ti ensure that the work is monitored to ensure the trees are protected.

FWIW

ONQ.

[broken link removed]


----------



## Pope John 11 (10 Nov 2009)

onq said:


> Hi velosolex,
> 
> I'm afraid you may not have much of a case, if my reading of your distances is correct:
> (11 + 13) = 24 metres between your existing house and the developers proposed houses
> 22 metres is the rule of thumb for directly opposing rear windows in mature residential areas.


 
Is the OP not saying (11 + 2) = 13m which is less than the 22m as pointed out above?


----------



## onq (11 Nov 2009)

Pope John 11 said:


> Is the OP not saying (11 + 2) = 13m which is less than the 22m as pointed out above?



Well, actually, now that I read it again you may be correct Pope.

However this comment _"11 meter gardens terminating at the boundary"_ suggests that the distances on the other side are correct, full length gardens.
I'm not sure from the OPs description of what he's got, but re-reading it again it may be that he extended his house to within 2M of the rear boundary.
The phrase _"13 meters between my gable with 4 living / bed windows and the rear of the proposed houses"_ refers.

There are limits to what is allowed under the exempted development regulations - 1st floor windows within 11M of a boundary are not allowed.
So either the OP got planning permission and chose to fill part of his garden with an extension, or else he has built something which may not comply with the exempted development schedule.
If its the latter, the developer may be aware of this and may be doing him a favour by not drawing attention to it.

Regardless of this, the local planning authority tends to have regard to the distances between the original main house and any new housing.
If the owner extends inside his own 11M garden, reducing it, this does not generate a notional boundary 11M from the rear of the new extension.

Thanks for pointing out what looks like an error on my part Pope, but I worded the assumption to clarify my understanding to the OP, who has yet to respond.



HTH

ONQ.


----------

