Well, we got our PP for an extension (two storey, so side of existing house, running length of the house with an additional single storey out to rear). However, among the conditions is one that has us tearing our hair out: it requires that "in the interests of visual amenity" we set the extension at least 50 cm back from the current building line. To put this in context, we were actually trying to preserve the building line, and there's currently a single storey extension - in v poor structural repair) following the building line.
Anyway, the condition has implications for the roof (we were trying to continue the existing building line and roofline, believe it or not in the interests of visual amenity), for the internal openings (it would require major internal reconfiguration to be workable because of the room sizes), for the cost (higher because of the roof work), for the symmetry of the building (we'd been trying to introduce a new symmetry to the house by making it double fronted - the site is sufficient to achieve that without it looking oddly cramped), and even for the side access, which a set back to rear will make narrower at the very end.
The implications are so extensive that at the moment we don't think we'll proceed with the PP, and are looking at our options. My questions are, for any of the knowledgeable out there:
(1) Does anyone know on the basis of what guidelines can the "set-back" condition have been imposed? I've looked at the development plan, and it's silent on that specific question, but I think we do conform with their extension principles. It's also worth noting that when I got to speak to the planner (briefly and frustratingly), he indicated this was a "standard" condition. Surely a visual amenity condition with such major structural implications should be site specific, not "standard"?
(2) We don't believe the planner can have considered the magnitude of what he was requiring, or indeed even looked at the internal layout. Are there any mechanisms for internal review of a planning decision on the basis of its not having been correctly considered, or is the only option to go straight to An Bord Pleanála? [Yes, we would do this, but we don't want to lose so much time]
It's a DCC decision, btw, if that makes any difference.
Would be most grateful for any views...
Anyway, the condition has implications for the roof (we were trying to continue the existing building line and roofline, believe it or not in the interests of visual amenity), for the internal openings (it would require major internal reconfiguration to be workable because of the room sizes), for the cost (higher because of the roof work), for the symmetry of the building (we'd been trying to introduce a new symmetry to the house by making it double fronted - the site is sufficient to achieve that without it looking oddly cramped), and even for the side access, which a set back to rear will make narrower at the very end.
The implications are so extensive that at the moment we don't think we'll proceed with the PP, and are looking at our options. My questions are, for any of the knowledgeable out there:
(1) Does anyone know on the basis of what guidelines can the "set-back" condition have been imposed? I've looked at the development plan, and it's silent on that specific question, but I think we do conform with their extension principles. It's also worth noting that when I got to speak to the planner (briefly and frustratingly), he indicated this was a "standard" condition. Surely a visual amenity condition with such major structural implications should be site specific, not "standard"?
(2) We don't believe the planner can have considered the magnitude of what he was requiring, or indeed even looked at the internal layout. Are there any mechanisms for internal review of a planning decision on the basis of its not having been correctly considered, or is the only option to go straight to An Bord Pleanála? [Yes, we would do this, but we don't want to lose so much time]
It's a DCC decision, btw, if that makes any difference.
Would be most grateful for any views...