Sight Lines.

Maverick.ie · 24-02-2015 8:21pm #1

I must say I was surprised to see that sight lines have no bearing on whether planning is given or not, in a very recent judgement given by An Bord Pleanala. I always thought sight lines were sacrosanct.

sydthebeat · 24-02-2015 9:14pm

any chance of a link?

rampantbunny · 25-02-2015 11:09am

sydthebeat wrote: »

any chance of a link?

+1

Maverick.ie · 25-02-2015 11:45am

This is the Pleanala file you can link to the westmeath file and read all the stuff there. Pleanal have granted the permission.

Basically the appelant was arguing that 2.4 x 90 mtr sightlines could not be achieved.

This was acknowledged by the first planner who stated that the application was not in accordance with CDP as only 2.4 x 22mtr could be got on one side of the site exit.

I have been following this for quite a while and actually goes back to 00.

sydthebeat · 25-02-2015 1:15pm

you can link here.... can you at least give us the bord pleaslana reference number?????

Maverick.ie · 25-02-2015 1:21pm

Lol jeez I am very sorry I forget to hit the post button after copying the link, ouldtimers.

http://www.pleanala.ie/casenum/243972.htm

sydthebeat · 25-02-2015 1:31pm

Maverick.ie wrote: »

I must say I was surprised to see that sight lines have no bearing on whether planning is given or not, in a very recent judgement given by An Bord Pleanala. I always thought sight lines were sacrosanct.

on a domestic application.... sight lines are incredibly important, because of the number of traffic movements generated.... lets assume 10-12 a day

this application was for retention of a mast... as the inspector says, this would amount to a low volume of traffic movements.... (off my own head, possibly 2-3 a week at most)

theyve also said that theres a large gravel area set back from the road where a vehicle can accommodate vehicles and allow for safe movement.

so all in all the decision makes sense.

Rabbo · 25-02-2015 1:36pm

It's not an application for a new entrance.

The inspectors report notes that the existing access road off the public road has been in existence for many years and that there were no reported incidents at the entrance. Additionally the generated traffic volume would be extremely low for such a development. It may not have been reasonably possible to extend the existing sight distances further.

Given the local importance of such a telecommunications structure and the minimal additional traffic risk onto an exiting entrance, it's not really surprising that they granted it. A development like this cannot be compared to , say, a new house with new entrance.

Maverick.ie · 25-02-2015 2:18pm

The existing entrance was to have removed 26 meteres of hedgerow to provide sight lines on the original new house dwelling.

The fact that there have been no incidents at the entrance should be neither here no there, it only takes one incident.

In the original appliaction and also the retention application of 08 to westmeath county council, plans were provided (1/500) at the request of the council under further planning to show how sight lines could be achieved.

In the latest application map (1/2500) was used.

In his investigation of the applicatio county engineer O'Donohoe, stated existg application did not comply with CDP and sight lines of only 2.4 x 22 were attainable,

The large gravel area set back immediatly adjacent to the road does not belong to nor is in the control of the applicants.

Further reading of files would show that a second county engineer, would reckon that it is ok to encroach 1 meter on to the roadway to have a clear line of site.

IMO whatever the reason a sight line is a sight line and 2.4 x 22 is nowwhere near the NRA 145 metre requirement on a secondary road with a 80kmh speed limit.

By the way this sight line applies to the exit from the existing dwelling house.

sydthebeat · 25-02-2015 2:27pm

Maverick.ie wrote: »

The existing entrance was to have removed 26 meteres of hedgerow to provide sight lines on the original new house dwelling.

1. The fact that there have been no incidents at the entrance should be neither here no there, it only takes one incident.

2. In the original appliaction and also the retention application of 08 to westmeath county council, plans were provided (1/500) at the request of the council under further planning to show how sight lines could be achieved.

3. In the latest application map (1/2500) was used.

4. In his investigation of the applicatio county engineer O'Donohoe, stated existg application did not comply with CDP and sight lines of only 2.4 x 22 were attainable,

5. The large gravel area set back immediatly adjacent to the road does not belong to nor is in the control of the applicants.

youre not making any points which would render the inspectors decision incorrect ??

1. Of course its a factor.

2. + 3. Meaningless as whatever was submitted was deemed enough to make a decision. Both the inspector and the county enginner would have had to make a site visit anyway.

4. as he was completley correct to do. However non compliance with the CDP does not automatically equate to "unsafe". If you consider the CDP to be the 'macro' guidance, the specific application is dealt with on a 'micro' stand point.

5. it doesnt have to be

edit:

its NOT a secondary road... its a local road

the application has NOTHING to do with any dwelling house.

Maverick.ie · 25-02-2015 2:41pm

mmmm I see you points, would you then in your opinion consider a 2.4 x 22 sight line adequate on any type of local road road, I would have thought the application has to do with the existing dqwelling given the traffic exiting the dwelling.

Pleanala often quote non compliance with CDP as their reason for rejection.

As regards the gravel path if the owner decides to do away with it it effects the property,

Just given that so many projects are turned down on sight lines I would have thought them hugely important.

I must be thinking on different lines to a planner or inspector, or indeed yourself.

sydthebeat · 25-02-2015 2:53pm

i assume your personally familiar with the situation out there, im not, im just going by the wording in the inspectors report.

I do think the use of the entrance is vital.. for example this situation should not be acceptable for a domestic entrance, nor an agricultural one i would argue (larger vehicles with slower turning movements!)

however this is a commercial mast with no occupancy attached.... so the traffic movements (attached to the use) are incredibly low.
Are they low enough to allow for 22 m sightlines ????

well the inspector thinks so given

1. the low volume of traffic on the road already
2. the existing gravel set back area which allows for safer egress / ingress
3. the fact the entrance exists and there have been no incidents reported there.

I appreciate ABP will refer to there CDP non compliance as their reason for refusal in a lot of cases. However, there are also many cases where CDP non compliance are allowed because the CDP is a guideline and not a rule. If the non complaince can be considered still within the description of "proper planning and development" then its right that it would be granted.

Maverick.ie · 25-02-2015 3:03pm

I have become familiar with the situation.

Apparantly it's a long story going back to when the mast was first erected without site notices going up.

The existing entrance is used as a domestic entrance and is also used for agricultural vehicles and now is to be also used for the traffic generated by the mast.

I suppose I had been looking at the thing as a whole and not just at the traffic from the mast.

If the owners to the left and right of what is in fact a right of way through land let their hedges grow sight lines would be practically zero on each side.

Thanks anyways for the chat always nice to get another point of view. I suppose I had an interest because a neice was turned down for planning on a similar road because she could only get 75 mtrs on one side.

sydthebeat · 25-02-2015 3:07pm

well on that id just say, if its good enough for it to be used as a domestic entrance currently.... its definitely good enough to use to maintain a telecoms mast.

Maverick.ie · 25-02-2015 3:17pm

And that was the original thought if 2.4x22 is good enough why does anyone need 2.4x 90 or better.

sydthebeat · 25-02-2015 3:19pm

Maverick.ie wrote: »

And that was the original thought if 2.4x22 is good enough why does anyone need 2.4x 90 or better.

probably because, and im assuming again here, the existing dwelling on the lane existed before the CDP was written and thus granted permission (if at all) under different regulations.

the councils generally cannot force retrospective compliance....

Maverick.ie · 25-02-2015 3:34pm

The house it seems was built in 00 under the then CDP and required 3 x 90. It currently does not comply with it's conditions of planning in regard to this exit to the road, Hence one would have thought, that adding to this situation would make matters, however minimal worse and more dangerous. Anyway I suppose we could go round in circles here on this one.

Rabbo · 25-02-2015 6:45pm

I suppose they are looking a the house as a separate issue.
If I'm understanding the situation correctly, the track was there before the house. This development is being considered on its own merits and as the additional risk this development poses on the existing entrance is considered minimal, they decided to grant permission.

Troy2013 · 25-02-2015 8:18pm

sydthebeat wrote: »

probably because, and im assuming again here, the existing dwelling on the lane existed before the CDP was written and thus granted permission (if at all) under different regulations.

the councils generally cannot force retrospective compliance....

I saw this post and I'm wondering is there any legislation which backs up that you do not have to retrospectively comply with sight lines?

Our house is an old farmhouse (approx 90/100 years old) and has two existing entrances- house and farm. We recently attended a preplanning meeting as we hope to add an extension. In the course of that meeting we were told that we will have to remove the entire site boundary to meet the new sight lines.

We are very disappointed at this as it means removing about 15+ trees- including a few rarer types of trees- the ditch and plants etc.

BryanF · 25-02-2015 11:24pm

Troy2013 wrote: »

I saw this post and I'm wondering is there any legislation which backs up that you do not have to retrospectively comply with sight lines?

Our house is an old farmhouse (approx 90/100 years old) and has two existing entrances- house and farm. We recently attended a preplanning meeting as we hope to add an extension. In the course of that meeting we were told that we will have to remove the entire site boundary to meet the new sight lines.

We are very disappointed at this as it means removing about 15+ trees- including a few rarer types of trees- the ditch and plants etc.

Speak to the local authority landscaping section and find a compromise between retaining as many trees as possible and the local engineers site line requirement

sydthebeat · 25-02-2015 11:49pm

Troy2013 wrote: »

I saw this post and I'm wondering is there any legislation which backs up that you do not have to retrospectively comply with sight lines?

Our house is an old farmhouse (approx 90/100 years old) and has two existing entrances- house and farm. We recently attended a preplanning meeting as we hope to add an extension. In the course of that meeting we were told that we will have to remove the entire site boundary to meet the new sight lines.

We are very disappointed at this as it means removing about 15+ trees- including a few rarer types of trees- the ditch and plants etc.

I said the council cannot generally force retrospective compliance.

When you are applying to them for a new permission (for whatever) THEN they have an opportunity to apply conditions....

If you can show that the entrance is not dangerous (incidents happen?) and that the proposed development does not increase traffic movements, then you could possibly argue the removal of so much natural hedge.
Interestingly in my local authority, applications where there is sever removal of natural hedge to shove sightlines, are usually refused for excessive removal.

Troy2013 · 25-02-2015 11:51pm

BryanF wrote: »

Speak to the local authority landscaping section and find a compromise between retaining as many trees as possible and the local engineers site line requirement

Thanks very much for that tip. Will try giving the landscaping section a ring and see what they say.

Troy2013 · 26-02-2015 12:03am

sydthebeat wrote: »

I said the council cannot generally force retrospective compliance.

When you are applying to them for a new permission (for whatever) THEN they have an opportunity to apply conditions....

If you can show that the entrance is not dangerous (incidents happen?) and that the proposed development does not increase traffic movements, then you could possibly argue the removal of so much natural hedge.
Interestingly in my local authority, applications where there is sever removal of natural hedge to shove sightlines, are usually refused for excessive removal.

Thanks for taking the time to reply. I was hoping you had the magic exemption really but I understand that once planning permission goes in we are subject to the same rules as everyone else.

No incidents have happened that we or the previous owners know of but I admit the entrance could have better visability. We had planned to remove some trees for safety but 50+ metres of hedging and 15+trees seems excessive. The farmhouse was previously owned by a horticulturist so we would hate to go hacking up all his hard work and the great trees and plants he put in over 50 odd years.

I think the planner himself was concerned with the removal of all the trees so it may well happen that we will be refused permission whichever way- although I'm trying to remain optimistic!

Will try the landscaping section as BryanF suggests and see if we can get any leeway.

Thanks again.

BryanF · 26-02-2015 12:15am

Troy2013 wrote: »

Thanks very much for that tip. Will try giving the landscaping section a ring and see what they say.

Go armed with a good layout: go out and plot the trees accurately on a site layout plan, with entrance measurements and site lines indicated, show the width, 'reach' (I'm mean foliage/cover.. I'm not finding the words here

) and list type of each tree

Maverick.ie · 26-02-2015 5:23pm

Rabbo wrote: »

I suppose they are looking a the house as a separate issue.
If I'm understanding the situation correctly, the track was there before the house. This development is being considered on its own merits and as the additional risk this development poses on the existing entrance is considered minimal, they decided to grant permission.

No the house was there before, the track. When the house was built planning was looked for and a requirement/condition was that the boundary hedge be removed for the full length of the site and hedges cut back for 90mtrs on each side and a 3mtr wide layby constructed..

For long reasons, a map it seems showing a boundary had been altered to show a different boundary, this encompassed lands which the developer did not own although the council presiumed that they and had no reason at the time to think otherwise.

It would seem that because it was a private dwelling and neighbours did not want to fall out etc, no one objected to the granting of permission to the original house on the basis that sight lines could not be achieved nobody it seems looked at the application.

The developer at the time removed a ditch that was not his property, this was pointed out actually to the owner of the property by the county council who were in negotiations with the developer to purchas the old farmhouse with a view to council social housing when it ran into the problem of what it could purchase and because of this anomaly the deal fell through.
.
This was after the time had elapsed for any further objections to the dwelling which only had a right of way betwenn to adjoing properties, this removal of the original boundry led to some ill feeling.

The original application for the mast went up with no site notices visible to the public within the stated time limit. Although it was claimed that one was seen much later in the process althought the anecdotal eveidence is that the planner rang the developer to meet on site as they had not found the site and planning was due to be granted without permission.

The first anyone new in the area that planning had been given for a mast was when it was being erected.

Again because of the time lapse between the granting of planning which no one in the are it would seem knew about the mast and the begging of the erection of the mast was 2.5years, so nothing could be done until the mast came up for renewal.

When this happened the owner of the land objected to the mast as it was increasing traffic no matter how littlw onto a road with a sight line that could go from zero to 75 mtrs depending on whether or not the landowner and (not developer) cut his hedges.

So that original point was that having an interest in the application I was surprised that the permission was granted give that there may at times be no sight lines.

But as Sid was saying and I take his point on board, the planner looked at the entrance and considered that as it stands at the moment and given that probably more by luck than anything else because there again has been anecdotal evidence of a couple of close shave there has been no accidents to date.

My surprise agin was that it would appear that sight lines given this case have a lot less relevence to the planning situation than I thought they had.

Unglika Norse · 27-02-2015 1:08pm

How are you people able to see the inspectors report. I can't see it anywhere.

sydthebeat · 27-02-2015 2:07pm

Unglika Norse wrote: »

How are you people able to see the inspectors report. I can't see it anywhere.

its right there in the link in post #6

Unglika Norse · 27-02-2015 7:25pm

Thanks that info at the bottom of that report wasn't there when I looked earlier. Just on a point now having spent the afternoon looking at this, Why would it be that the inspector made no mention in his report of the 2,4 x 22 metre sightline first measured by the county council

Sight Lines.

Comments