Retention Permission

armchairninja

Just a question regarding retention applications

Say for a house which has been significantly altered i.e. Roof Removed and a dormer added, internal layout completely changed and extended too, what do people think is the best approach?

Simply draw it as it is now and show previous layout etc in dashed line?

or

Draw previous and separately draw the building as it is now and submit both?

Or does it really matter, just wondering how people normal show it clearly...

thanks

muffler

Different PA s will have different requirements but your best bet is to draw 2 plans - one showing the original house and one now showing the amended version.

armchairninja

Thanks for that Muffler, thats what i was thinking anyway, just wanted to see what others thought on the matter out of curiosity

Jimbo

I usually draw both up aswell. But I also outline with blue/red the changes on the plans of the existing building.

muffler

jimbo78 wrote: »

I usually draw both up aswell. But I also outline with blue/red the changes on the plans of the existing building.

Good idea re colouring.

armchairninja

yea, i like to use recolouring too, makes it easier to read

would you draw the plans on the same sheet i.e. Previous and Existing, or sepearatley altogether?

Jimbo

Dosen't matter. You will probably need one A3 sheet for each previous and existing if they're drawn at 1:100.

Mellor

I'd prefer to see them both (and the rest) on an A1 rather than on two or more separate A3s.

Also the extension and the dormer need retention. The internal layout doesn't.

topcatcbr

Mellor wrote: »

I'd prefer to see them both (and the rest) on an A1 rather than on two or more separate A3s.

Also the extension and the dormer need retention. The internal layout doesn't.

I did a retention a few years ago in kildare. the client extended one wing of the house (doubled size of wing) I tried to claim that only the extended portion needed retention. the planner insisted that as it was done when the house was being built and not after the whole house required retention as it was not the house that was given planning permission thus increasing the cost to client significantly. and increasing revenue for co co
Ps the application was sucessfull.

muffler

topcatcbr wrote: »

I did a retention a few years ago in kildare. the client extended one wing of the house (doubled size of wing) I tried to claim that only the extended portion needed retention. the planner insisted that as it was done when the house was being built and not after the whole house required retention as it was not the house that was given planning permission thus increasing the cost to client significantly. and increasing revenue for co co
Ps the application was sucessfull.

The planner would have been correct in that situation.

The OP however is stating that it is an existing house with a new roof/attic rooms/dormers etc so therefore the retention would apply to that part only.

Poor Uncle Tom

muffler wrote: »

The planner would have been correct in that situation.

Maybe not.

If it were possible to remove the offending section of the house wing and repair to the original specs and details. Then, the application would be for 'indefinite retention of extended wing...and associated works' etc., imo.

I know it may not be for this thread, but I did similar to this and the permission was issued.

Mellor

Poor Uncle Tom wrote: »

Maybe not.

If it were possible to remove the offending section of the house wing and repair to the original specs and details. Then, the application would be for 'indefinite retention of extended wing...and associated works' etc., imo.

I know it may not be for this thread, but I did similar to this and the permission was issued.

Well thats not the samer situation as muffler said, so it hardly colunts.

If he removed the offending extension, it could be argued that the house now is inline with orginal PP no retention. Of course, this is a far more expensive option than retention based on the full house area

Poor Uncle Tom

Mellor wrote: »

If he removed the offending extension, it could be argued that the house now is inline with orginal PP no retention. Of course, this is a far more expensive option than retention based on the full house area

No, I'm not suggesting the extension be removed, only to point out that it could be removed, and to use this arguement to push for an application to retain the extension only, not the entire house.

I'm sorry this is getting away from the op.

muffler

I think we have gone far enough away from the query raised by the OP.

If anyone else wants to contribute please stay on topic.