European regulations on domestic disabled access.

budgetbuilder

Last year I moved back to Enniscorthy from London in order to look after my elderly and disabled parents. My father is 80 and has been 70% disabled since 1977, has difficulty walking and has occasionally needed a wheelchair. My mother is 77 and is in the early stages of dementia.

My architect submitted the plans to the head planner several months ago for feedback and was told that everything was fine except that the garage was too big and would be better detached from the house. This is a 30ft by 20 ft double garage attached to the house by a covered ramp. As the house is 3500+ square ft I wouldn't think it excessive and it is needed. Eventually I will need to use a mobility car for my father and when it's raining I want to be able to pull into the garage, get him out and into the house without him getting soaked or cold. I also need to garage a standard 5 door saloon.

Anyway, my architect tried several times to contact the planner to clarify what "too big" meant. Ie to high, to big a foot print etc but despite his attempts there was no reply. In the event we lowered the roof and submitted the plans. Now the initial grant has come through granting permission for the 3,500+ square ft house but with the condition that the garage be omitted. They said it was for asthetic reasons??? Which is, in itself a joke as these are the same planners who are granting planning for the pulling down of our fine vernacular Irish Georgian architecture in order to replace them with pan-european toytown buildings. If they have their way we'll all be living in a branch of eurodisney. Ok.. the bile is coming through a little....

I fully intend to fight this and was wondering if there are any big sticks I can hit them with. Are there any european regulations regarding the provision of/or not refusing a means of dry transfer from cars for the disabled? Something like the regulation for the provision of a wheelchair accessable WC? Disabled discrimination etc?

Also, I know there is another 4 week period before the final grant but so far, there have been no objections to the house or the garage. The only objection was more of a note of intrest from a neighbour on the other side about the sewage system and he had grasped the wrong end of the stick totally and was fine once it was explained to him.

Any help or advice would be most apreciated.

-Colm

Mellor

You are in a tough spot.

I fully intend to fight this and was wondering if there are any big sticks I can hit them with. Are there any european regulations regarding the provision of/or not refusing a means of dry transfer from cars for the disabled? Something like the regulation for the provision of a wheelchair accessable WC? Disabled discrimination etc?

I don't think this exists.
The simple fact exists that it rains in ireland, and people in wheelchairs go outside. While I agree that a covered way is best, and you are right to want one. Trying to establish it as a basic right is the wrong way to go about it.

ideally, you should of insisted that it was resolved with the planner before it was lodged, ie became set it stone.

Now you have two options that I can see.
One is to appeal to ABP, you have to do this soon. They should look at all the issues of youe case, as well as the history and award based on that. You would have a high chance of sucess here in my opinion. But it will cause delays.

You other option is to build the house and then build an exempt garage. This will be smaller, less than 50%, so you will only manage one car inside I imagine. However, it should meet the needs of your father. But is less than ideal (you can use this route if the ABP appeal fails)


If you were my client, i'd go to ABP, and fall back on exempt development if needed

mickdw

Was your sitution properly explained to the planners in person before or during the planning process? I feel if you have this very strong need for a covered access, it could have been designed into the development to the liking of the planners. Is it a case of the planners not being consulted sufficiently throughout the design process?
Having said that, the planners can be utterly crazy when dealing with rural developments.

budgetbuilder

Hi Mellor,

As you say, I should have insisted on getting a reply before the plans were lodged but I feel I was a little bit railroaded by my architect. He has been employed to just the planning stage and the agreement was half the fee on lodgement and the rest at the decision stage. So it was in his intrest to rush through the lodgement.

Unfortunatly, it turns out he was very sloppy and there are a multitude of mistakes in the plans lodged from windows being off centre, dormer sizes & floor levels to almost 1.5m missing off the side of the house. All these he answers by "we can put in an ammendment" and "it doesn't materially change the house so we can fix it in building" totally ignoring the fact that he hasn't been employed for that stage, and quite frankly, has a snoballs chance of being so after this farce.

I wouldn't mind but I designed the house, gave him the measurements, gave him a scale elevation and had numerous meetings and it was still drawn up wrong. So much for being RIAI registered. I should have just gone to a technician and saved myself ten grand. That said, he has only been paid half so far....

But anyway, what's done is done. It's how to fix everything now that matters. The purpose of the post was more to find out if there are any EU regulations existing that could be used as a stick rather than trying to establish it as a right myself.

budgetbuilder

Hi Mickdw,

My local TD and I had a consultation with the head planner before anything was put down on paper to explain the situation and he was very helpfull and said to get the architect to send him a copy of the plans before they were submitted and he would give feedback. Unfortunatly, when he gave his feedback it wasn't very clear just saying that the garage was too big and would be better if it wasn't attached to the house. Despite numerous request for him to clairify the situation he never replied. We assumed that he meant that the roof was too high so it was substantially lowered and we changed the method of attachment from an actual corridoor to a covered walkway open at the sides.

There is also a messy situation where the council took 7700 square feet of our garden, built a house on it which the subsuquently sold and now want us to sign it over to them. This of course made our site smaller and by granting permission has helped to reduce their liability. I suspect that granting the permission for the house was just the bare minimum they could do to get away with that.

RKQ

budgetbuilder wrote: »

I feel I was a little bit railroaded by my architect. So much for being RIAI registered. I should have just gone to a technician and saved myself ten grand. That said, he has only been paid half so far.....

From experience Wexford Planners don't always comprehend "Disabled access" or the practical needs of the eldery. Discuss your concerns with your RIAI Architect & don't allow him/her to railroad you again.

I'd advise you to meet the Senior Planner with your Architect & TD. Trash out the "pros" of your argument, listen to the Planners opinion and get a solution. Don't leave the meeting without a full and clear understanding by all parties present - these points should be written on the Pre-planning meeting minutes. Which can be included with your planning application.

I've had similiar problems with Wexford County Council / Enniscorthy Town Council, especially with disabled access to Granny Flats. But after discussion, common sense won out. So ensure the Planner fully understands your practical reasons for the covered walk way.

BTW your house design has full planning permission, so why not build it and then apply for full planning permission to build an attached garage & covered walkway?

Poor Uncle Tom

In this case you can appeal the decision of the council (not recommended) to An Bord Pleanala or, as RKQ is suggesting, you can make a new planning application for the covered walkway and garage after meeting the planner as said. By doing this, if the council refuse your new application you can appeal it without any threat to the house permission.

budgetbuilder

I think that, as advised, the best thing to do at the moment is wait for the 4 weeks untill the final grant so that the planning for the house is secure. My architect will have to apply for an amendment to the plans to address the missing space from the rooms along with the other foul-ups.

In the mean time it's going to be a case of trying to get a straight answer out of the planners. I spoke to the carers association today and they have someone that works with them who can advise me on what they have to allow under EU law once I get the reasons in writing.

Then go the route suggested by RKQ & Uncle Tom and apply again for the garage on it's own rather than risk the house planning, which in the scheme of things is the most important part.

The other option is to go the exempted developement route but what I don't know is wheather a garage built to the side of the house using ED can be attached to the house. If so I was wondering if I could build a small garage/store about 3m x6m 7m from the house and join it to the house by a corridor 7m x1m. In theory I could then take the 1m x 7m space, convert it to 7 square m of habitable space under the 40 square m ED for extensions. If this then becomes part of the house, could I then build the other 33 square m allowed behind that?

It's terribly convoluted but if planning for the garage is turned down again is that a viable way to go?

Also, I was reading section 44 of the regulations about pump houses and there doesn't seem to be any guidlines on what size a pump house can be? Could this be a loophole... just build a whopping great pumphouse? I can't imagine they'd leave themselves open but you never know.

muffler

budgetbuilder wrote: »

The other option is to go the exempted developement route but what I don't know is wheather a garage built to the side of the house using ED can be attached to the house. If so I was wondering if I could build a small garage/store about 3m x6m 7m from the house and join it to the house by a corridor 7m x1m. In theory I could then take the 1m x 7m space, convert it to 7 square m of habitable space under the 40 square m ED for extensions. If this then becomes part of the house, could I then build the other 33 square m allowed behind that?

First of all that is development and would require permission.

Secondly I should point out that our forum charter does not allow discussions on ways to either circumvent or flaunt the planning regs.

Mellor

budgetbuilder wrote: »

The other option is to go the exempted developement route but what I don't know is wheather a garage built to the side of the house using ED can be attached to the house. If so I was wondering if I could build a small garage/store about 3m x6m 7m from the house and join it to the house by a corridor 7m x1m. In theory I could then take the 1m x 7m space, convert it to 7 square m of habitable space under the 40 square m ED for extensions. If this then becomes part of the house, could I then build the other 33 square m allowed behind that?

HaHa nice try BB. That's the most elaborate use of exempt development yet.
sadly, it wouldn't be exempt. Simply, you can't have an extension to the side 9which is what you are proposing for the 7m corridor)

You've have to build a garage detached form the house. And the coverway, if built, would be allowed under this exemption, but would have to be a separate structure from the house. And considered as part of the garage area. Best option would be to have the garage close to the house so that a covered way wasn't needed and the area maintained at the full 25sq.m

budgetbuilder

Thanks Mellor,

That answers my questions of whether it would be a viable way to go (within, and without flaunting the regulations, for those concerned about the matter).

Looks like it's going to be the planning route then as the size of the ED would be big enough to park a standard car in but simply wouldn't be big enough for a mobility car as you need a lot more space. They are basically a small van, such as a Fiat Doblo, with a ramp which is typically 1.5 meters long which comes out from the rear. Add to this the turning circle for a wheelchair and the person pushing it and your looking at about a minimum of 8 meters depth. This would only leave 3m width. And if the planners insisted that the 25m was outside dimensions rather than internal floor area that would be even less.

We'll have to see what the planners have to say and go from there I guess. And I think for the new planning application, working drawings etc I'll be going to a technician or a non RIAI architect.

Mellor

budgetbuilder wrote: »

And if the planners insisted that the 25m was outside dimensions rather than internal floor area that would be even less.

We'll have to see what the planners have to say and go from there I guess. And I think for the new planning application, working drawings etc I'll be going to a technician or a non RIAI architect.

Luckily, the planners have no say in exempt development. The rules are set down in black and white. All area is taken to the internal floor area*. So don't rule that option out if you must.

For a planning app like that, a technician would be just as good imo.




*there one exception I know of, but its not relevant here.

budgetbuilder

Thanks Mellor,

So it is the internal measurements that count. Unfortunatly, that still wouldn't be big enough for a mobility car. I'd need at least 40 sq.m. And that's without garaging my everyday car.

The other problem which has come up is that they've put as one of the conditions that there needs to be a 65m nearside sightline even though we're using the original entrance we've been using for years. They have specified demolition of the original boundry ditch with it's mature trees etc and it's replacement with a 1m high mound with two rows of 1.5m high tress on top. Because the site is on a curve in what is a small country road, to get the sightline on one side would involve us loosing 5m of garden over 65 m long and would mean that the new mound, with it's double row of 1.5m + trees (2.5m in total at planting) would be only 3 m from the front of the house. Surly this would cause planning conflicts such as trees too near the foundations of the house not to mention the drainage. And what about light in the rooms. The house is north facing so not a lot of light to begin with. In 10 years the native species they specify would be brushing against the windows.

The irony about this is that if we had back the piece of land they've built on and want us to sign over to them we could have an entrance with perfect sighlines.

Has anyone any experience of this sort of paradox in planning conditions?

mickdw

budgetbuilder wrote: »

Has anyone any experience of this sort of paradox in planning conditions?

I would have said its not the planners problem. They are insisting on the required sightlines. Think yourself lucky that they didnt refuse completely due to sightline issue specially if it happens that the redesigned boundary is coming very near the house position as you state.

Have they actually specified the species of native trees or did you specify them when applying and now find that the species specified are unsuitable due to revised boundary.
If they are only calling for native deciduous etc, it should be possible to plant smaller more suitable stuff

budgetbuilder

Hi Mickdw

We didn't specify any planting at all because the site is not a green field site. It is a mature garden where we are replacing a house which has been there since 1938 and one which I've been living in for 21 years.

I could understand building what is esentially a field ditch if it was a green field site in amongst a group of fields but it's not. It is within a group of 11 houses. The type of boundry they are specifying is totally unsuitable for where it is and not in keeping with what's around it.

The other part of the problems is that the site is already only 0.4 of an acre and we struggled to fit in the percolation area. This would cut right through this and I would loose 1/5 of my remaining garden which, considering the council has helped themselves to a 1/4 of it already I feel is a bit of a cheek!