Precedent vs Development Plan

2rkehij30qtza5

Just looking for some feedback here from anyone who may have been in a similar position...

If a City/County Development Plan specifies a certain site size in an area...say 1 house per every 1/2 acre...but within the same area (actually on the same cul-de-sac) there are houses that are built on 1/3 of an acre...does the fact that there are houses on 1/3 acre already set the precedent for new-builds? So, even though the Development Plan says that houses must be on 1/2 acre, the fact that planning permission was given for houses to be on 1/3 acre would set a precedent that could override the Development Plan? Would this be right, from anyone's experience? Thanks.

BryanF

Marcel Cool Spy wrote: »

Just looking for some feedback here from anyone who may have been in a similar position...

If a City/County Development Plan specifies a certain site size in an area...say 1 house per every 1/2 acre...but within the same area (actually on the same cul-de-sac) there are houses that are built on 1/3 of an acre...does the fact that there are houses on 1/3 acre already set the precedent for new-builds? So, even though the Development Plan says that houses must be on 1/2 acre, the fact that planning permission was given for houses to be on 1/3 acre would set a precedent that could override the Development Plan? Would this be right, from anyone's experience? Thanks.

sounds like a reasonable argument could be made as outlined above. you have to ask why is there a move in the dev plan to increase the size of site? whats the waste system in the area? whats the traffic? is it a rural/natural beauty atc area?

2rkehij30qtza5

BryanF wrote: »

sounds like a reasonable argument could be made as outlined above. you have to ask why is there a move in the dev plan to increase the size of site? whats the waste system in the area? whats the traffic? is it a rural/natural beauty atc area?

Thanks for your reply.
Originally, when the houses in the area were built, it was meant to be low density housing. But then, for some reason, some houses were allowed to be built (I'm talking 20 years ago) on 1/3 of an acre, as opposed to 1/2 acre....the old Development Plan specified 1/2 acre too...but there was a departure from this and houses allowed to be built on smaller sites. I have looked at their planning permissions and there were no issues...they were just granted.
Then the planners tell me that the site must be 1/2 acre. But I only have 1/3 of an acre, the same as the other houses that were granted permission and it's in the same cul-de-sac.
It's not an area of natural beauty or anything...just an area designated as low density housing. The sewerage system and water is all public and the roads are public too. I just don't see why and how they can say this to me when the precedent is very clearly set. In fact, one house about 3 doors away is on less than 1/3 of an acre.
It's only discussions I have had as yet so nothing has been written off yet....but I am going to have another meeting so I was wondering if precedent can be used as a valid reasonable argument or if the Development Plan is gospel and cannot be deviated from?....although as I pointed out, when the other houses were built there was a clear deviation from the Development Plan at the time.....
Maybe times and/or legislation has changed since then...but to me, the fact that there is precedent would be a good thing...
And not just a precedent on building on smaller sites than stated in the Development Plan, but a precedent of departing from the Development Plan too..
Or, would I have to get refused planning and then go to An Bord Pleanála, who would possibly grant on appeal based on discrepancies of the Development Plan...
Thanks

BryanF

Marcel Cool Spy wrote: »

Thanks for your reply.
Originally, when the houses in the area were built, it was meant to be low density housing. But then, for some reason, some houses were allowed to be built (I'm talking 20 years ago) on 1/3 of an acre, as opposed to 1/2 acre....the old Development Plan specified 1/2 acre too...but there was a departure from this and houses allowed to be built on smaller sites. I have looked at their planning permissions and there were no issues...they were just granted.
Then the planners tell me that the site must be 1/2 acre. But I only have 1/3 of an acre, the same as the other houses that were granted permission and it's in the same cul-de-sac.
It's not an area of natural beauty or anything...just an area designated as low density housing. The sewerage system and water is all public and the roads are public too. I just don't see why and how they can say this to me when the precedent is very clearly set. In fact, one house about 3 doors away is on less than 1/3 of an acre.
It's only discussions I have had as yet so nothing has been written off yet....but I am going to have another meeting so I was wondering if precedent can be used as a valid reasonable argument or if the Development Plan is gospel and cannot be deviated from?....although as I pointed out, when the other houses were built there was a clear deviation from the Development Plan at the time.....
Maybe times and/or legislation has changed since then...but to me, the fact that there is precedent would be a good thing...
And not just a precedent on building on smaller sites than stated in the Development Plan, but a precedent of departing from the Development Plan too..
Or, would I have to get refused planning and then go to An Bord Pleanála, who would possibly grant on appeal based on discrepancies of the Development Plan...
Thanks

you seem quiet well informed and your argument justified in precedent, if it were me id be approaching a good local planning consultant to pick the relevant dev sections and debunk them/show precedent, as part of your architects formal planning submission, which should be reviewed and checked by that planning consultant ( not normally needed but once you start to argue developments plans your best to have any application perfect)

2rkehij30qtza5

Thanks a million. Will do that. Appreciate your advice.