Help - Land Locked Back Garden Planning Application

machomac

Hi All,
I am doing plans for a small single storey extension to the side of a two storey terraces house. The application went in and they came back with a few issues. Three out of four of them are no issue and can be resolved no problem. The fourth issue cannot be but we are invited to submit a report explaining out situation. Taken from the letter we received from Cork County Council.


"The design as proposed removes any side entry to the dwelling house thereby removing the ability to bring out refuse bins etc. and creates a fire risk by not having rear or side access. Please submit revised proposals ensuring that the rear of the site will not be land locked."


The thing is that half of the houses on the street have land locked back gardens. It was a development built in 1998 with a lot of mid block terraced houses with no rear access other than the through the house.
Questions:
Has there been any new regulation brought in that specifically says that this is not allowed?
Does my report simply argue that everyone else is doing it so why can't I?
Would really appreciate your advice on this one folks. I will attach the site plan as soon as I figure out how to do so on Boards. I'm a newbie. Cheers folks.

Calahonda52

You need 50 posts I believe before you can post pics, but if you post a link to it in flicker with spaces in the link as that is blocked initially as well..

Anyway, why can't you cut the extension back to retain the side passage that, I am assuming, is already there

Are u at end of terrace

Calibos

Calahonda52 wrote: »

You need 50 posts I believe before you can post pics, but if you post a link to it in flicker with spaces in the link as that is blocked initially as well..

Anyway, why can't you cut the extension back to retain the side passage that, I am assuming, is already there

Are u at end of terrace

Why should he have to?

Cause the council said so.

The question is why the council are saying so.

Most semi-D's in estates never mind terraces over a certain age at this stage don't have side access to the back with extensions that went up over the years.

I'm actually okay with most bureaucracy but the planning departments can be something else at times. Just reading some threads I get angry on OTHER peoples behalf sometimes

If I was the OP and his extension is compromised for a reason like this I'd go apesh!t personally.

We had a terrible time getting two small velux allowed on a renovation a few years ago and yet up the road someone got planning for their bungalow to be quadrupled in size. ie. doubled site coverage and bungalow converted to regular two storey with pitched roof. Not even converted to Dormer bungalow.

sydthebeat

Calibos wrote: »

Why should he have to?

Cause the council said so.

The question is why the council are saying so.

if you are building something which requires permission, then YES you require the councils permission.

DOCARCH

machomac wrote: »

"The design as proposed removes any side entry to the dwelling house thereby removing the ability to bring out refuse bins etc. and creates a fire risk by not having rear or side access. Please submit revised proposals ensuring that the rear of the site will not be land locked."

That's a bit bizzare IMHO?

If there is a front garden, design/draw up a neat bin store and submit that as extra info, and, with regard to fire safety, have a look through Part B of the BRegs and if the house/extension complies with Part B...(i.e. generally escape via the Hall and through the front door), show/demonstrate that, and say that the extension causes no contravention of BRegs in relation to fire. Just because there is no side/rear access to a house does not mean it is unsafe in terms for fire escape!

You could always add in that a ladder will be kept in the back garden as a second escape route (over the wall)!

Poor Uncle Tom

Who wants to drag wheelie bins through the house, why can't an extension be designed to allow side/rear access for bins, lawnmower, bicycles, fuels, etc?

Strolling Bones

Poor Uncle Tom wrote: »

Who wants to drag wheelie bins through the house, why can't an extension be designed to allow side/rear access for bins, lawnmower, bicycles, fuels, etc?

That is the reality of many tight urban spaces wanting to extend. If you preserve rear access then extension beacomes un feasible.

Poor Uncle Tom

Strolling Bones wrote: »

That is the reality of many tight urban spaces wanting to extend. If you preserve rear access then extension beacomes un feasible.

Do we know that's the case here? The planning officer seems to think it may be feasible.

BryanF

Can you link to a plan layout ( remove designers details) - leave out the www. And the mods will update.

Has your architect/designer discussed the AI condition with the planner? Was a pre-planning meeting recorded?
Has the planner verbalised what this report should include? Ie size of area being 'land locked', location of wheelie bin/bike storage, a colour coded plan explaining compromises in layout and how they would affect the proposed extension etc

machomac

Thanks you all for your input. It is unfeasible to allow for a side passage. It would make the extension two narrow to warrant building. I had a look through Part B today and it seems like we are not in breach of any regulations regarding escape or access during a fire. I will highlight this in the report along with a bin storage area out the front and this should do the trick.

I am the designer. The plans are for a family member. I have not had personal contact with the planner but my sister has. No information has been giving on the formatting of the report or what they want included only to address the few issues that that they proposed. The only thing that threw me was the 'Land-Locked' one. I have been living overseas for the last few years so wasn't sure if this was some new thing that has been brought in. I do not think they have enough to justify turning us down because of it. I will post a link the plans tonight at some stage. Cheers again.

Strolling Bones

You may need to face a refusal and then appeal to An Bord Pleanala. On the face of it it semms to LA arenot being reasonable.

machomac

I do think they are being unreasonable. Here is a link to a few plans to give you better idea of whats going on. Its quite a modest and discrete development I think anyway. It doesn't quite show it on the site plan but the next group of houses heading north is a line of 4. The two middle ones are 'Land Locked'. I will hightlight this as part of the report.
Www.dropbox.com/sh/22r3hm3c05gs5sl/AACYDTg3icjhd41DtvS8F0nQa?dl=0

sydthebeat

if the whole extension was to the rear, the development would still comply with relevant standards for a 3 bed house, and thats probably where the council are coming from.

You could argue that the route for a bin could take you through the utility and rec room and that would be agreeable.
Alternatively you could design a nice brick refuse store to the front RHS boundary.

I lived in a semi d house before that had no access to the rear and there was no problem getting oil delivered and refuse taken out, you simply came through the house. It was a case of micro managing it.

The fire regulation issue is a complete red herring and is a planner over stepping their mark. The house will not be in contravention with current building regulations and as such should not be deemed substandard development.

machomac

The extension to the rear would make it a much bigger job and more expensive. It would either box in the kitchen and dining or you move the kitchen and dining and things start getting expensive fairly quick. There is also a nice garden patio area that was built a few years back that would be a shame to lose. The area at the side is seen as dead space by my sister. A couple of bins sit there and that's about it. Yeah the fire thing BS. The lads in the council are dragging things out as long as they can. Mmmmmmm I wonder why they would do that?

BryanF

machomac wrote: »

The extension to the rear would make it a much bigger job and more expensive. It would either box in the kitchen and dining or you move the kitchen and dining and things start getting expensive fairly quick. There is also a nice garden patio area that was built a few years back that would be a shame to lose. The area at the side is seen as dead space by my sister. A couple of bins sit there and that's about it. Yeah the fire thing BS. The lads in the council are dragging things out as long as they can. Mmmmmmm I wonder why they would do that?

Has the sun path/orentation been considered?

Strolling Bones

machomac wrote: »

Mmmmmmm I wonder why they would do that?

To keep a "caseload" where 2014 was the worst year on record for the construction permissions activity measured by the total floor area of approvals, with overall square meterage of new permissions approved falling to an absolute historical low

In the private sector we have to find real work.
In the public sector - they can fabricate it.

There is no merit whatsoever in the planners treating you like this.

stand your ground but expect to take it to apeal - adding 6+ months to the process.

machomac

My thoughts exactly Mr Bones.

Sun path / orientation was not mentioned. Where the existing boundary wall is it will not have any effect on shading really.

I will share there other concerns they had just to let you know how there little heads are ticking.

1. "As the proposed supporting wall will impact on the existing boundary fence adjoining the site, please clarify the proposed site boundary treatment."
Solution: Raft foundation, do not dig past the boundary.

2. "Please submit proposals to ensure that surface water from the proposed flat roof extension will not drain into the existing adjoining site."
Solution: present details of drain contained within the parapet roof.

Calibos

sydthebeat wrote: »

if you are building something which requires permission, then YES you require the councils permission.

[Sigh] It was a rhetorical question.

Strolling Bones

Why did you ask ?











that too is rhetorical

Calibos

Strolling Bones wrote: »

Why did you ask ?

Calahonda52 wrote: »

.....................Anyway, why can't you cut the extension back to retain the side passage that, I am assuming, is already there

Are u at end of terrace

Calibos wrote: »

Why should he have to?

Cause the council said so.

The question is why the council are saying so.

Most semi-D's in estates never mind terraces over a certain age at this stage don't have side access to the back with extensions that went up over the years..............

.

machomac

Hey all,
Thought I would give you a quick update on this case. I submitted a report addressing all the issues. The land locked issue I showed how it complies with fire regs and that surrounding back yards were also land locked. The result........Planning Permission Granted. Boom. Cheers for all your advise.