Pre-planning meeting - sightlines

JoeA3

Hi guys,
I had a pre-planning meeting yesterday for a site I've purchased in my locality (subject to planning) and it went well. Issues I was somewhat concerned about going in turned out to be non-issues, so I'm confident that we can plough on with our planning application proper.

However, the planner was very specific on one particular issue - Sight lines.

The site is located on a rural and fairly narrow (but straight) road. It has houses adjacent to it on one side (so no issue with sight there), but on the other side is a field and rural hedgerow, trees, etc. The field is owned by the same person we are buying the site from.

The planner said it was no longer sufficient to provide a "letter of consent" from the landowner Re pulling back the wall / ditches during the construction phase. Instead she said we must make it almost part of the planning application itself, that the road frontage on the adjacent field becomes part of the planning application, even though we don't actually own it (or will ever own it).

I'm probably not explaining this very well, but in essence, I think what we have to do is make a distinction between the site "red lines" (what we will own) and the extra bit at the front which we will also be responsible for...

Has anyone else heard of this and how best does one work it?

briaineo

Possibly not reading your post right

Do you have the required entrance sight lines? or do you need to move a wall and a hedge to achieve the required sightlines?

JoeA3

briaineo wrote: »

Possibly not reading your post right

Do you have the required entrance sight lines? or do you need to move a wall and a hedge to achieve the required sightlines?

Hi, thanks for reply...

Yeah, its probably me not explaining it very well, due to my own ignorance in all this stuff (I'm learning on the fly!).

Perhaps a picture will help. Attached is a snippet of the map where the site is located. Site is marked in Red. The planner indicated that we would have to show (somehow) that we have adequate sight lines to the left of the site as you look at that photo. So in other words, we may have to include part of the front of the neighbouring field as part of the planning, indicating that we will pull back the wall sufficiently. Note that there is no entrance / gate along that part of the front of the site or the neighbouring field currently (even though it looks on the map like there is).

She said that in the past they used to accept letters of consent from landowners for this but they're not so willing to do that now - as often the promised work is not carried out later on etc.


I should add that the planner wasn't particularly familiar with the road (or couldn't remember much about it), but she was just talking in general terms about sight line requirements based on looking at the map. So it could be the case that upon a site visit, they deem that its fine and we don't need to go at the neighbouring hedges.

Metric Tensor

The easiest solution is to buy an extra bit from the farmer. He won't like selling it though.

I've seen this a bit recently. Planners are fed up of letters from adjacent landowners promising to remove a ditch that never gets removed so they want the applicant to have complete control of the sight lines.

I've yet to figure out any way of the adjacent land being completely in your control but still owned by someone else.

JoeA3

Metric Tensor wrote: »

The easiest solution is to buy an extra bit from the farmer. He won't like selling it though.

Yeah, I can't see this option as a runner tbh, from our point of view certainly. Taking budget into consideration, plus I really don't want any more road frontage than I am already buying!.

Doubtful that the farmer will sell the extra bit anyway as I am certain he will be looking to sell another site there eventually.

Gumbo

Any possibility to simply carry out the works now to move everything, therefore your planning is lodged with compliant sight lines already?

JoeA3

kceire wrote: »

Any possibility to simply carry out the works now to move everything, therefore your planning is lodged with compliant sight lines already?

It might be possible alright.

It's very early days, we only had this meeting yesterday... I think a solution that suits all will be found. The landowner is a neighbour and wants to sell, and we are ideal purchasers (qualify for the local housing need, etc), so I think we'll figure something out. I suppose we (my wife and I) aren't really in a position to do anything at all at the moment as we still don't own any of the land.

We're just at the point now where we are communicating this info back to our solicitor, who in turn will speak to the vendor, so we'll see what happens.

ttowncat

What county council are you in?

Ron Burgundy II

Hi Joe,

Have you decided on the location of the new entrance to the site? I would determine the new entrance first and work out what sightlines you can achieve from a 2.4m setback using the corners of your site boundary (roadside). It's not unheard of for a local authority to look for a 3m setback from a dwelling onto a road. But the 2.4m setback is the norm for dwellinghouses and should be the basis of any design.

Then work out the sightlines to the nearest obstacle such as a tree not within your control, assuming a tree is not defining the corner of the boundaries. This will help increase the sightlines and the farmer shouldn't have an issue with you reducing the hedgerow to a max height of 1m.

Carry out this design and meet the local area engineer with your design and provide pictures of the road. See what he/she has to say about it they may accept your design.

Or an alternative would be to inform the farmer that planning cannot be achieved due to the height of the existing hedgerow. The farmer may be willing to cut down to 1m to get the planning and sale through or he/you may negotiate a small fee with you to take it down to 1m.

JoeA3

ttowncat wrote: »

What county council are you in?

Galway.

We were told that this is a relatively recent new requirement. When she brought it up, our Engineer, who was with us, challenged her on it, as he suspected she wasn't quite right, as he has submitted several successful applications in the county in the last year without this particular issue coming up.

JoeA3

Ron Burgundy II wrote: »

Hi Joe,

Have you decided on the location of the new entrance to the site? I would determine the new entrance first and work out what sightlines you can achieve from a 2.4m setback using the corners of your site boundary (roadside). It's not unheard of for a local authority to look for a 3m setback from a dwelling onto a road. But the 2.4m setback is the norm for dwellinghouses and should be the basis of any design.

Then work out the sightlines to the nearest obstacle such as a tree not within your control, assuming a tree is not defining the corner of the boundaries. This will help increase the sightlines and the farmer shouldn't have an issue with you reducing the hedgerow to a max height of 1m.

Carry out this design and meet the local area engineer with your design and provide pictures of the road. See what he/she has to say about it they may accept your design.

Or an alternative would be to inform the farmer that planning cannot be achieved due to the height of the existing hedgerow. The farmer may be willing to cut down to 1m to get the planning and sale through or he/you may negotiate a small fee with you to take it down to 1m.

Great, thanks for the tips Ron!

As I said, its pretty early days, this was our very first step with the whole planning process. I think we have a good Engineer/architect on board helping us, so I think we'll figure something out. There aren't actually many big trees really. Its mostly just overgrown hedgerow that could easily be cut back and an old stone wall behind it. I expect the farmer will be reasonable, in order to get the sale through...

Haven't even thought about the site entrance yet. There's no gate there at all at the moment. Access to the site at the moment is via a farm gate 300 yards down the road.

Metric Tensor

JoeA3 wrote: »

Galway.

I can confirm this is new and it's in Galway we have experienced it too and likewise it has been made clear to us in recent pre-planning meetings.

JoeA3

Metric Tensor wrote: »

I can confirm this is new and it's in Galway we have experienced it too and likewise it has been made clear to us in recent pre-planning meetings.

Oh that’s interesting, thanks for confirming it’s not just me then.

Markcheese

Well, thankfully the piece of ground/hedge in question is owned by the guy selling your site, and you're buying subject to planning.. So if the sight line isn't sorted.. Nó planning, nó sale.. (to you or anyone else.. You shouldn't really need to buy or take anything into charge..
Now as to who pays... There could be a lot of huffing and puffing..

Metric Tensor

The problem is that the council are forcing him to buy/take in charge.

Now - whether planning permission is need to do the work right now is a question!

JoeA3

Metric Tensor wrote: »

The problem is that the council are forcing him to buy/take in charge.

Now - whether planning permission is need to do the work right now is a question!

Yeah. My issue with it is - how do they expect a site purchaser who has no legal claim on the adjoining land to do such works? It just isn’t straightforward at all for numerous reasons. If the land in question wasn’t owned by the same person, this would be a very serious obstacle!

Sometimes I think the CC make up these new rules without thinking them through properly, before eventually it dawns on them that the new rule just isn’t workable in the real world.
For example, one issue I was concerned about before the meeting yesterday was, the site in question is ever so slightly closer to Galway city than my home house (by only a matter of yards!). I was aware that there is (or was) a rule that you could not build closer to the city than your home house. When we raised this yesterday as a potential concern, she dismissed it, saying “ahh don’t worry about that anymore, it was a silly unworkable rule so we don’t apply it anymore” - or words to that effect.

Anyway, hopefully between ourselves and the landowner, we’ll figure something out.

Angry bird

Don't have to own it but must be within the site edged red for works to be enforced in court with the relevant owner giving consent. Now it's easier for the Council to say you must own it but once a binding agreement in place then not necessary. But like that for years down our way.

Metric Tensor

That makes sense AB and seems like a workable solution.

JoeA3

I'm not sure I follow guys, could ye elaborate?

So the site in question is the rectangle marked out in red. That is the legal site boundary and anything outside of that is not my land. Are ye saying that we'd have to get that Red line extended a bit, even though that extra bit is not mine ?

Angry bird

JoeA3 wrote: »

I'm not sure I follow guys, could ye elaborate?

So the site in question is the rectangle marked out in red. That is the legal site boundary and anything outside of that is not my land. Are ye saying that we'd have to get that Red line extended a bit, even though that extra bit is not mine ?

Yes and show which bit belongs to neighbouring landowner with consent to cut back and maintain. And include such in the final legal details.

Edit: Before application goes in best to check with planner to see if ok, cos as you say it's new for that council.

Metric Tensor

The boundary of the site in question on an application for planning permission is denoted by a red line. What's inside this line on the application does not have to be owned by you but you do need the owners permission and you will need a legal undertaking from the owner to do the works that you show happening in that area.

By putting the repositioned fence/ditch within the planning site boundary it allows the council to take the owner of said land to court if the works are not carried out.