Widening gateway in private estate

lausp

Just looking for clarification on widening a gateway in a private estate (gated).

The council does not control or maintain the public areas and never will.

A number of neighbours have already moved their pillars (2 red bricks wide) and it significantly improves access to the driveway.

Is planning required to move a pillar one pillar width in this context? No modification would be required to the dropped curb etc.

None of the neighbours sought permission and the residents committee had no issues.

sydthebeat

yes planning is required.

These are generally straight forward applications once you are not widening it to a ridiculous width

lausp

Thanks, are we talking drawings etc required? I.E a full planning application?

sydthebeat

lausp wrote: »

Thanks, are we talking drawings etc required? I.E a full planning application?

yes.

site layout plan, site location plan, elevations of entrance and walls, drainage from the new hard surafce and complaince with SUDS design.

lausp

sydthebeat wrote: »

yes.

site layout plan, site location plan, elevations of entrance and walls, drainage from the new hard surafce and complaince with SUDS design.

Ok thanks. Just wondering if you could tell me what the following in the Irish statutes refers to in reference to an exempted development:

"The erection, construction or alteration within or bounding the curtilage of a dwellinghouse of a gate, railing, wooden fence or of a wall constructed of brick, stone, split blocks or other blocks with decorative finish but not of other concrete blocks or of mass concrete."

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1967/si/176/made/en/print

It's under the "EXEMPTED DEVELOPMENT—GENERAL" section. To me it reads that alterations are allowed to brick walls within particular limits without permission?

lausp

Also, perhaps a stupid question but what do architectural drawings cost these days, and roughly the cost to get permission for something like this?

The original architect is local so they may still have the original drawings.

lausp

lausp wrote: »

Ok thanks. Just wondering if you could tell me what the following in the Irish statutes refers to in reference to an exempted development:

"The erection, construction or alteration within or bounding the curtilage of a dwellinghouse of a gate, railing, wooden fence or of a wall constructed of brick, stone, split blocks or other blocks with decorative finish but not of other concrete blocks or of mass concrete."

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1967/si/176/made/en/print

It's under the "EXEMPTED DEVELOPMENT—GENERAL" section. To me it reads that alterations are allowed to brick walls within particular limits without permission?

That's the 1967 act, since replaced by P&D Act 2000, and the Regulations, 2001.

However, I believe you wouldn't need permission by virtue of it being a private estate/road. See Part 2, Article 9 (1)(a)(ii) of the 2001 regulations.

sydthebeat

Yakov P. Golyadkin wrote: »

That's the 1967 act, since replaced by P&D Act 2000, and the Regulations, 2001.

However, I believe you wouldn't need permission by virtue of it being a private estate/road. See Part 2, Article 9 (1)(a)(ii) of the 2001 regulations.

I think you need to read that section of the regs again.

sydthebeat

sydthebeat wrote: »

I think you need to read that section of the regs again.

That's how I've seen it interpreted.
How should it be read?

sydthebeat

Yakov P. Golyadkin wrote: »

That's how I've seen it interpreted.
How should it be read?

What they list is NOT exempt ie if it consists of the alteration to an entrance on a public road of more than 4.0 meters in width.

The only extrapolation you can take from that is the alteration to an entrance on a public road of less than 4.0 m is exempt.

I don't see how you can infer any relation to a private road in it.

Gumbo

lausp wrote: »

Also, perhaps a stupid question but what do architectural drawings cost these days, and roughly the cost to get permission for something like this?

The original architect is local so they may still have the original drawings.

Planning Permission required.
I've done many.

Its also worth noting that in a private estate, you have to erect a site notice in your garden and also at the entrance to the gated development. where it can be read from the public road.

Full suite of drawings, Site Layout, Block Plan and Elevations of the proposed works indicating measurements and materials to be used.

Where are you based?
Some Councils have limits on the max width you can go, 3.6m in DCC for example.

lausp

lausp wrote: »

None of the neighbours sought permission and the residents committee had no issues.

Why not just ask them what they did? and copy their approach?

Gumbo

lausp wrote: »

JNone of the neighbours sought permission and the residents committee had no issues.

Might only become an issue once resale time comes around.

sydthebeat

sydthebeat wrote: »

What they list is NOT exempt ie if it consists of the alteration to an entrance on a public road of more than 4.0 meters in width.

The only extrapolation you can take from that is the alteration to an entrance on a public road of less than 4.0 m is exempt.

I don't see how you can infer any relation to a private road in it.

Given the information in the original post the most relevant Section 5 i could find (well, the first one I came across that most accurately reflected the situation here) is "Whether the removal of an existing garden gate and adjoining wall to create a double leaf gate is or is not development or is or is not exempted development."

http://www.pleanala.ie/documents/reports/RL2/RRL2656.pdf

WHEREAS a question has arisen to whether the removal of an existing garden gate and adjoining wall to create a double leaf gate is or is not development, or is or is not exempted development.
AND WHEREAS Mr. Victor Davis of 52 Ulverton Road, Dalkey, Co. Dublin,
following a referral to Dun Laoghaire Rathdown County Council, and the said
Council issued a declaration on the 5th August, 2009, stating that the said development does not constitute exempted development:
AND WHEREAS Mr. Victor Davis, of the above stated address, referred the
declaration for review to An Bord Pleanála on the 1st day of September, 2009:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this reference, had regard to:
(a) Section 2(1), 3(1) and 4(1)(h) of the Planning and Development Act, 2000;
(b) Articles 6 and 9 of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001; &
(c) Classes 5 and 6 of Part 1 of Schedule 2 of said Regulations.
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that:
(a) The removal of an existing garden gate and adjoining wall to create a double leaf gate constitutes development:-
(b) The proposed development would not materially affect the external appearance of the structure so as to render the appearance inconsistent with the character of the structure or of neighbouring structures and as such Section 4(1)(h) of the Act is applicable.
(c) The provisions of Article 9(1)(a)(ii) do not apply in this instance, as the laneway is a private road and not a public road.
(d) The provisions of Article 9(1)(a)(iii) do not apply in this instance, as the proposed development would not endanger public safety by reason of traffic hazard or obstruction of road users.
(e) Class 5 of Part 1, Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, is relevant in this instance as the development is located within or bounding the curtilage of a house.
(f) Class 6 of Part 1, Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, is relevant as the proposed development affects the rear of the house with no alterations to ground levels proposed.
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by
Section 5(3)(a) of the 2000 Act, hereby decides that the removal of an existing garden gate and adjoining wall to create a double leaf gate to the rear of 52 Ulverton Road, Dalkey, Co. Dublin is development and is exempted development.

sydthebeat

That agrees with my viewpoint, and so does the conclusion in the ABP report

Perhaps I got to bed too late last night but what am I missing here?

We can make inferences re the regulation stating 'public road', (that being one maintained by the council). In the linked case it was found to be exempt development in part because "the laneway is a private road and not a public road". How does the OPs case differ?

sydthebeat

Yakov P. Golyadkin wrote: »

Perhaps I got to bed too late last night but what am I missing here?

We can make inferences re the regulation stating 'public road', (that being one maintained by the council). In the linked case it was found to be exempt development in part because "the laneway is a private road and not a public road". How does the OPs case differ?

But that ABP case isn't in any way comparable. That case is to change a single gate to a double gate at the rear of a house.

The OPs is to widen a vehicular entrance to the front of a dwelling. There are many many cases of planning permission being required for this.

And in the case you linked to it specifically states that 9 (1) a (ii) isn't applicable BECAUSE the laneway is private and not public. So similarly in the OPs case 9 (1) a (ii) can't be used if the estate road is private.

lausp

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Why not just ask them what they did? and copy their approach?

I did. They didn't get permission from anyone. One guy moved his 2 metres. I would be looking at 45cm. The gateway is currently about 2.8M, which is honestly just a bit too narrow to manoeuvre two cars in and out.

I thought I'd ask here because I prefer to do things properly, and the statutes weren't clear to me on whether or not being a private estate where we as residents own the common areas such as the footpath and roads made a difference.

Its a bit frustrating that tiny works like this need planning to be honest. I can understand where on street parking may be a concern but not in an estate where all houses have driveways and parking on footpaths is not permitted. The plans on the council website don't even have the front walls and entrances to the driveway on the drawings.

ballinadog

If it’s only 450mm whose to say ya clipped it with the wing of the car some evening on the way home and re erected it in more or less the same place... The likelihood of there being any repercussion in a case like this is slim to none IMO. I’d say you’d be daft to go through the rig-ma-ro of planning for it

lausp

I get your point, and that did already happen and there are damaged bricks. So the number of re-usable original good bricks is fewer...

TheW1zard

Crack on with your gate widening.
Im saying that as someone who just got planning, but I needed the kerb dropping.

DOCARCH

TheW1zard wrote: »

Crack on with your gate widening.

Mod Note: Not good and lawful advice!

TheW1zard

DOCARCH wrote: »

Mod Note: Not good and lawful advice!

Fair cop!

moleyv

sydthebeat wrote: »

But that ABP case isn't in any way comparable. That case is to change a single gate to a double gate at the rear of a house.

The OPs is to widen a vehicular entrance to the front of a dwelling. There are many many cases of planning permission being required for this.

And in the case you linked to it specifically states that 9 (1) a (ii) isn't applicable BECAUSE the laneway is private and not public. So similarly in the OPs case 9 (1) a (ii) can't be used if the estate road is private.

Error by ABP in the wording.

Article 9 restrictions do not apply to exemptions provided for by the Act (4 (1) (h)) in any event, only those provided for by the Regulations (have a read of Section 4 of the Act and Article 9 of the Regulations).

Lots of misinformation on here.