Site Plans Accuracy

jamesryan81

Hi,

A planning application that was approved last year by Dublin City Council is now going ahead with it's development. It consists of a shipping container being placed in the car park of a pub.

The original planning application contains a Site Plan, and the proposed shipping container is illustrated in the plans, situated alongside an existing seating area that is concealed (with glass roof and walls).

The Site Plan has the existing seating area and the proposed shipping container lined up, i.e. the shipping container does not protrude out.

The thing is, it is physically impossible to match what is in the plans as:
- the width of the seating area (when measured) is roughly around 2800 mm
- the width of the shipping container is 2350mm.
- there is a gap behind the shipping container of 915mm
- 2350 + 915 = 3265mm. This is much larger than the width of the seating area.

Note the measurements of the existing seating area are not in the Site Plans.

What I'm trying to explain is that the Site Plan that the architect created appears to be totally inaccurate and intentionally misleading, so as to try and make it appear that the shipping container does not look too obtrusive.

Can anyone please tell me if this is legal, allowed, accepted, etc?

Thanks,
James.

Gumbo

Complaint to Planning Enforcement outlining your concerns that it’s not been built as per the planning.

Let them investigate.

sydthebeat

Once the container is as dimensioned on plans, and is in the location as dimensioned on plans.... Then the relation with any other graphic description on the site layout plan doesn't really matter....

They weren't applying for the seating area, as it existed, so any planner on site would have had the proposed measurements of the proposed structure.

Also, trying to imply intent to do something underhand onto the architect is a dangerous route to go down. Perhaps the boundary of the seating area came in from an OSI map, or a Google earth overlay etc.

Again, the seating area already existed. The dimensions of the proposed structure were provided, and the council determined the development to be acceptable in relation to those dimensions

jamesryan81

sydthebeat wrote: »

Once the container is as dimensioned on plans, and is in the location as dimensioned on plans.... Then the relation with any other graphic description on the site layout plan doesn't really matter....

They weren't applying for the seating area, as it existed, so any planner on site would have had the proposed measurements of the proposed structure.

Also, trying to imply intent to do something underhand onto the architect is a dangerous route to go down. Perhaps the boundary of the seating area came in from an OSI map, or a Google earth overlay etc.

Again, the seating area already existed. The dimensions of the proposed structure were provided, and the council determined the development to be acceptable in relation to those dimensions

A more detailed plan was subsequently provided in the Compliance Letter (after permission was granted), and this more accurately describes the container and seating area in terms of their relative dimensions and placement. Both created by the same architect. How come one is accurate, and the other is inaccurate?

Calahonda52

jamesryan81 wrote: »

Hi,


What I'm trying to explain is that the Site Plan that the architect created appears to be totally inaccurate and intentionally misleading, so as to try and make it appear that the shipping container does not look too obtrusive.

Can anyone please tell me if this is legal, allowed, accepted, etc?

Thanks,
James.

That a big statement and is certainly not legal, allowed, accepted, etc

Its probably moot now as the pub in question won't reopen and they will build a 16 story apartment block.

sydthebeat

jamesryan81 wrote: »

A more detailed plan was subsequently provided in the Compliance Letter (after permission was granted), and this more accurately describes the container and seating area in terms of their relative dimensions and placement. Both created by the same architect. How come one is accurate, and the other is inaccurate?

ah, you see you never mentioned that originally...you actually specifically said the measurements of the seating area are NOT on the site plan.

so are you now saying that in order to comply with a condition, the architect had to send in a more detailed layout of how the container is situated in relation to the seating area... which they have done, and which i assume the council have no issue with?

to answer your last question.... the original application just needs to have enough detail on the drawings to be considered valid. There is a specific prescriptive list as to the level of detail required, and by virtue of the council accepting the application as valid, they deemed there to be sufficient information originally.

following on from that, by virtue of the council requesting compliance with a condition which required further drawings of higher detail (i assume prior to commencement) then they are acutely aware of the relationship between the container and the seating area. so unless they have written back to the architect saying these new detailed drawings are not acceptable... then they must consider them acceptable.

its not a case of "accurate" and "inaccurate" drawings... but a case of "approximate" and "more exact" drawings

you still have the option available to you as outlined by gumbo in post #2, but if the council have accepted the "more exact" drawings as satisfactory then its an uphill battle to try to have anything done.

jamesryan81

sydthebeat wrote: »

ah, you see you never mentioned that originally...you actually specifically said the measurements of the seating area are NOT on the site plan.

so are you now saying that in order to comply with a condition, the architect had to send in a more detailed layout of how the container is situated in relation to the seating area... which they have done, and which i assume the council have no issue with?

to answer your last question.... the original application just needs to have enough detail on the drawings to be considered valid. There is a specific prescriptive list as to the level of detail required, and by virtue of the council accepting the application as valid, they deemed there to be sufficient information originally.

following on from that, by virtue of the council requesting compliance with a condition which required further drawings of higher detail (i assume prior to commencement) then they are acutely aware of the relationship between the container and the seating area. so unless they have written back to the architect saying these new detailed drawings are not acceptable... then they must consider them acceptable.

its not a case of "accurate" and "inaccurate" drawings... but a case of "approximate" and "more exact" drawings

you still have the option available to you as outlined by gumbo in post #2, but if the council have accepted the "more exact" drawings as satisfactory then its an uphill battle to try to have anything done.

Planning was granted on various conditions, however these conditions are primarily related to the characteristics of the container (in terms of finishing and materials etc.). Other conditions listed include more details regarding litter/waste management. As far as I can see, there are no explicit conditions in terms of it's placement/location, with the exception of a general condition that it must be carried out according to the submitted plans.

Note that the planner's report (at the time of approval) refers to the container as being "adjacent" to the seating area, and "to the east" of it.

The Compliance report (which was only issued recently) appears to go into more details on how these conditions will be met. However in the Compliance Report a more detailed diagram of the container is also provided, and the location of it and it's relative proximity to the seating area are not consistent with what was provided in the original site plan.

jamesryan81

jamesryan81 wrote: »

Planning was granted on various conditions, however these conditions are primarily related to the characteristics of the container (in terms of finishing and materials etc.). Other conditions listed include more details regarding litter/waste management. As far as I can see, there are no explicit conditions in terms of it's placement/location, with the exception of a general condition that it must be carried out according to the submitted plans.

Note that the planner's report (at the time of approval) refers to the container as being "adjacent" to the seating area, and "to the east" of it.

The Compliance report (which was only issued recently) appears to go into more details on how these conditions will be met. However in the Compliance Report a more detailed diagram of the container is also provided, and the location of it and it's relative proximity to the seating area are not consistent with what was provided in the original site plan.

I forgot to mention, it's not clear if the details in the Compliance Plan have been accepted or not.

jamesryan81

Gumbo wrote: »

Complaint to Planning Enforcement outlining your concerns that it’s not been built as per the planning.

Let them investigate.

Thanks Gumbo - yep I submitted that a couple of days ago.

Gumbo

jamesryan81 wrote: »

Thanks Gumbo - yep I submitted that a couple of days ago.

Time to forget about it now.
They will deal with the land owner going forward.