Can Planning Permission be refused due to size?

superhelpful

Imagine a scenario where you have a 120sqm 1, 1.5 or 2 storey house which is not quite dilapidated but well on its way out the door.



Now say you wanted to renovate it while at the same time increasing the size to 200 or 250 sqm.



Some Family members have told me this wouldn't be possible and that the planning departments in local councils would refuse it on the grounds of "excessive development"



I have searched for some hard facts on this but can't seem to find anything relating to it. It seems very ambiguous.


Can anyone shed some light on whether there's truth to this or how excessive development is calculated?

GarIT

Yes it can. It's calculated based on the feeling of the official looking at it.

sydthebeat

it absolutely can

but like anything, context is key

a 120 sq m house on a 1 acre site, 50 m from a public road should have no size issue being extended by another 120 sq m

however an house on a small tight site, whether urban or rural, may have issues due to boundary separation, effluent treatment separation, remaining amenity space etc.

there are guidelines to met, and if you dont meet the guidelines its difficult to see why a planner would grant.

unlike the post above, it doesn't come down to a planners "feeling"... the planner has to back up their decision by reference to policy, and that decision must be signed off by their superior.

Design can be subjective, but experienced designers should know whats acceptable and what is not .

GarIT

sydthebeat wrote: »

it absolutely can

but like anything, context is key

a 120 sq m house on a 1 acre site, 50 m from a public road should have no size issue being extended by another 120 sq m

however an house on a small tight site, whether urban or rural, may have issues due to boundary separation, effluent treatment separation, remaining amenity space etc.

there are guidelines to met, and if you dont meet the guidelines its difficult to see why a planner would grant.

unlike the post above, it doesn't come down to a planners "feeling"... the planner has to back up their decision by reference to policy, and that decision must be signed off by their superior.

Design can be subjective, but experienced designers should know whats acceptable and what is not .

Planners often make desicison based on something looking out of place with the local area, or not fitting in with the local area. Which is heavily opinion based.

sydthebeat

GarIT wrote: »

Planners often make desicison based on something looking out of place with the local area, or not fitting in with the local area. Which is heavily opinion based.

like i said, they have to back up their decision by reference to policy

if they decide a proposed structure is too over bearing and / or not in keeping with the existing development... that will be explained in reference to a guideline, or a planning policy or an area plan etc

youll never see the reason for refusal as being " i dont like it"

Calahonda52

GarIT wrote: »

Planners often make desicison based on something looking out of place with the local area, or not fitting in with the local area. Which is heavily opinion based.

Life is an opinion based imagined reality

Effects

Planners also make mistakes, and then those mistakes can't be rectified easily.

BryanF

Effects wrote: »

Planners also make mistakes, and then those mistakes can't be rectified easily.

An bord Pleanála.. easy..

superhelpful

Alright, seems that its to be expected that some planners can have bias on the day. I suppose it also depends how down to earth the council is

But it is nice to know that they have to be able to backup their decision based on some kindof logic.

Gives me hope that the system isn't complete crap


Thanks all!