Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

New neighbour applies for permission for monstrous extension - without telling us

Options
135678

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    Effects
    Registered Users Posts: 9,761 ✭✭✭Effects


    Didn't someone mention that there's similar extensions added to houses in the area?


  • Options
    #63
    hightower1
    Registered Users Posts: 3,207 ✭✭✭hightower1


    swarlb wrote: »
    I have a row of very high trees on my property ....These are Lelandaii trees, and were planted long before I bought the house. ..... I cannot afford to have them cut (about 25/30 trees) a.... We approached the council, and they have no interest

    Sorry, not to derail but you bought a house with trees on it, then decided after the fact that you wanted the local authority to edit this feature of your purchase at the tax payers expense?

    Annnnyways!


    @OP, the planning process is 100% working here. It has notified you of your neighbors intentions - you can now object if you wish. Your right to notification has been fulfilled. Hopefully both parties can come to an agreement.


  • Options
    #64
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,647 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    swarlb wrote: »
    We used the 'right to light' argument, thinking they might help, and showed an article from an incident in the UK (Leylandaii are seemingly outlawed over there) but they honestly couldn't care less.
    I realise this is a different situation, but the 'right to light' is not a given.

    If there had been an equivalent 'right to light' here, this would have resulted in you getting an order to cut them down; or the bill if the council had to - not a freebie from the council!


  • Options
    #65
    Cuddlesworth
    Registered Users Posts: 13,980 ✭✭✭✭Cuddlesworth


    Effects wrote: »
    Didn't someone mention that there's similar extensions added to houses in the area?

    There is a road with Farm in the name, that has a similar application and situation. North facing, northside with a line of sight to Connolly via a open space in the rear.

    If its the same application, they can argue and have the extension brought more in line with the architecture in the area. Height would drop by 1 or 2 feet. But other then that, they would be straight out of luck. Lots of existing extensions there already, both on the garages and 2 story to the rear.


  • Options
    #66
    Mrs Shuttleworth
    Registered Users Posts: 1,346 ✭✭✭Mrs Shuttleworth


    mariaalice wrote: »
    Of course, but what the OP is describing sounds way out of proportion to the actual house and surrounding housing.

    Yes - think of a 1940s semi-d with traditional finishings, then a large rectangular "box" with floor to ceiling windows protruding out and over the eaves of the main house roof towards the rear and side and jutting then out from the rear wall of the house.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    Mrs Shuttleworth
    Registered Users Posts: 1,346 ✭✭✭Mrs Shuttleworth


    Cuddlesworth wrote: »
    There is a road with Farm in the name, that has a similar application and situation. North facing, northside with a line of sight to Connolly via a open space in the rear.

    If its the same application, they can argue and have the extension brought more in line with the architecture in the area. Height would drop by 1 or 2 feet. But other then that, they would be straight out of luck. Lots of existing extensions there already, both on the garages and 2 story to the rear.

    I actually know the road you are talking about. Mine is on the northside.

    The key issue for me is the wall and extension built right up to the passageway in tandem with its height.

    I sincerely hope the planners afford me the courtesy of bringing the whole project back by the width of the passageway to retain at least some of my light. I really don't think that's too much to ask.


  • Options
    #68
    ebbsy
    Registered Users Posts: 6,737 ✭✭✭ebbsy


    pc7 wrote: »
    We are planning an extension and will call to our neighbours either side (one connected, one not) to advise them of our plans as you say as a courtesy. Its a pity they didn't do this for you, but going by the plans they probably could guess the reaction. Get proper sound advice and lodge your complaint. Not the greatest of start with a new neighbour but such is life. Hopefully they scale down the plans and it isn't as intrusive to you.


    Yeah when I was getting an extension I mentioned it to the neighbour. I was going ahead with it anyway but did it out of common manners.


  • Options
    #69
    Penn
    Registered Users Posts: 33,226 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »
    Yes - think of a 1940s semi-d with traditional finishings, then a large rectangular "box" with floor to ceiling windows protruding out and over the eaves of the main house roof towards the rear and side and jutting then out from the rear wall of the house.

    In fairness, there's nothing wrong with combining a modern style of architecture with traditional, especially if it's a rear extension. You could raise it as part of your objection, but it would be a minor point at best.

    The strength of your objection best comes down to the impact the extension will have on you and your property. Daylight, overshadowing, potential overlooking, works proposed to your boundary wall, potential damage to your property as a result of the works (because they're building on the boundary wall), any potential drainage issues, security for your property (if the boundary wall between your properties is taken down for a period of time to allow the works), damage to your existing garden finishes.

    These should first and foremost be the main points to argue, as they could have an affect on your property. The style of the extension is a matter of personal taste.


  • Options
    #70
    Mrs Shuttleworth
    Registered Users Posts: 1,346 ✭✭✭Mrs Shuttleworth


    Penn wrote: »
    In fairness, there's nothing wrong with combining a modern style of architecture with traditional, especially if it's a rear extension. You could raise it as part of your objection, but it would be a minor point at best.

    The strength of your objection best comes down to the impact the extension will have on you and your property. Daylight, overshadowing, potential overlooking, works proposed to your boundary wall, potential damage to your property as a result of the works (because they're building on the boundary wall), any potential drainage issues, security for your property (if the boundary wall between your properties is taken down for a period of time to allow the works), damage to your existing garden finishes.

    These should first and foremost be the main points to argue, as they could have an affect on your property. The style of the extension is a matter of personal taste.

    I suspect that the project is explicitly designed to be contrasting. That isn't really an issue for me in itself.

    Am I not wrong in thinking that planners do take it into account though?

    As you said that's not my main issue.


  • Options
    #71
    pwurple
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,449 ✭✭✭✭pwurple


    The planners actively encourage contemporary extensions onto older buildings. We had a pre-planning meeting, showed two drawings, one was same pitched roof, same same shape gables etc as existing house. Other was a contemporary "box" type extension. They encouraged the contemporary one from a planning perspective.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    Penn
    Registered Users Posts: 33,226 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »
    I suspect that the project is explicitly designed to be contrasting. That isn't really an issue for me in itself.

    Am I not wrong in thinking that planners do take it into account though?

    As you said that's not my main issue.

    They do, but it can be very subjective and dependent on a lot of different factors. That style of extension might suit that house and the area, but might not suit another (even though the houses might seem similar).

    If you check the planning docs submitted with the application, they may have included a memo explaining the choice of style. The planning docs are well worth reviewing, as they may have anticipated what your likely objections could be and tried to justify them in advance as part of their application. As such you'd be able to counter any claims they've made.


  • Options
    #73
    Mrs Shuttleworth
    Registered Users Posts: 1,346 ✭✭✭Mrs Shuttleworth


    pwurple wrote: »
    The planners actively encourage contemporary extensions onto older buildings. We had a pre-planning meeting, showed two drawings, one was same pitched roof, same same shape gables etc as existing house. Other was a contemporary "box" type extension. They encouraged the contemporary one from a planning perspective.

    Off topic and certainly not intended personally but I think the current minimalist style of architecture for extensions (as frequently seen on TV) could age quite badly. I don't think there's sufficient character or warmth in the designs to be interesting to look at in the long run.


  • Options
    #74
    VeryTerry
    Closed Accounts Posts: 342 ✭✭VeryTerry


    Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »
    Off topic and certainly not intended personally but I think the current minimalist style of architecture for extensions (as frequently seen on TV) could age quite badly. I don't think there's sufficient character or warmth in the designs to be interesting to look at in the long run.

    My parents put one of those glass conservatories that were popular on to their house in the 90's. It was the biggest waste of money for what was essentially a room used to keep cans cold when there was a party on.

    These new box extensions would have been a far more functional use of the space.


  • Options
    #75
    Mrs Shuttleworth
    Registered Users Posts: 1,346 ✭✭✭Mrs Shuttleworth


    VeryTerry wrote: »
    My parents put one of those glass conservatories that were popular on to their house in the 90's. It was the biggest waste of money for what was essentially a room used to keep cans cold when there was a party on.

    These new box extensions would have been a far more functional use of the space.

    "Functional" is the word but little else.


  • Options
    #76
    Gumbo
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 38,438 Mod ✭✭✭✭Gumbo


    mariaalice wrote: »
    They won't get planning permission for that, to be polite and friendly and tell them you are objecting to this because of how it will impact on you, but also tell them you do not have any objections to any extension that won't impact on you keep things as friendly as possible as you have to live next door to each other.

    Why would Planning be refused?
    I’ve gotten planning for full width 2 storey extensions to the side and rear in recent times.

    In fact, depending on the development plan, the council may insists that the side extension sits out further or behind the front building line to reduce the terrace effect.


  • Options
    #77
    Gumbo
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 38,438 Mod ✭✭✭✭Gumbo


    Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »
    "Functional" is the word but little else.

    You could argue the same for your side glass roof extension?


  • Options
    #78
    Marcusm
    Registered Users Posts: 10,184 ✭✭✭✭Marcusm


    Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »
    I actually know the road you are talking about. Mine is on the northside.

    The key issue for me is the wall and extension built right up to the passageway in tandem with its height.

    I sincerely hope the planners afford me the courtesy of bringing the whole project back by the width of the passageway to retain at least some of my light. I really don't think that's too much to ask.

    The width of the passageway would not, except on high summer days, have a significant enhancement to your light. Presume the passageway is 2m or less wide. That would easily be pushed back by your neighbour’s architect or planning consultant. I’m going to get that the issue is one if overhearing mass rather than direct interference with light.


  • Options
    #79
    Theanswers
    Registered Users Posts: 697 ✭✭✭Theanswers


    A drop of Honey catches more flies than a gallon of gal...

    Don't go in all guns blazing. That's my 2c.


  • Options
    #80
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 8,856 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »
    Much appreciated. I will informally approach them and tell them I will be objecting, and will have to do so because they didn't consult with me in the first instance.

    I agree with you they in all likelihood didn't want to draw my attention to the content in as far as possible.

    They are not living in the house and (apparently) are not selling their existing house.

    I'm all for talking but in this case, I honestly don't believe they care- from what you've said it's also possible that they won't be living there full time if they haven't sold their current home.

    It might be a doer-upper and sell on for profit so they won't care what sort of "relations" they have with you because longterm, you don't matter to them.

    I'd go first and foremost to a good planning consultant and formulate your objection. Most decent people knock on the door of their neighbours and let them know they're doing an extension, even if it doesn't impede on their property- it's a recognised good practice approach, especially if you want to avoid hassle later or talk through issues that might raise objections.

    These guys haven't taken that approach which leads me to believe they know they'll get most of what they want eventually, with or without your help or blessing.


  • Options
    #81
    Mrs Shuttleworth
    Registered Users Posts: 1,346 ✭✭✭Mrs Shuttleworth


    Marcusm wrote: »
    The width of the passageway would not, except on high summer days, have a significant enhancement to your light. Presume the passageway is 2m or less wide. That would easily be pushed back by your neighbour’s architect or planning consultant. I’m going to get that the issue is one if overhearing mass rather than direct interference with light.

    Ok I see what you mean. I understand there's some lighting test/report that can be carried out by planning consultants during disputes.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    7znbd9xmoiupye
    Closed Accounts Posts: 126 ✭✭7znbd9xmoiupye


    Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »
    Maybe I'm very wrong but should we not have been informed as a courtesy about their plans?
    no that is what the notification is for . has to be a notice on site and in paper
    If I complain to the Council what is the likelihood of the planners taking my concerns into account?
    You can make an objection and if you are not happy you can appeal to an bord pleanala


  • Options
    #83
    jippo nolan
    Registered Users Posts: 2,341 ✭✭✭jippo nolan


    Was Dermot Bannon seen hanging around?


  • Options
    #84
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 8,856 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    this is a 2009 article but "light" features strongly as a common objection- has legislation been updated since?

    https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/homes-and-property/how-to-object-to-that-monstrosity-planned-next-door-1.1236131


  • Options
    #85
    Effects
    Registered Users Posts: 9,761 ✭✭✭Effects


    Bailee Mango Gauche wrote: »
    no that is what the notification is for . has to be a notice on site and in paper
    You can make an objection and if you are not happy you can appeal to an bord pleanala

    Nice work. We got as far as page six in this thread and nobody thought of that until now.


  • Options
    #86
    fxotoole
    Registered Users Posts: 1,661 ✭✭✭fxotoole


    Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »
    Maybe I'm very wrong but should we not have been informed as a courtesy about their plans?

    If I complain to the Council what is the likelihood of the planners taking my concerns into account?

    What makes you think your neighbours are under any obligation to tell you what they plan to do with their own private property?


  • Options
    #87
    Claw Hammer
    Registered Users Posts: 6,160 ✭✭✭Claw Hammer


    kceire wrote: »
    Well, if you don't gain them access to render the wall, you are the one looking at exposed blocks, not them. Its in your interest to let them render the wall correctly.

    They can make you give them access. If they are going to need access they have to invoke the party wall procedure. You can make them pay all of your professional fees.


  • Options
    #88
    Effects
    Registered Users Posts: 9,761 ✭✭✭Effects


    fxotoole wrote: »
    What makes you think your neighbours are under any obligation to tell you what they plan to do with their own private property?

    Because it's a polite and neighbourly thing to do.
    And just because it's their property doesn't mean they can do whatever they want with it.


  • Options
    #89
    Effects
    Registered Users Posts: 9,761 ✭✭✭Effects


    Claw Hammer wrote: »
    They can make you give them access. If they are going to need access they have to invoke the party wall procedure. You can make them pay all of your professional fees.

    They aren't building on the party wall. They are building inside it.


  • Options
    #90
    Claw Hammer
    Registered Users Posts: 6,160 ✭✭✭Claw Hammer


    Effects wrote: »
    They aren't building on the party wall. They are building inside it.

    It doesn't matter. If a wall is built so close to the boundary as to affect the neighbour, it is deemed to be a party wall and various provisions relating to party structures come into effect. If the only way the new wall can be maintained by accessing the neighbours property then it is a party wall for the purposes of the land and conveyancing (law reform) act 2009.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    Mrs Shuttleworth
    Registered Users Posts: 1,346 ✭✭✭Mrs Shuttleworth


    Claw Hammer wrote: »
    It doesn't matter. If a wall is built so close to the boundary as to affect the neighbour, it is deemed to be a party wall and various provisions relating to party structures come into effect. If the only way the new wall can be maintained by accessing the neighbours property then it is a party wall for the purposes of the land and conveyancing (law reform) act 2009.

    So effectively that wall would be erected without our consent and we would have responsibilities in relation to the wall.

    I don't want to "doxx" myself but they'd have difficulty enforcing any access order in our case. The lawful owner is disabled and paraplegic.


Advertisement