Definition of Rear for Exempted Development

[pico]

On exempted development under Planning & Develoment Regulations 2001, how does a Planning Authority decide the line of the rear of a house, in particular where the rear is not a straight line in plan ?

Two specific examples.
A Victorian house with a single storey rear return. Is the rear the back of the double storey part? Or is it the back of the return, therefore meaning any extension in front of this, would be defined as to the side of the house?

For a modern rectangular plan house, with a small additional single storey rectangular block to the side, where the block is an integral part of the house, and not an extension. Is the back of the additional block, defined as the rear or the side?

Thanks

[johnglas]

Nothing to do with this thread at all, but could someone who actually is a planner look at the O'Connell St thread in Dublin and comment on just how the planning profession in Central Dublin has sunk to such a low ebb?

[henno]

...... planning profession ....

almost an oxymoron these days.....

[Bob Dole]

On exempted development under Planning & Develoment Regulations 2001, how does a Planning Authority decide the line of the rear of a house, in particular where the rear is not a straight line in plan ?

In my experience, anything which cannot be seen from the front is taken to be at the back.
What is interesting is that the rear of the house is defined in relation to the "front" of the house. Determine what the front of the house is, and you can then determine what the back is. The usual rule seems to be "wherever the main door to the property is, is the front of the house" - which can lead to unusual situations if the main/front door is to a side of the house which does not face the main entrance/road.

Two specific examples.
A Victorian house with a single storey rear return. Is the rear the back of the double storey part? Or is it the back of the return, therefore meaning any extension in front of this, would be defined as to the side of the house?

Both.

For a modern rectangular plan house, with a small additional single storey rectangular block to the side, where the block is an integral part of the house, and not an extension. Is the back of the additional block, defined as the rear or the side?

Yes.

[Bren88]

On exempted development under Planning & Develoment Regulations 2001, how does a Planning Authority decide the line of the rear of a house, in particular where the rear is not a straight line in plan ?

Two specific examples.
A Victorian house with a single storey rear return. Is the rear the back of the double storey part? Or is it the back of the return, therefore meaning any extension in front of this, would be defined as to the side of the house?

For a modern rectangular plan house, with a small additional single storey rectangular block to the side, where the block is an integral part of the house, and not an extension. Is the back of the additional block, defined as the rear or the side?

Thanks

Its a combination of the front of the house, main door, road and building line. In almost all cases its obvious. If you can't figure it out, its probably because you are trying to apply it to the side. Section 5 time

[pico]

Its a combination of the front of the house, main door, road and building line. In almost all cases its obvious. If you can't figure it out, its probably because you are trying to apply it to the side. Section 5 time

Yes, section 5 time & this is where I am encountering the problem.
Cannot seem to upload an attachment of jpg illustrating my view and planning officer's view, but basically they are different. Does anybody know of any precedents where Planning Authorities apply the rule that anything which cannot be seen from the front is taken to be at the back? Would help me immensely.