1st FLOOR PLANNING EXEMPTIONS

Fresh from a chat with DCC and as I suspected the first floor extension would need to be back from the boundary by 2m in order to be exempt.

Does anybody know if this is in the Building Control Act or whether it varies from council to council?

P & D Regulations 2001 Schedule 2 Part 1

For attached houses, (that is semi-detached or terraced), exemptions from Planning Permission for first floor extensions are rare.

Although, 12 sq.m. is allowed, all first floor walls have to be two metres away from any party boundary, and as if that wasn’t restrictive enough, any window above first floor cannot be less than 11 metres from the boundary it faces.

[Slightly more generous for detached houses, where 20 sq.m. is allowed, but again, all first floor walls have to be two metres away from any party boundary and if the area exceeds 12 sq.m.,the same rule applies about any window above first floor not being less than 11 metres from the boundary it faces].

Is it just me or does the open space requirement also seem abiguous.?

“… any extension does not reduce the area of private open space, reserved for occupants of the house, to les than 25 square metres”

My query is whether or not private open space is limited to the area to the rear of the property or whether it could be deemd to include areas to the side and front also?

In raising this issue with the planning department in question I was greeted with “Nobody is going to answer that for you because they dont want to be liable”

anyone have a clearer understanding of the geographical prerequisites of private open space for a house?

p 213 (section 17) of the current Draft Dublin DP states

Privacy is an important element of residential amenity, and contributes towards the sense of security. Private open space for houses is usually provided by way of private gardens to the rear or side of a house. A standard of 15m Private & Communal Open Space of private open space per bedspace will normally be applied. A single bedroom represents one bedspace and a double bedroom represents two bedspaces.

At the rear of dwellings, there should be adequate separation (traditionally about 22m
between 2-storey dwellings) between opposing first floor windows. However, this standard
may be relaxed if it can be clearly demonstrated that the development is designed in such a way as to preserve the amenities and privacy of adjacent occupiers. Careful positioning and detailed design of opposing windows can prevent overlooking with shorter back-to-back
distances and windows serving halls and landings do not require the same degree of privacy as habitable rooms.

Where dwellings have little or no front gardens in urban settings, it is important that
“defensible space” is created behind the public footpath, for example, by means of a planting strip, and the design of ground floor windows will need to be carefully considered.

Where on-street parking is provided in lieu of front gardens a landscaped strip with a minimum depth of 2m will be required to the front of each house. Rear gardens and similar private areas should: be screened from public areas, provide safe and secure play areas forchildren, be overlooked from the window of a living area or kitchen, have robust boundaries; and not back onto roads or public open spaces.

In relation to proposals for house(s) within the inner city, a standard of 5-8m2 of private open space per bedspace will normally be applied, subject to the provision of a minimum of 25m2 of open space per dwelling.

A distance of at least 1.5 metres shall be provided between dwellings for the full length of the flanks in all developments of detached, semi-detached and end-of-terrace houses. In
general, this distance should be equally divided between dwellings so separated to allow for a usable side entrance. Where garages are provided at the side of semi-detached dwellings and end-of-terrace houses, they may substitute for this requirement, provided they incorporate a direct through access from the front to the rear of the premises.’

@saintleger wrote:

I have always thought that development plans interpreted private open space to mean “private property” rather than “affords privacy to the user”. That is, recreational space that is available only to the residents of that property, not their neighbours. Dublin City Council use the term private open space for both houses and apartments, and street facing balconies appear to fulfil the criteria in many apartment blocks, which afford little privacy from each other, or the passengers on the top deck of a bus.

However, the planning and development regulations 2001 state in schedule 2 class 1, column 2, paragraph 5:

“5. The construction or erection of any such extension to the rear of the house shall not reduce the area of private open space, reserved exclusively for the use of the occupants of the house, to the rear of the house to less than 25 square metres.”

(My emphasis).

Houses and Apartments are different animals.

Private open space includes space behind the front building line where this is enclosed and screened from view AFAIK.

The quality of POS matters too, and this is where the definition of the 25 sqm space comes from.

The side passage isn’t private open space as such – more like private, hemmed-in space.

Apartment open space isn’t like public open space in a housing estate where the public have access to it – its intended for use by the residents, not interlopers.

Various regimes in DCC allowed this to be calculated and used or allocated in a variety of different ways.

ONQ.

@onq wrote:

Snip

Private open space includes space behind the front building line where this is enclosed and screened from view AFAIK.

ONQ.

I would disagree with this. I think because of the way the regulations refer to private open space, specifying that at least 25 square metres must be retained to the rear of the house, this indicates that private open space also exists to the front and side of the house.

“5. The construction or erection of any such extension to the rear of the house shall not reduce the area of private open space, reserved exclusively for the use of the occupants of the house, to the rear of the house to less than 25 square metres.”

Furthermore, in schedule 2, part 1, class 3, regarding tents, greenhouses, etc, it states:

“3. The construction, erection or placing within the curtilage of a house of any such structure shall not reduce the amount of private open space reserved exclusively for the use of the occupants of the house to the rear or to the side of the house to less than 25 square metres.”

So, regarding bitasean’s query, you specifically need 25sq m to the rear (because it says so in the regs) after you’ve built your extension. But regarding a definition of private open space, I still think it includes your front, back, and side gardens. Of course, many development plans will specify qualitative standards as well, regarding privacy/useability etc., and they may specify that a certain amount of it must be to the rear.

@Tayto wrote:

Ok let’s simplify this-
Never, in my 20 years of achieving planning permissions for varying scales of housing developments, has a single Irish local authority planning department accepted the front garden area of a house as part of the private open space calculation.

Well, think of it this way: if you were building a house on a half acre site, or an acre, or 15 acres, and for site-specific reasons (views, topography, orientation, etc) you wanted to site the house right at the back of the site (on a clifftop, maybe), and have the gardens to the front, do you think the Local Authority would say “oh no, that won’t do, private open space has to be behind the house?”

@Tayto wrote:

If you are quite certain you are correct, perhaps, in your next planning application for a residential development, I suggest you include the front garden areas of the houses in the P.O.S. area calculation. I would place a very large bet that you would receive, at the very least, a request for additional information from the planning dept. re. insufficient private open space provision.

I don’t for a minute think you would, or should, get away with shirking on back gardens in a housing estate, and claiming that the front gardens would make up for it. Development Plans have qualitative standards, and often specify the area of private open space that has to be to the rear, or behind the building line, to prevent this kind of thing.

Note though, what wearnicehats has quoted from the Draft DCC Development Plan below.

Private open space for houses is usually provided by way of private gardens to the rear or side of a house

Usually, they say, not always. Roof gardens, anyone?

@saintleger wrote:

(snip)

So, regarding bitasean’s query, you specifically need 25sq m to the rear (because it says so in the regs) after you’ve built your extension. But regarding a definition of private open space, I still think it includes your front, back, and side gardens. Of course, many development plans will specify qualitative standards as well, regarding privacy/useability etc., and they may specify that a certain amount of it must be to the rear.

Nope. Not AFAIK.

Your logic seems flawed with regard to the inference you drew.

Specifying a particular something does not infer its opposite to be the case.

Requiring a minimum of 25sqm POS to the rear does not imply POS exists to the front.

In housing estate design, open space may exist to the front, providing there is a front garden, but its not private.

You are correct in assuming that development plans may set standards.

In residential development, the total area of a site used to be used to help generate what used to be considered to be a reasonable density of development – 90 bed-spaces per acre in Dublin City, IIRC the 1980-ish Development Plan.

In commercial development, the site area used to be related to both the GIFA [Plot Ratio] and the area covered by building footprint [Site Coverage expressed as a percentage].

Several scheme threw both these out the window in recent years.

It is also true that walled garden type accommodation, for example Mews Lane developments, with their high walls and gates, can justifiably claim that their space is enclosed and therefore private, but I’m not sure what its actually termed.

FWIW

ONQ.

@onq wrote:

Nope. Not AFAIK.

Your logic seems flawed with regard to the inference you drew.

Specifying a particular something does not infer its opposite to be the case.

Requiring a minimum of 25sqm POS to the rear does not imply POS exists to the front.

snip

No, I think my logic is good. But then I would, wouldn’t I? 🙂

If private open space was only that which is behind houses, there would be no need to refer to the necessity to retain a certain amount of it to the rear – it would be a tautology. Of course an alternative interpretation would be that the clause “to the rear” is an explanatory rather than a qualifying clause, and that appears to be the way both you and Tayto are interpreting it. However, Dublin City’s latest development plan appears to follow my interpretation.

Anyway, I’ve had my say, I won’t keep repeating myself, not because I have any doubts, but because I’m sure it’s getting boring for everyone. Unless someone wants to throw down a section 5 from the board or a high court judgment or something to spice things up.

@bitasean wrote:

on a kinda related topic, I’m looking at the potential for remodelling a terraced artisan cottage and my initial advice to the client was that you cant touch the existing external space because as it stands you dont have half enough to meet the 25m2 and you wont be allowed to decrease it further – in fact, in casual conversation with a planner they even suggested that the only correct thing to do was to knock non-original additions and restore the back yard to its original 20m2 glory. On further analysis (praise be to digital planning searches) however it became apparant that there was a planning precedent for reducing the POS to the rear of the houses to a mere 7m2! And this was as recent as last year.

Bitasean, I might be misinterpreting what you’re saying, but is it the case that the client is averse to applying for planning permission, and is adamant that all works have to be exempted development? Because the 25 sq. m. POS to the rear is a requirement for exempted extensions, not extensions per se. If you apply for permission to build an extension, the application will be judged on its merits, the exempted development limits aren’t relevant.

@Tayto wrote:

Ok let’s simplify this-
Never, in my 20 years of achieving planning permissions for varying scales of housing developments, has a single Irish local authority planning department accepted the front garden area of a house as part of the private open space calculation.

I’ve most often seen it singled out as POS to the rear.

@onq wrote:

Requiring a minimum of 25sqm POS to the rear does not imply POS exists to the front.

In housing estate design, open space may exist to the front, providing there is a front garden, but its not private.

Being private, has multiple terms and meanings.
For property and land, it’s most commonly used to separate from public. Public open space is quite obvious, private can, imo, be to the front. A LA may wish to calculate any area how they see fit (unless it contravenes regs).

Just because a front garden is in public view does not prevent it from being private.
Being private, is not always the same as having privacy.