Planning Consultant Need

Don’t think you need a planning consultant for that! A GOOD architect?

It appears that you should employ a planning consultant. Firstly because the Planning Authority have requested you to do so. Secondly as Planning consultants, generally, have more expereince of planning matters, particularly of a complex nature.

With regard to employing a planning consultant this may be difficult. The larger consultants will not take on such a small job, therefore you may have diffiuclty in finding a consultant with sufficient experience to deal with your case. I think the architect and planner would have to work quite closely, one outlining what works can be done under existing regulations while the other comes up with an innovative design acceptable to the planning authority. It must always be considered that good design impresses the planning authority and may result in a reduction in development standards.

Hope this is helpful.

I totally agree with DOC….. and disagree with PlanningAssist…..
firstly this is not a ‘complex planning matter’… its actually a very simple clear requirement that the Architect most definitely should have known. I can only assume he/she does not have much experience in planning applications in that county.

secondly, getting a planner to over-rule a county development plan requirement is next to impossible (im making the assumption here that the requirement is written into the county development plan). There seems to be some assumption here that planners make ‘hard’ decisions……

thirdly, from reading the OP, and not knowing anything more about the particulars, it would seem that a dwelling in excess of 200 sq m on a .29 acre site would probably be overdevelopment, when issues are taken into account like seperation distances to foul treatment systems, building lines, ancillary development, entrance location etc…

I agree that the architect should have known, but I do feel that this is the relam of the planning consultant, after all planners deal with these type of cases each day. I would consider the case complex rather than simple.

It is unusal that all scales of development have been ruled out. Given that there is an existing precedent for a dwelling on site, residential uses already exist on site. I would have thought that the planner could have allowed a new dwelling not exceeding the size of the existing one. While the planner may wish to enforce this, having worked with An Bord Pleanala, I feel they may have significant regard to the established use of the site, and to the scale of permitted development. There is a case to oppose the views of Wexford Co co, through a strong planning report.

Thanks for replys so far. In response to points made I will say:-
We have already spent in excess of €5k on Architect fees and have made no progress – don’t want to go down that route again. At the PrePlanning meeting I was given a sheet with the site requirements for Septic Tanks

Dwelling Floor Area Site Size Acres / Hectares
< 200 sq.m. 0.50 – 0.2
200 – 300 sq.m 0.75 – 0.3
> 300 sq.m 1.00 – 0.4

Henno we were not planning to overdevelop the site in fact the new house would only have been 135sq metres.
Wexford Coco said that we would be able to enlarge the house i.e. add an extension, carry out refurbishments and upgrades and alter the interior layout WITHOUT having to seek planning permission; so long as we did these things within the Planning Laws and adhered to Building Regulation. I asked where I could find these guidelines and was advised that my best course of action was to employ a Planning Consultant.

I have since found a lot of stuff on the the web (PL5 & PL11) but would be happier to have a professional confirm exactly what we can do.

Another thing mentioned was wall by wall replacement. Anyone any experience of that?

An obvious question,

What is the size of the existing dwelling?

What is the size of your proposed dwelling?

Unless you are significantly increasing the floor area, it would make no sense to compel you to rebuild the house against your wishes to build a new home

I must agree with planningassist on his last statement, once your proposal complies with all the necessary requirements then i cannot see how they can compel you to refurbishing the existing dwelling. The only think i can think of is the design may be out of character with the surrounding area. You have said the proposed dwelling is 135 sm, then your initial point regarding the 200 sq m restriction doesnt apply, does it?

All getting a bit confused!
“PlanningAssistant” We were not being compeled to rebuild; WE WANTED to knock down the existing house (approx 80sqm) which was built with Planning Permission in ’74 and replace with a 135sqm new build.
Wexford CoCo said that we would not be given PP under any circumstance because our .29 acre site is too small to support a Septic Tank even though it has been doing so for 33 years! The new Regulations require that any house UNDER 200sqm which has it’s own septic tank must be built on a minimum .50 acre site.

“Henno” Our design was not the issue at all. It is the requirement for a .50 acre site which is the sticking point.

So, what we need now is a good Planning Consultant who can advise us on what works both internally and externally we can carry out within the Planning Laws and Regulation but, without the need to apply for Planning Permission.

I have contacted the Irish Planning Institute, but, would you believe it – none of their Wexford based members have agreed to advertise on the website; so under data protection law they are unable to give me their contact details. The world is going mad!!!!!!

Does noboby know a Planning consultant in the County of Wexford?

firstly chalky, the maximum you MAY be allowed to build without planning is another 40 sq m… so your max sized dwelling will end up a 120 sq m….

surely the county development plan requirements are for NEW dwellings and not replacement dwellings as is your case. To be honest i think the planner is disgracefully washing his/her hands of what should be a relevantly straight forward deliberation…..

you initial architect must surely be up to speed on exempted development, he should be able to design your renovations to be within the planning laws….

I understand the situation now.

Effectively because you wanted to increase the size of your house through new build, the council are stating that your site cannot support a septic tank, even though it has in the past. They now want you to modify the existing dwelling. This is a very unreasonable request and poor application of policy.

Logic would state that the small increase in the size of your house will not result in significant sewerage increase. To make you renovate a house based on this seems very odd. I dont think the application of the councils policy in this instance would stand up to scrutiny at the board.

I think you have two options:
Employ a consultant to argue the case for your new house. If the council disagrees take it to the board. As you have spent the money on the plans for the new house, this might not be a costly strategy.

Option two
Comply with the council and renovate the existing structure. Not what you want.

From what you are saying the council are failing to recognise the established residential dwelling. I do not believe that your extension will cause new sewerage issues. The policy is non applicable. However as this is a holiday home you may be on weaker ground, i.e. if you were living there, you could argue the extension was required to sustain the dwelling.

It may be the case that they dont want a larger house on the site, for other reasons.

I am not aware of any planning consultants operating in Wexford. Generally Dublin consultants operate nationally. You need a small practice or a one man show…they will be more interested in smaller fees.

Henno,
The Planner was VERY clear – The New Regulations would apply to anyone looking for planning permission whether it was for a new build or a replacement build.
His suggestions were
1. Connect to Mains Sewage (not an options as that is miles away) or
2. Increase the size of our plot (easier said than done but maybe not impossible at a price)
He said that if neither of these options are easily available to us our only remaining option was to carry out refurbishment of the existing structure.
We’re not going back to the original Dublin based Architect as we want someone who is fully up-to-date with the regulations which apply in Co Wexford (preferably based in Co Wexford).

In a nutshell we will add an “Exempt Development” extension, Rewire, replace all Windows & Doors, replace the Bathroom and Kitchen, reconfigure the interior layout, carry out repairs to the structure where necessary and vastly improve the insulation. Personally I thought it would be far better and certainly more cost effective to rebuild from scratch to a much higher standard than the original rather than add on an extension and then go about repairing/replacing practically every part of the house bar the roof! But, we will have to do whatever is allowed within the law and if this is the way we have to go; then so be it.

We need the Planning Consulant to guide us on exactly what is allowed.

I accept the planner may have been very clear, however that doesn’t excuse the fact that he is not deliberating the case on its merits. I can see the aim of trying to retrospectively increase site sizes, but its simply not practical.

By his thinking, you may now be able to build an extension and bring the occupancy up 5 double bedrooms (possible 10 persons) without any planning intervention …. yet if you want to reconstruct even the exact same dwelling, then you are not allowed…. i see why he recommended you get a planning consultant… he wants you to get someone to play the system because he wont make the hard decision……. really, im not surprised, given his shielded and unaccountable position….

2 suggestions occur to me .

1.

Ask a waste treatment specialists to assess the site , as opposed to relying on the old ( or old -modified ) septic tank
.show them the site and the proposals to date ( to indicate scale of proposals
http://www.biocrete.ie/

These guys are local to you . I don’t know how they compare to others , only mention them because they are local .
Typically these companies will require soils tests ( you will have to hire a digger ) and will offset their report costs ( to be lodged with PP application ) against the install cost .

2.

Look to alter and extend the existing property . I have seen this work well where say you knock the entire house , save for the frontage and one gable and some carefully selected internal walls and then new build onto and around those retained parts .

Good Luck

PS I would not conclude that your architect is not “good” . It’s not so un reasonable for him to assume that as you describe it a functioning in practice over 30 years septic tank can not be relied upon

@chalky wrote:

We need the Planning Consulant to guide us on exactly what is allowed.

If you do go down the exempted development route, I still would say that you need a good architcet rather than double up your fee expenditure especially given that the size of your proposed house will be reduced, you need to maximise the use of the space. Architcets deal with the ins and outs of exempted development every day of the week. It is the architect who will sign off on the deveopment (that it is exempt from the need to octain planning permission) rather that the local authority.

Have you considered applying for planning permission to extend the existing house rather than demolish and build a new house?

I did an application recently to Wexford CC for an extension to an existing holiday home with an existing septic tank (built approx. 1989 – the site area was approx. 0.4 acres) – the existing house was 3-bedroom approx. 120m.sq. and we proposed to add a further 100m.sq. but the planning drawings for the proposed still showed 3 (larger) bedroom. We made the case that even though the house was 100m.sq. larger there would be no intensification of use. They count bedrooms rather than area with regard to septic tanks/treatment systems. A ‘clean’ planning permission was granted for this development.

The house was designed in such a way that the house could easily be converted or in fact used as a 5-bedroom house without altering the elevations or carry out any major structural work, e.g. one room was referred to as a Study and another a Playroom!

The other thing I would say is that you do not necessarily need a local architect/planning consultant!

Oh – just at add – the very first issue I raised with the clinet, even before being appointed to carry out the job, was the issue of the difficuties associated with the foul water drainage and septic tanks! This is despite being Dublin based where we obvioulsy do not have these issues (unless building in a rural area of course).

I think there is as overriding miss interpretation of the problem here.

The original drawings by the architect have been rejected on the basis of a very shaky policy.
Essentially if a house is less than 200sqm you need a half an acre site.

While a justification may exist to apply this policy in the case of new rural dwellings, its application in the case of an established dwelling in need of regeneration is inappropriate and a miss interpretation of the development plan. It should be noted that the policy refers to site selection of new dwellings, and therefore does not apply in this instance.

This policy is unlikely to stand up to any scrutiny on appeal.

I would strongly consider a new house based on the existing drawings by arguing that the policy cannot be applied in the current instance. This is akin to the dezoning of a site in urban terms.

If the house was hit by lightning over night do you really think they wouldn’t let you build it!!!!!
I agree totally with Heno, the planner knows that the consultant you will employ is likely to argue that the policy can’t be enforced in this instance.

a good architect will be more than capable of achieving what you are talking about. the idea of engaging a planning consultant for a scheme like this is frankly laughable.

0.29 of an acre is VERY tight to fit a house of 200m2 and a treatment system/polishing filter on and achieve all the required seperation distances. I don’t think planning policy has anything to do with it. In most instances where major extensions are carried out in Co. Wexford where a septic tank is in use, the council look for an upgrade of the system particularly if there is an increase in the no. of Bedrooms. I think it is something that should have been spotted at the outset given the fact that new effluent treatment systems require far more space than your old ‘septic tank and soakpit’ arrangement. The best way to proceed is to ensure you have a good survey of the site showing the boundaries and all adjacent properties and their septic tanks (and wells – which will make the situation even worse if they are present) aswell as levels and contours. Get a treatment plant manufacturer to have a look at this and plot their minimum seperation distances on it and you will see what space you have left. Unless there is additional land adjoining the site that you might be able to purchase, this will be what you have to work with. The site size in the Wexford Co. Development plan is driven by these seperation distances. These are the ones from the new plan which has only just been adopted, so the chances of getting a planner to run with anything different at the moment are fairly slim.

@sw101 wrote:

a good architect will be more than capable of achieving what you are talking about. the idea of engaging a planning consultant for a scheme like this is frankly laughable.

You may think it laughable, but, that is what I was advised to do by the Wexford CoCo planner at the PrePlanning metting! It was said at three times or more. No matter what question I asked the response was “The best advise I can give you is to employ a Planning Consultant” or “A Planning Consultant would help you with that” or “A Planning Consultant will advise you on what is allowed”

I left the meeting with the definite opinion that – I REALLY NEEDED A PLANNING CONSULTANT!

@JB wrote:

0.29 of an acre is VERY tight to fit a house of 200m2 and a treatment system/polishing filter on and achieve all the required seperation distances….. The site size in the Wexford Co. Development plan is driven by these seperation distances. These are the ones from the new plan which has only just been adopted, so the chances of getting a planner to run with anything different at the moment are fairly slim.

At no point has it been suggested that we intended to erect a 200sqm house. I will again state the facts. We have a .29acre site with it’s own Septic Tank. The existing house(built with PP in ’74) is approx 80sqm. It needs – Rewiring, new Windows & Doors, Bathroom and Kitchen and some structural work. We thought the best thing to do was demolish and rebuild. We planned on erecting a new 135sqm house.
Wexford CoCo told me that anyone seeking PP to build/rebuild a house UNDER 200sqm must have a site of at LEAST .50acres. As we do not have a site large enough their advice was that we should refurbish the existing house and enlarge it by adding an “Exempt Development” Extension. AND that a Planning Consultant guide us in what we could do without having to apply for Plannng Permission. I asked whether updating our sewrage treatment facility would help and was told NO. We would require PP to install a new system and this would be refused. Why? – because the site is too small! So there is NO POINT in having the site assessed. We accept the fact that we can’t demolish and rebuild and appreciate the reasons why. So, now we need SOMEONE who can advise us on what we can do without breaking any laws but WITHOUT THE NEED TO APPLY FOR PLANNING PERMISSION (again according to Wexford CoCO any application would be refused on the grounds that the site is inadequate)

Chalky I still think that the position of the existing septic tank is going to determine what you can achieve in terms of an extension. Even if you go the exempted development route you must comply with the Building Regulations and your new extension must meet all required seperation distances from the septic tank on site. If you employ a planning consultant you will need to have plans to build from which detail your dimensions exactly so that you don’t go over the limits. I think the problem should have been spotted in the first place, so I would go back after whoever did the plans day one and argue the case, or alternatively RIAI will give you a list of local Architects or SCS will help you to find a Surveyor. Either should be able to advise you on how best to proceed and be able to give you a Certificate of Exemption at the end. It might be wise to have the plans prepared and apply to Wexford CO. CO. for a Declaration of Exemption to protect you aswell. I don’t really see any other way out

Am I missing something here? It’s taken me a while to cut through the crap and realise that this has absolutely nothing to do with septic tanks. A septic tank is a big tub of shite that requires to be emptied regularly and, under the development plan “The applicant will be required to enter into a septic tank maintenance agreement in respect of the annual servicing and maintenance of the system. The name of the person or persons responsible for this work will be notified to the County Council” Site area becomes an issue where you are proposing to deal with waste via a soakaway

As regards the issue of building area verses site area and the ratio you refer to is clearly set out in the Wexford County Development plan

http://www.wexford.ie/wex/Departments/Planning/DevelopmentPlans/DevelopmentPlan2007-2013/Thefile,5378,en.pdf

There are also Local Area Plans but, not knowing where your house is, I don’t know if they’re relevant

As the development plan is really geared for new development, the question here is how the Council regards redevelopment of existing sites. The planner in question is taking the stance that a planning application for demolition and redevelopment would be a new application and seems to be treating it as a virgin site for which, under the plan, you would be refused.

The fact that it is a holiday home doesn’t help you either as, again, under the plan, individual holiday homes or cluster of holiday homes will generally not be permitted in the open countryside unless they are attached to rural leisure resource based at that location.

But

Forget site areas, building sizes, septic tanks, the lot. What you need is someone, be it an architect or a planning consultant, who can categorically define for you the Council’s attitude towards development on existing sites. The words “70’s holiday home” certainly conjure up some terrible images in my own head. That policy will make or break what you can do. You must also get very clear guidance on what they will consider exempted development in a rural setting before you attempt any extensions.

From my own experience a middle aged technician who makes a living from banging out mediocre just above standard one off houses is the ideal consultant. Get him to define the parameters then get someone else to design the building.

Apologies for not reading all the posts – as I am pressed for time. I came across a similar situation in Waterford recently which has a similar policy re. minimum site size. We were proposing a sub-division of an existing plot that was less than one acre. The plot for the new house was the minimum 0.5 but the PA wanted to refusee Permssion because the balance of the site left with the existing house was less than 0.5. The original house was built close to the road as was common 50 / 60 years ago and there were adequate seperation distances for both septic tanks. We got Permission after much argument but had to install two new Puraflo systems. It is an overly rigid interpretation of rules and gives Planners a bad name.

@wearnicehats wrote:

Am I missing something here? It’s taken me a while to cut through the crap and realise that this has absolutely nothing to do with septic tanks. A septic tank is a big tub of shite that requires to be emptied regularly and, under the development plan “The applicant will be required to enter into a septic tank maintenance agreement in respect of the annual servicing and maintenance of the system. The name of the person or persons responsible for this work will be notified to the County Council” Site area becomes an issue where you are proposing to deal with waste via a soakaway

As regards the issue of building area verses site area and the ratio you refer to is clearly set out in the Wexford County Development plan

http://www.wexford.ie/wex/Departments/Planning/DevelopmentPlans/DevelopmentPlan2007-2013/Thefile,5378,en.pdf

There are also Local Area Plans but, not knowing where your house is, I don’t know if they’re relevant

As the development plan is really geared for new development, the question here is how the Council regards redevelopment of existing sites. The planner in question is taking the stance that a planning application for demolition and redevelopment would be a new application and seems to be treating it as a virgin site for which, under the plan, you would be refused.

The fact that it is a holiday home doesn’t help you either as, again, under the plan, individual holiday homes or cluster of holiday homes will generally not be permitted in the open countryside unless they are attached to rural leisure resource based at that location.

But

Forget site areas, building sizes, septic tanks, the lot. What you need is someone, be it an architect or a planning consultant, who can categorically define for you the Council’s attitude towards development on existing sites. The words “70’s holiday home” certainly conjure up some terrible images in my own head. That policy will make or break what you can do. You must also get very clear guidance on what they will consider exempted development in a rural setting before you attempt any extensions.

From my own experience a middle aged technician who makes a living from banging out mediocre just above standard one off houses is the ideal consultant. Get him to define the parameters then get someone else to design the building.

Bet OP wishes he hadn’t bothered . So much ( not all ) of this thread consists of professionals sniping at one another . As “a middle aged technician” I don’t recognize the above description .

Chalky , I hope you get sorted out . Have a nice weekend

@wearnicehats wrote:

1. From my own experience a middle aged technician who makes a living from banging out mediocre just above standard one off houses is the ideal consultant.

2. Get him to define the parameters then get someone else to design the building.

1. is that necessary?? sounds like you dont know or understand the position of Architectural Technologists in construction projects…..

2. ‘define the parameters’…??? are you saying the Designer shouldnt have to know the requirements of the development plan and the planning regulations??? maybe thats the reason so much design is actually left up to the technicians in the first place….

henno said:

“define the parameters’…??? are you saying the Designer shouldnt have to know the requirements of the development plan and the planning regulations??? maybe thats the reason so much design is actually left up to the technicians in the first place”

What I understood that to mean is to get somebody who has a very good understanding of what (in practice) will and will not be allowed by the planning authority in borderline cases. Obviously that means that they have to know “the requirements of the development plan ” too.

Somebody who makes their living from building house that are “just good enough” to pass would be better for the OP in my opinion, than perhaps a fashionable Dublin architect who might not have as good experience with the foibles of the local authority in question.

That is not simply a criticism of fancy Dublin architects – if you owned a commercial site in Wexford town, and want to build an imposing landmark office, I would recommend a flashy Dublin architect for the job over a local .
But for the OP’s task, i think local experience of small jobs will be more useful.

Also, i would like to point out for the OPs benefit that there is no official difference between an “architect” and a “planning consultant” in Ireland, except that the planning consultant will charge more and might subcontract out the drawings to someone else.

I do not think trawling on this site for advice on hiring is a good idea – anyone who pm’s you a name will have their own biases, even if they are genuinely motivated by a desire to help you.

What I would do if i were in your position is trawl the website of Wexford CC planning section and get the names of a few local architects who have recently got permission for one-off houses in the county, and ring up a few of them, and see who sounds most like they know what they are doing over the phone.

@forrestreid wrote:

I do not think trawling on this site for advice on hiring is a good idea – anyone who pm’s you a name will have their own biases, even if they are genuinely motivated by a desire to help you.

What I would do if i were in your position is trawl the website of Wexford CC planning section and get the names of a few local architects who have recently got permission for one-off houses in the county, and ring up a few of them, and see who sounds most like they know what they are doing over the phone.

Forrestreid, THAT is the most useful and sensible advice I’ve had so far! Thank You 😀

@henno wrote:

1. is that necessary?? sounds like you dont know or understand the position of Architectural Technologists in construction projects…..

2. ‘define the parameters’…??? are you saying the Designer shouldnt have to know the requirements of the development plan and the planning regulations??? maybe thats the reason so much design is actually left up to the technicians in the first place….

I think I’ve shown that I know the parameters of the wexford development plan quite well actually. What I don’t know – or have any real interest in truth be told, is the Wexford Planning Department’s stance on Chalky’s issues.

If I have a planning problem that I can’t solve myself I ask a friend of mine who is a middle aged technician who spends his days banging out mediocre just above standard designs. He freely admits to it. He knows the planning dept and the planners personally, socially, and, above all, knows how they will view just about any situation involving a one-off house anywhere from Cork to Donegal. So wind your necks in and get off the technician/architect bandwagon, it’s been dealt with before. Chalky needs someone who knows the system

im glad youve cleared up that sweeping generalisation by stating thats its a personal friend of yours that you are talking about. Are you advising the OP to hire a personal friend of your own?

and dont worry im not on any bandwagon, its just interesting to see technicians being proposed to solve this problem. We are in agreement with that opinion.

@henno wrote:

im glad youve cleared up that sweeping generalisation by stating thats its a personal friend of yours that you are talking about. Are you advising the OP to hire a personal friend of your own?

and dont worry im not on any bandwagon, its just interesting to see technicians being proposed to solve this problem. We are in agreement with that opinion.

generalisation? I think you have mistaken my comments. I was merely using a personal example to underline my contempt for the planning system. If you read my post I advised Chalky to find someone in Wexford who could manipulate the system for him. Your last comment is perhaps the most wonderful example of irony that I have ever read

@wearnicehats wrote:

I think I’ve shown that I know the parameters of the wexford development plan quite well actually. What I don’t know – or have any real interest in truth be told, is the Wexford Planning Department’s stance on Chalky’s issues.

i drew inspiration from this comment.. ]From my own experience a middle aged technician who makes a living from banging out mediocre just above standard one off houses is the ideal consultant[/QUOTE]….. but that does read like a generalisation to me. but perhaps its semantics….