ctesiphon

How much underground is your basement? Fully submerged?
Is your back garden level lower than street level?

@3dimageworks wrote:

The only difference being that on is “set in” a actual photo of the development and the other in a virtual environment.

Perhaps it is the only difference, but it’s a crucial difference, particularly when one of the principal purposes of such tools is to facilitate non-professional understanding of, say, the impacts of a development. Ass I said above, such tools can be dangerous in that they can deliberately or accidentally misrepresent the reality of a situation, so I’d question the use of the term ‘photomontages’ to describe some of the thus-titled images that often accompany planning applications.
However, and on a more general point, ‘photomontages’ carries with it the implication of veracity and honesty- “But look! We took the original pictures on site!”, whereas anyone with even a passing familiarity with photography knows that there are too many variables in the process (lens type, exposure, focal length, etc etc)) to permit reliability. In other words, you can pretty much take any picture you require if you have the right equipment, not to mention the manipulability that comes with the digital age. Having said that, there is no single method of illustration/depiction that is fail-safe. And there is no substitute for familiarising oneself with a proposed development site by actually visiting it.

For either photomontages or 3D mock-ups to have any worth in the planning system, they should be carried out by a third party not attached to the developer. I worked in a planning consultancy and I recall one of the senior associates saying ‘We can’t use that one, but this one looks great! Do you think we could get [the company that produced them] to re-do these from a different angle?”

A former colleague of mine wrote a History of Art thesis in Trinity in 1999 or so, either M.Litt or M.Phil, on Ashlin. I’m sure it would have some info you require. I’ll send you her email by private message.
Also, the office of Ashlin and Coleman still exists, though without family connections to Ashlin or Coleman, I believe. They might be able to help re old drawings, company archives etc. A quick google gives two addresses: 36 Pembroke Road, D.4, or 1 Grant’s Row, off Lwr Mount St, D.2, and an email (possibly out of date) of info@ashlincoleman.com

Without wishing to sound facetious, your unfortunate situation sounds exactly like a question I answered in my Planning Law exam for my Masters. Now here it is in real life! The short answer is, there is often no ‘right answer’ to a situation like this. However, I’ll try my best.

My first suggestion was to have been to get a solicitor well acquainted with planning law. As you have a solicitor, I can only emphasise the need for planning law competence. It might also be worth your while to talk to a planning consultant. The IPI website (http://www.irishplanninginstitute.ie), though not exhaustive, should indicate whether there’s one in your area. A competent architect might suffice for this either.

Whatever works your neighbour has carried out, if they were completed more than 5 or 7 (see below) years ago they are outside the statute of limitations for enforcement proceedings, even where they infringe on a public right of way.
From Dublin City Council website:
“Under the Planning and Development Act 2000, if the development commenced on or after the 11th March 2002, the time limit is 7 years. Action must be taken within five years if the unauthorised development/use commenced prior to that date.”

The burning of rubbish is a different matter, though, and could be legitimately investigated under planning law as it might constitute a change of use, if there is no permission for such an activity (as seems likely). However, I would caution against fighting fire with fire (pardon the pun!) at this stage, as it could have serious consequences further down the line. It would be best first to sort out your situation on its own, without recourse to the ‘he said – she said’ school of argument, if at all possible. If the burning is still an issue when this is resolved, perhaps pursue it at that stage.

Their conclusion re the 12 sq.m. at first floor seems correct for a terraced house (see http://www.fingalcoco.ie/YourLocalCouncil/Services/Planning/DevelopmentExemptFromPlanningPermission/InformationRegardingExemptedDevelopment/
for general guidance).

The boundary wall issue is less clear cut, and I can’t quite envisage it from your description. Is it that there is a laneway running alongside your house, with one side of the laneway being formed by your gable end and your garden wall (being an extension of the line of the gable end)? In other words, will your first floor extension form an edge to the laneway? If so, perhaps they have a point, though it’s one I can’t really clarify for you I’m afraid.
The type of map you are looking for might exist in the Valuations Office in Dublin (I think now located in the Irish Life Centre [NOT the ILAC Centre] on Abbey Street near the VHI Head Office). It would be worth a visit, but keep your expectations lowish. I’m less sure about the deed, but would guess that the Registry of Deeds would be a place to start.
Even if it turns out that you don’t have the right to build on the wall, it is not unheard of by any means for an agreement, whether by means of sale or otherwise, to be reached between the owner (the local authority) and a developer (you). A look around many Dublin suburbs with garage extensions beside laneways would tell you as much, at any rate.

I hope this is of some use to you. I’d be more specific if I could, but some of your details are a litle confusing. For example:
“He owns two houses that meet the perimeter of our boundary” is somewhat unclear;
“Built a wall against the gable wall of our house”- Not sure how, if one side is a laneway and the other is a party wall as part of a terrace;
“put a roof on an alley way which connects his house to ours”- is this the same laneway as you mentioned re the boundary wall issue?
Sorry to nit-pick, but without drawings or written compass points it is a little difficult to build a comprehensive mental picture of the site.

In conclusion, I sometimes suspect a fear of litigation has led some local authority officers to adopt a hardline approach to matters such as planning enforcement in recent times, and it is possible that you have simply been the ‘victim’ of a very by-the-book approach. Equally, it is possible that you are the victim of a combination of a vindictive neighbour and a somewhat underhand enforcement officer. In either case, I would again stress the need for a planning savvy solicitor or a good planning consultant. A message board such as this can never really replace good advice based on first hand knowledge of the particulars of a case. Keep an open mind about solutions, and remember to appear keen to resolve the matter in as amicable a way as possible. The behaviour of the enforcement officer, even if technically correct, certainly seems a bit unprofessional, but to an extent it has little bearing on the details of the case, which in a nutshell sound like:
a) you will need planning permission (the 12 sq.m. clause); and
b) you will need to resolve the boundary wall problem with the local authority.

Best of luck with it- I hope it all works out.

It might still qualify as advertising, even if it’s not technically selling anything. Best, and probably fastest, to check with the LA via a Section 5 or their DP.

Re the forum- wasn’t meant as a personal attack, notjim, and I hope it didn’t come across as such. As I said, a general plea. 🙂

Best of luck.

You could start by asking in the Irish Planning sub-forum. 😉

My gut feeling is you probably would need it as it probably qualifies as advertising. Check whatever development plan covers the area in question and check the definition of advertising in the Planning & Development Act 2000. See http://www.irishstatutebook.ie for the latter.
Also, you could request a Section 5 Declaration from the local authority- tells you whether PP is needed for any type of development. Although this would bring it to the attention of the LA, which you might not want, they’d ultimately find out about it anyway, being an outward-facing sign n’all.

Can I make this another general plea to put planning questions in the Planning sub-forum? I asked before a few days ago on another thread. It’s not my baby, but I do think the whole board would benefit in the long run if we maintained this delineation. I don’t thnk Paul put it there for a laugh.
Thanks. 🙂

Yup- it’s hilarious, isn’t it?
I think there was a net curtain in the window when I took the picture, so I couldn’t see through. My initial thought was that there must be a double-height room behind; some kind of hall or reception area. The fact that it’s in the Botanic Gardens made me wonder if it wasn’t in some way connected to the Gardens’ functions – as a lecture room, say, requiring light for exhibits or for slide shows – though the date of the house and the date of the Gardens would give the lie to that idea, methinks. Either of your suggestions, Graham, could be possibilities.
It’s certainly an odd building overall, and fairly obviously of more than one period. the mish-mash of windows says as much to me. Perhaps the large window is a later insert? In fact, looking again, it’s possible the fanlight is blind?
So many questions… 🙂

PS I had a feeling it would get a reply from you, the windows man, though I’m surprised you didn’t already know of it. 😉 (Turn right when you go in through the main gates, if I remember correctly.)

There was a book published 5 or so years ago called ‘Legacy of Light’ written by Nessa Roche (published by Wordwell) which should have some of the information you require. It looks at windows from an architectural-historical perspective (though as Thomond Park pointed out a while ago in a different thread, it stops short of dealing with the 20th century). If it’s not in your college library, it is definitely in the UCD architecture library at Richview. It would be easy to obtain on inter-library loan.
Best of luck.

I’ve been deliberately avoiding getting embroiled in this thread since it took on a purely policitcal thrust, but a few things require comment.
Many of the points you make, PDLL, are based on either a misunderstanding of your opponents’ points or on straw man arguments, with a strong strain of logical fallacy thrown in for good measure.
You make assumptions about the members of this forum that, at best, have no bearing on the argument and, at worst, are downright offensive. Do you really think we are all molly-coddled mammy’s boys from comfy suburbia? As jimg said before:

You have no idea what sacrifices I’d be prepared to make for my country […] In addition you have no idea what sacrifices my family or ancestors have made in the name of nationalism.

Finally, I don’t buy your connection between this subject and architecture. You’ll notice from Niall’s post that there is another board where you won’t need to make a tenuous connection to architecture; let us know how you get on.

PS Just noticed cross-post with jimg.

In the last 10-15 years, the Market Arcade has really come back to life. There was a student conservation study carried out in around 1989 (in UCD Richview library) that showed considerably more dereliction than today. Agreed, it’s a bit shabby, but it is a living building complex that really adds vibrancy to this part of town, not least the mix of shops, stalls and cafes. I’d be worried that any major conservation project might push up rents on the units, forcing out the existing traders and altering fundamentally the character of the place. It changed hands a few years back and the new owner/s have done a good job of maintaining or introducing just the right mix, both inside and outside. In fact, I’m not sure whether the external units are separately owner or are part of the whole. Anyone know? Also, I’m intrigued by the basement- apparently it’s huge, but I’ve never seen it (aside from the individual basements of some units- Road Records, a couple of the cafes, one of the hairdressers).
There’s a picture of the interior of the arcade from the 1950s or so in the cafe at the George’s St end (Simon’s Place) showing cars parked inside, and the entrance to the Market Bar retains shopfronts in the ‘lobby’ area (unsure if they’re original though). If it was to change, I’d love to see an English Market style daily food market, i.e. butchers, fishmongers etc., rather than a fancypants food emporium. It’s something this city sorely needs. But I’d rather it stayed as it is for now, with maybe minimal running repairs, particularly as the DCC project for the old fruit and veg markets on the northside will hopefully provide such a food market as you see in Barcelona and elsewhere. Then hutton could have all the fresh fruit and veg he needs!

PS One criticism of the market- a few years ago they took out the old floor of what seemed like sandstone flagstones (doubtful, but my memory’s hazy) and replaced it with the current tiled surface. Not only does it look too new, it’s lethal when it rains.