publicrealm
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Grianblah hasn’t gone away you know! 🙂
Noticed a new site notice the other day – this time for an extension to original plus raising of part of the perimiter wall along the roadside.
I hope to view the file next week.
A point I forgot to mention – in the context of An Taisce and ‘own goals’ is that they cannot control their membership – as say a professional organisation might.
Thus some of their members (a minority admittedly) may act in a juvenile manner from time to time. While this may add to the poor perception of the organisation it should perhaps be indulged for a while, in the hope that eventually they may mature and develop more confidence and even logical and debating skills. :rolleyes:
😮 What a splendid topic DJM!
My personal view is that An Taisce is negatively perceived by the general public and very negatively perceived by those involved in development.
Some of this, in my view, is a result of negativity in the media – essentially lazy journalism, where negative comments from those with vested interests are regurgitated. Some of it arises from ‘own goals’ by An Taisce.
They do extraordinary work. Many of the Honorary Planning Officers put in long hours reviewing applications, commenting on drafts and variations of plans, meeting with local communities etc. All are unpaid and I know of cases where they absorb the postage, mileage and phone calls themselves. Because they genuinely care about planning and sustainable development.
In the UK the National Trust is generally respected (I think) but not here – and so the activists do not expect any public recognition – but are regularly vilified by our fine local elected representatives.
At a national level the elected representatives are also uncomfortable with the organisation (and imo culturally illiterate) – hence the threats re funding.
So – what are the ‘own goals’?
For a start they should stop objecting to one off houses – this merely provides cover for the local planning authorities whose job is to implement the Development Plan. It also provides ammunition for the gombeens and entrenches the negativity – and that particular battle is long lost anyway.
Secondly they need to get their act together organisationally – most of their planners have no formal (and very little informal) training. They lack a nationally co-ordinated policy with regard to planning – for example some counties object to almost all one off houses – some do not object to them at all.
Thirdly they need to moderate their language. Strident opinions may (?) be acceptable in a discussion forum but they are inappropriate for a publically funded organisation – also unwise. Better to be inside the tent in this case I believe and if they don’t change they will be outflanked by more ‘amenable’ types ( I think that they have been pointedly cut out of the currently mooted national heritage organisation – anyone know the details?)
I’m not suggesting they should be supine – and this is a danger of course – the last thing we need is another rubber stamping quango.
Of course resources are an issue – and they have been starved in this regard, and they need to increase and diversify their membership.
Maybe a fairy godmother/father in the PR/Lobbying industry could help ?
I do believe if things go on as they are that the organisation will wither (it’s nearly there) and we will all be very much the poorer.:o
Devin wrote
“You say (sarcastically) that “the best that the stupid planner can do is to mitigate the worst excesses of the architectâ€
I’m afraid I was not being sarcastic. And I am not as comfortable as you are in describing a hardworking public servant as stupid on a public forum (it seems that a number of people already know the individual’s name – those who do not merely have to check the file reference on the DCC website). Of course you do have the right to do so.
Nor am I suggesting that planners always succeed in their endeavours (I agree that there are numerous examples of failure – including the case in question) – just that most planners are well intentioned and diligent and are trying to deal with an unrelenting tide of architectural mediocrity against strict statutory deadlines and under the beady eye of the Manager and his apparatchicks.
I would tend to agree that there is a lack of appreciation of heritage matters within the planning profession however – and it is in this area that An Taisce has an invaluable role to play (but that could be a whole new thread .:D
I really think it is unreasonable to expect planners to prevail in such circumstances. I do not know what the answer is but a large part of the problem stems from the greedy and underdesigned applications – (and I know too that many jobbing architects are under immense pressure to maximise the floor area and minimise the cost – the cost to the developer that is).
Devin wrote:
“The sickening thing is DCC knew there had been earlier objections to it so there was a much greater onus on them to get it right (given that there were no objections in on this one & could be no appeal). It shows you that they will grant permission for almost anything … scared shitless to remove a storey. The city is stuck with this wrong building now forever, because of some stupid planner. I think that after this construction boom, questions are going to be asked about DCC decision making. You just have to look at this building and what’s happening in somewhere like Cork Street ….”
I’m not sure if I have the correct building – but if I have then I beg to differ. A quick search on 43-45 Bolton St/17 &17a Bolton St shows just 5 applications, dating from 2003 (2), 2004 (2) and 2006 (more anon).
Two of these (in 2003) appear to be the effective ‘parent permissions’ and the two 2004 applications were for modifications. Of these 4 three were granted and one was invalidated. They all appear to me to be uncomplicated applications, certainly not confusing.
I know the planner involved (as mentioned on the file) to be very highly qualified and very well regarded.
The main parent permission contained 24 conditions – one of which deals with the need to ensure that bricwork and bonding must be of the highest quality and that bonding should be to the traditional method.
The reality is that the “stupid planner’ (who probably only has 2 or 3 relevant degrees) must address what the “clever architect” designs. It would not be appropriate for stupid planners to design (or redesign) such structures. Rather he (or she) must try to balance the need for renewal with the appaling mediocrity churned out by the (considerable) majority of architects. Generally the best that the stupid planner can do is to mitigate the worst excesses of the architect.
Personally I think that the building is quite typical of the rubbish currently being produced, and is particularly grotesque in this particular setting.
But the stupid planner didn’t design it , the file is not in the least complicated and Henrietta Street has a number of residents who are expert s in the the planning system. Seems (to me) a bit hard to blame the planner? Maybe you should have lodged an objection (I often do).
ps. the latest (2006) application is for an off licence. (and you are too late to object).
pps. I am not an architect 😀
The reason the planning section is so quiet is that the planners are all too busy to post (largely correcting architects mistakes 😀 ).
have a look at schedule 2 of the Planning and Development Act 2001 – see http://www.environ.ie/DOEI/DOEIPol.nsf/0/fad163d4e576ac3a80256fa3003d0f77/$FILE/schedule2.pdf
Note that the exemptions are restricted by Article 9 of the regs. – if any of the restrictions apply then it is not exempt: see
http://www.environ.ie/DOEI/DOEIPol.nsf/0/fad163d4e576ac3a80256fa3003d0f77/$FILE/part01.pdf
The first condition of any planning permission usually requires that the development be constructed in accordance with the plans submitted.
You appear not to comply – insofar as the dimensions will differ. If you follow the advice of going ahead regardless then you will have an unauthorised development.
You will need to regularise this with a retention permission in due course.
Another alternative is go for a new permission (garage only) for the changed dimensions – you could get bthrough the system in 8 weeks if you keep it simple and there are no objections. This is the most prudent course – as there appears very little danger of a refusal – whereas by ‘whoring it out, (as they say in FF) you do run some risks.
Best of luck
Probably like most people who who post here I am interested in buildings and would like some to be preserved from insensitive development. I have often made submissions to planning authorities on such cases.
Someone has to make the call as to what should be ‘protected’ and I am happy to leave it to the planners (but ultimately the councillors, sensitive souls, may overrule the planners).
Nevertheless, I too would question the idea of conserving for the appreciation of the few (at the expense of all).
Ultimately I have come to believe that we should conserve whatever is deemed worthy of conservation but that we must compensate the owners – I think it unreasonable to require an individual to retain draughty timber windows (and perhaps a thatched roof – or a set of railings which prevent off street parking) for my (relatively) rarified pleasure.
Why, for example, should an owner in an unprotected property be permitted off street parking (or an additional dwelling/s within his cultilege) when this is denied to the owner of a protecred structure? If society deems it important enough to restrict in terms of development then compensation should be automatic. Ditto for protected views and landscapes.
IMU,
If you wish to stay within the exempted regulations look at Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development Regulations – this gives detailed advice as to what is exempted. If you are still in doubt you can request a formal declaration by the Planning Authority for a fee of €80.00 (see Section 5 of the P&D Act). This is a swift(ish) process and could be completed in about 8 weeks – can also be referred to the Board if necessary.
With regard to the planners advice that ‘restrictions’ apply – they should explain what these are. If not an Architectural Conservation Area (or a Protected Structure) then it is possible that it is in a Residential Conservation Area (RCA)? You can tell by viewing the zoning map – an RCA is a darker yellow than a standard Residential area.
If none of the above then the planners are trying it on and you should go for full planning permission.
(p.s. keep the old windows unless they are beyond redemption)
Best of luck.
P.
ctesiphon Would that be because the ad reached a part of the bridge other ads could not reach?
‘Probably…’:)
Thomondpark,
Any thoughts?
Well yes actually.
Firstly it’s great to be reminded that there are many people out there, in senior positions, who are still idealistic and engaged.
Secondly – and something I discovered many years ago – if ‘we’ wish to preserve something which ‘we’ consider to be of aesthetic value (or any other value which is not immediately obvious to the majority of people) then we need to be prepared to buy that thing or else make adequate compensation available to the owner of the thing – who may not share our enthusiasm for its preservation.
This will never happen in this country – for lots of reasons – nor will we even resource areas such as heritage officers within planning authorities. Certainly we will write the plans – we have some of the best – the NSS is a smasher – but seriously – you didn’t think we meant it??
We can only muddle on and hope that the core of committed planners will not give up.
Hi Altotude,
They should refund your fee – the purpose of the fee is to cover the administrative costs associated with the consideration of the submission/observation. As you were out of time the PA were statutarily debarred from considering the submission/observation (art 29.3) and therefore the cost does not arise.
Regards,
Publicrealm
Hi John,
1. 40 sq m applies where house not extended previously. (If extended previously then cumulative max. of 40.)
2. In terraced house max. floor area above ground level must not exceed 12 sq. m. (cumulative as above.)
3. Any above ground floor extn. must be minimum of 2m. from any party boundary.
4. Heights: If no gable to rear wall of house then max. height of extn. must not exceed height of rear wall of house;
If rear wall of house includes gable then max. height of extn. must not exceed height of side walls of house;
the highest part of the extn. must not exceed the highest point of the roof of the house and if extn. flat roofed must not exceed height of eaves/parapet of house.
Any window above ground level must be 11m or more from boundary.
The roof of extn. shall not be used as balcony/roof garden.
(All from P&D Regs, Schedule 2)
You will see from this that it is fairly restrictive – if you need more space you should consider applying for permission.
Regards and best of luck
Publicrealm:)
I have just learned that DCC has decided to refuse permission based on heritage and sustainability grounds.
I’m new here but I believe that living higher than, say 6 stories is not particularly desirable from a family point of view.
(I have a family and I live on the 5th floor of an apartment development.) Any higher and it becomes difficult to relate to the surrounding gardens/ to monitor and communicate with kids on the ground, to visually identify ‘your’ home from the ground etc. – all points made by others before me.
I have no objection to high rise office buildings – provided they are located in accordance with a plan. The DEGW Skyline Study is the start of a plan but needs much more detail. We need also to bear in mind that the predominent feature of the Irish weather is the wind velocity – not the rain – and that high rise and high wind are bad neighbours.
High rise (over 50m) will change the skyline so we must justify it – it should be in the right location and it should be a piece of art – (or perhaps in the opposite order?) otherwise what is the point?
Yes, the report was prepared by a James O’ Connor (FRIAI).
No doubt an eminent architect and perfectly entitled to his opinion.
I do hope that the DCC planners don’t share it however and I certainly don’t. Decision will be due around mid Dec I think – but I wouldn’t be surprised if DCC asked for further info on the building to be demolished.
If you have missed the objection window you can still seek enforcement of the original condition which has been breached. The 7 year limit does not apply to non-compliance with conditions and it seems unlikely that any planning authority would permit something which they had expressly conditioned out in an previous application.
If there is still time to object then consult the planner’s report from the original permission – this will give you the detailed reasoning behind the original condition – useful ammunition to be cited in your objection.
The grounds for validation are covered in the P&D Regulations and they say nothing about not marking drawings ‘proposed’.
I imagine the issue here is that drawings for retention must (by definition) show existing development (i.e. development carried out without planning permission).
Therefore the term proposed is inaccurate and potentially confusing?
The house is in the Arts and Crafts style and was (reputedly) designed by Manning Robertson, a distinguished town planner and architect who was one of the leading lights in Irish Architecture in the 20’s and 30’s and wrote several books on architecture and many articles in the journals of the time. He trained in London in the same practice as Lutyens.
The house was bought for just under 8million at auction. The planning application is accompanied by an architectural conservation report which suggests that the house has no architectural merit and is in such poor repair as to make its preservation impractical.
I visited it when it was being shown prior to auction and thought it very beautiful and well kept and it seemed to me to have a lot of architectural merit.
Money does not always equate with taste I suppose?
