Solo
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
@bgreg wrote:
Just wondering about residents right to light within a terrace situtation with the introduction of the 40 sq.m extendable area. The roof surely will spoil the throw of light for neighbouring dwelling if the max is sought? (eg. with a lean-to)
What rights or course of action is possible?Ancient light rights relate to daylight at tabletop level and do not specifically relate to sunlight. The two are separate.
It is possible for you to diminish the sunlight to your neighbour without reducing the tabletop light to a level that would be actionable in a Civil Court. If you have any doubts then re-consider your design solution to moderate the light reduction.
The answer to you question cannot be properly ascertained here you need a site inspection by someone with experience in this area.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BTH
Here is the Bailey Point building in Salthill by Douglas Wallace (designed many many years ago I believe!). It should have opened about 3 years ago but has been beset by problems from the start. It will eventually accommodate a multi screen cinema in the basement, bar, restaurant, nightclub and lots and lots of apartments. I’d say the view from those penthouses is pretty amazing!Yes the view is amazing. But see my reply to Kingpin as Douglas Wallace did not design this building nor were they brought in to clean up problems. They were brought in to circumvent paying the original Architects who were Architectural Construction Technology. The only problems were the developer did not like paying the people involved in the project not just the Architects but many other suppliers had considerable difficulty getting paid and many did not get paid.
@kingpin976 wrote:
Douglas Wallace were not the architects responsible for the Bailey Point development in Galway. The architect responsible was actually Architectural Design Technology. Douglas Wallace were employed in the latter stages of the project by the developer and then, following the developer going into receivership, by the receiver KPMG. Douglas Wallace’s brief in both instances was to resolve both planning compliance and legal ownership/certification issues.
Hi Kingpin,
May I correct you on this post I realise it is an old one but it needs correcting. The Architect responsible was a company called Architectural Construction Technology based in Dun Laoghaire. Douglas Wallace were only employed after the original Architect refused to continue working because the Cunningham Group who were backed by the First Active bank at the time owed around €500,000.00 and had bounced cheques. Douglas Wallace were not brought in to clean up the project they were brought in in an attempt to finish the project without paying the Original Architect. Douglas Wallace to their shame made use of misappropriated files belong to Architectural Construction Technology altered those drawings and then in public documentation claimed that they did them.
The Original Architect still has thousands of documents for this project and I understand that a number of years ago after the First Active had put the Cunningham into receivership they did a deal with A.C. T. but reneged on that deal. As a result the title to the building is in dispute as A.C.T. owns almost all of the planning and fire permissions and has all of the original drawings files.
So if I may be so bold you should perhaps not speak of things that it is clear you know nothing about
