Planning Application Inconsistencies Inaccuracies
In section “4. Planning Application Inconsistencies” of my original submission/objection on pages 34-35, I highlighted inaccurate site plans.
❝There are also inconsistencies between the plans submitted and my mother’s current attached kitchen building in the planning application. The blue X shows the attached building prior to 2016. The red Y shows the existing kitchen building that was completed in 2016, source Bing Maps.❞
(Planning submission 03/04/2024)
The original site plan submitted had many inaccuracies as does the revised site plan submitted. It actually shows my mother’s house IN LINE with the proposed two storey structure. This is completely misleading as this would indicate on plan form, that the 45 Degree Rule would not be breached which couldn’t be further from the truth. When applying the 45 Degree Rule to my mother’s rear facing kitchen (habitable room) window which is the principal source of light, it completely breaches the 45 Degree Rule when plotted.
The following response by the DCC would appear to show DCC did not fully investigate the wider impact this permission would have on the effects on my mother’s Residential Amenity, when carrying out its assessment.
9.5 Residential Amenity
Considering the physical separation distances between the subject site and the neighbouring dwellings no issues arise in relation to loss of privacy, overlooking or residential amenity. This matter is also considered in the previous section.
DCC Planning Services - Planner’s Report and Recommendation
The image on the left is a Bing Maps Satellite image. This image also highlights boundary issues.
The proposed 2 story building whose footprint is similar in size to the existing shed in the satellite image, at the back of the Parochial House, with a height of 7.374m will be overshadowing and overbearing.
