1st FLOOR PLANNING EXEMPTIONS

Fresh from a chat with DCC and as I suspected the first floor extension would need to be back from the boundary by 2m in order to be exempt.

Does anybody know if this is in the Building Control Act or whether it varies from council to council?

It is in the planning and development regulations – you can view at irishstatutebook.ie. It is in one of the schedules at the back, (I think Schedule 2 but you may have to correct me on that!).

Be careful of the other qualifying criteria also.

P & D Regulations 2001 Schedule 2 Part 1

For attached houses, (that is semi-detached or terraced), exemptions from Planning Permission for first floor extensions are rare.

Although, 12 sq.m. is allowed, all first floor walls have to be two metres away from any party boundary, and as if that wasn’t restrictive enough, any window above first floor cannot be less than 11 metres from the boundary it faces.

[Slightly more generous for detached houses, where 20 sq.m. is allowed, but again, all first floor walls have to be two metres away from any party boundary and if the area exceeds 12 sq.m.,the same rule applies about any window above first floor not being less than 11 metres from the boundary it faces].

Section 6 seems ambiguous:

6. (a) Any window proposed at ground level in any such extension shall not be less than 1 metre from the boundary it faces.

(b) Any window proposed above ground level in any such extension shall not be less than 11 metres from the boundary it faces.

(c) Where the house is detached and the floor area of the extension above ground level exceeds 12 square metres, any window proposed at above ground level shall not be less than 11 metres from the boundary it faces.

6 (c) seems to imply that the 11M limit doesn’t apply to detached houses where the 1st floor extension is less than 12 sqm, however 6(b) clearly applies to “any such extension”.

ONQ.

Is it just me or does the open space requirement also seem abiguous.?

“… any extension does not reduce the area of private open space, reserved for occupants of the house, to les than 25 square metres”

My query is whether or not private open space is limited to the area to the rear of the property or whether it could be deemd to include areas to the side and front also?

In raising this issue with the planning department in question I was greeted with “Nobody is going to answer that for you because they dont want to be liable”

anyone have a clearer understanding of the geographical prerequisites of private open space for a house?

Residential Private Open Space:-

I’ve never seen a front garden classified as Private Open Space.
It’s my understanding that a side garden and a rear garden can be classified as Private Open Space.
I’m sure there’s a more definitive answer in the relevant Development Plan.

p 213 (section 17) of the current Draft Dublin DP states

Privacy is an important element of residential amenity, and contributes towards the sense of security. Private open space for houses is usually provided by way of private gardens to the rear or side of a house. A standard of 15m Private & Communal Open Space of private open space per bedspace will normally be applied. A single bedroom represents one bedspace and a double bedroom represents two bedspaces.

At the rear of dwellings, there should be adequate separation (traditionally about 22m
between 2-storey dwellings) between opposing first floor windows. However, this standard
may be relaxed if it can be clearly demonstrated that the development is designed in such a way as to preserve the amenities and privacy of adjacent occupiers. Careful positioning and detailed design of opposing windows can prevent overlooking with shorter back-to-back
distances and windows serving halls and landings do not require the same degree of privacy as habitable rooms.

Where dwellings have little or no front gardens in urban settings, it is important that
“defensible space” is created behind the public footpath, for example, by means of a planting strip, and the design of ground floor windows will need to be carefully considered.

Where on-street parking is provided in lieu of front gardens a landscaped strip with a minimum depth of 2m will be required to the front of each house. Rear gardens and similar private areas should: be screened from public areas, provide safe and secure play areas forchildren, be overlooked from the window of a living area or kitchen, have robust boundaries; and not back onto roads or public open spaces.

In relation to proposals for house(s) within the inner city, a standard of 5-8m2 of private open space per bedspace will normally be applied, subject to the provision of a minimum of 25m2 of open space per dwelling.

A distance of at least 1.5 metres shall be provided between dwellings for the full length of the flanks in all developments of detached, semi-detached and end-of-terrace houses. In
general, this distance should be equally divided between dwellings so separated to allow for a usable side entrance. Where garages are provided at the side of semi-detached dwellings and end-of-terrace houses, they may substitute for this requirement, provided they incorporate a direct through access from the front to the rear of the premises.’

I have always thought that development plans interpreted private open space to mean “private property” rather than “affords privacy to the user”. That is, recreational space that is available only to the residents of that property, not their neighbours. Dublin City Council use the term private open space for both houses and apartments, and street facing balconies appear to fulfil the criteria in many apartment blocks, which afford little privacy from each other, or the passengers on the top deck of a bus.

However, the planning and development regulations 2001 state in schedule 2 class 1, column 2, paragraph 5:

“5. The construction or erection of any such extension to the rear of the house shall not reduce the area of private open space, reserved exclusively for the use of the occupants of the house, to the rear of the house to less than 25 square metres.”

(My emphasis).

@saintleger wrote:

I have always thought that development plans interpreted private open space to mean “private property” rather than “affords privacy to the user”. That is, recreational space that is available only to the residents of that property, not their neighbours. Dublin City Council use the term private open space for both houses and apartments, and street facing balconies appear to fulfil the criteria in many apartment blocks, which afford little privacy from each other, or the passengers on the top deck of a bus.

However, the planning and development regulations 2001 state in schedule 2 class 1, column 2, paragraph 5:

“5. The construction or erection of any such extension to the rear of the house shall not reduce the area of private open space, reserved exclusively for the use of the occupants of the house, to the rear of the house to less than 25 square metres.”

(My emphasis).

Houses and Apartments are different animals.

Private open space includes space behind the front building line where this is enclosed and screened from view AFAIK.

The quality of POS matters too, and this is where the definition of the 25 sqm space comes from.

The side passage isn’t private open space as such – more like private, hemmed-in space.

Apartment open space isn’t like public open space in a housing estate where the public have access to it – its intended for use by the residents, not interlopers.

Various regimes in DCC allowed this to be calculated and used or allocated in a variety of different ways.

ONQ.

@wearnicehats wrote:

(snip)

A distance of at least 1.5 metres shall be provided between dwellings for the full length of the flanks in all developments of detached, semi-detached and end-of-terrace houses. In
general, this distance should be equally divided between dwellings so separated to allow for a usable side entrance. Where garages are provided at the side of semi-detached dwellings and end-of-terrace houses, they may substitute for this requirement, provided they incorporate a direct through access from the front to the rear of the premises.’

1.5M?

Pretty useless if there’s a wall down the middle of it with 215mm piers.

ONQ.

@onq wrote:

Snip

Private open space includes space behind the front building line where this is enclosed and screened from view AFAIK.

ONQ.

I would disagree with this. I think because of the way the regulations refer to private open space, specifying that at least 25 square metres must be retained to the rear of the house, this indicates that private open space also exists to the front and side of the house.

“5. The construction or erection of any such extension to the rear of the house shall not reduce the area of private open space, reserved exclusively for the use of the occupants of the house, to the rear of the house to less than 25 square metres.”

Furthermore, in schedule 2, part 1, class 3, regarding tents, greenhouses, etc, it states:

“3. The construction, erection or placing within the curtilage of a house of any such structure shall not reduce the amount of private open space reserved exclusively for the use of the occupants of the house to the rear or to the side of the house to less than 25 square metres.”

So, regarding bitasean’s query, you specifically need 25sq m to the rear (because it says so in the regs) after you’ve built your extension. But regarding a definition of private open space, I still think it includes your front, back, and side gardens. Of course, many development plans will specify qualitative standards as well, regarding privacy/useability etc., and they may specify that a certain amount of it must be to the rear.

@saintleger wrote:

But regarding a definition of private open space, I still think it includes your front, back, and side gardens. Of course, many development plans will specify qualitative standards as well, regarding privacy/useability etc., and they may specify that a certain amount of it must be to the rear.

Ok let’s simplify this-
Never, in my 20 years of achieving planning permissions for varying scales of housing developments, has a single Irish local authority planning department accepted the front garden area of a house as part of the private open space calculation.

If you are quite certain you are correct, perhaps, in your next planning application for a residential development, I suggest you include the front garden areas of the houses in the P.O.S. area calculation. I would place a very large bet that you would receive, at the very least, a request for additional information from the planning dept. re. insufficient private open space provision.

@Tayto wrote:

Ok let’s simplify this-
Never, in my 20 years of achieving planning permissions for varying scales of housing developments, has a single Irish local authority planning department accepted the front garden area of a house as part of the private open space calculation.

Well, think of it this way: if you were building a house on a half acre site, or an acre, or 15 acres, and for site-specific reasons (views, topography, orientation, etc) you wanted to site the house right at the back of the site (on a clifftop, maybe), and have the gardens to the front, do you think the Local Authority would say “oh no, that won’t do, private open space has to be behind the house?”

@Tayto wrote:

If you are quite certain you are correct, perhaps, in your next planning application for a residential development, I suggest you include the front garden areas of the houses in the P.O.S. area calculation. I would place a very large bet that you would receive, at the very least, a request for additional information from the planning dept. re. insufficient private open space provision.

I don’t for a minute think you would, or should, get away with shirking on back gardens in a housing estate, and claiming that the front gardens would make up for it. Development Plans have qualitative standards, and often specify the area of private open space that has to be to the rear, or behind the building line, to prevent this kind of thing.

Note though, what wearnicehats has quoted from the Draft DCC Development Plan below.

Private open space for houses is usually provided by way of private gardens to the rear or side of a house

Usually, they say, not always. Roof gardens, anyone?

on a kinda related topic, I’m looking at the potential for remodelling a terraced artisan cottage and my initial advice to the client was that you cant touch the existing external space because as it stands you dont have half enough to meet the 25m2 and you wont be allowed to decrease it further – in fact, in casual conversation with a planner they even suggested that the only correct thing to do was to knock non-original additions and restore the back yard to its original 20m2 glory. On further analysis (praise be to digital planning searches) however it became apparant that there was a planning precedent for reducing the POS to the rear of the houses to a mere 7m2! And this was as recent as last year.

@saintleger wrote:

(snip)

So, regarding bitasean’s query, you specifically need 25sq m to the rear (because it says so in the regs) after you’ve built your extension. But regarding a definition of private open space, I still think it includes your front, back, and side gardens. Of course, many development plans will specify qualitative standards as well, regarding privacy/useability etc., and they may specify that a certain amount of it must be to the rear.

Nope. Not AFAIK.

Your logic seems flawed with regard to the inference you drew.

Specifying a particular something does not infer its opposite to be the case.

Requiring a minimum of 25sqm POS to the rear does not imply POS exists to the front.

In housing estate design, open space may exist to the front, providing there is a front garden, but its not private.

You are correct in assuming that development plans may set standards.

In residential development, the total area of a site used to be used to help generate what used to be considered to be a reasonable density of development – 90 bed-spaces per acre in Dublin City, IIRC the 1980-ish Development Plan.

In commercial development, the site area used to be related to both the GIFA [Plot Ratio] and the area covered by building footprint [Site Coverage expressed as a percentage].

Several scheme threw both these out the window in recent years.

It is also true that walled garden type accommodation, for example Mews Lane developments, with their high walls and gates, can justifiably claim that their space is enclosed and therefore private, but I’m not sure what its actually termed.

FWIW

ONQ.

@bitasean wrote:

on a kinda related topic, I’m looking at the potential for remodelling a terraced artisan cottage and my initial advice to the client was that you cant touch the existing external space because as it stands you dont have half enough to meet the 25m2 and you wont be allowed to decrease it further – in fact, in casual conversation with a planner they even suggested that the only correct thing to do was to knock non-original additions and restore the back yard to its original 20m2 glory. On further analysis (praise be to digital planning searches) however it became apparant that there was a planning precedent for reducing the POS to the rear of the houses to a mere 7m2! And this was as recent as last year.

I know of at least one artisan’s dwelling in Terenure Dublin 6 where the entire years was built over.

This may not be a planning precedent, more a not-spotted-by-the-local-authority-in-time “precedent”.

ONQ.

@onq wrote:

Nope. Not AFAIK.

Your logic seems flawed with regard to the inference you drew.

Specifying a particular something does not infer its opposite to be the case.

Requiring a minimum of 25sqm POS to the rear does not imply POS exists to the front.

snip

No, I think my logic is good. But then I would, wouldn’t I? 🙂

If private open space was only that which is behind houses, there would be no need to refer to the necessity to retain a certain amount of it to the rear – it would be a tautology. Of course an alternative interpretation would be that the clause “to the rear” is an explanatory rather than a qualifying clause, and that appears to be the way both you and Tayto are interpreting it. However, Dublin City’s latest development plan appears to follow my interpretation.

Anyway, I’ve had my say, I won’t keep repeating myself, not because I have any doubts, but because I’m sure it’s getting boring for everyone. Unless someone wants to throw down a section 5 from the board or a high court judgment or something to spice things up.

@bitasean wrote:

on a kinda related topic, I’m looking at the potential for remodelling a terraced artisan cottage and my initial advice to the client was that you cant touch the existing external space because as it stands you dont have half enough to meet the 25m2 and you wont be allowed to decrease it further – in fact, in casual conversation with a planner they even suggested that the only correct thing to do was to knock non-original additions and restore the back yard to its original 20m2 glory. On further analysis (praise be to digital planning searches) however it became apparant that there was a planning precedent for reducing the POS to the rear of the houses to a mere 7m2! And this was as recent as last year.

Bitasean, I might be misinterpreting what you’re saying, but is it the case that the client is averse to applying for planning permission, and is adamant that all works have to be exempted development? Because the 25 sq. m. POS to the rear is a requirement for exempted extensions, not extensions per se. If you apply for permission to build an extension, the application will be judged on its merits, the exempted development limits aren’t relevant.

In my experience, ‘private’ open space is solely depended on the circumstance it appears in.

Apartment balconies are ‘private’ yet can be argued to appear in ‘front’ of the apartment. Roof gardens have also been mentioned.

‘Private’ space occurs as a resultant of the overviewing of the space by others. In some cases private open space is simply described as that amenity space which is not public.

@Tayto wrote:

Ok let’s simplify this-
Never, in my 20 years of achieving planning permissions for varying scales of housing developments, has a single Irish local authority planning department accepted the front garden area of a house as part of the private open space calculation.

I’ve most often seen it singled out as POS to the rear.

@onq wrote:

Requiring a minimum of 25sqm POS to the rear does not imply POS exists to the front.

In housing estate design, open space may exist to the front, providing there is a front garden, but its not private.

Being private, has multiple terms and meanings.
For property and land, it’s most commonly used to separate from public. Public open space is quite obvious, private can, imo, be to the front. A LA may wish to calculate any area how they see fit (unless it contravenes regs).

Just because a front garden is in public view does not prevent it from being private.
Being private, is not always the same as having privacy.

@Bren88 wrote:

I’ve most often seen it singled out as POS to the rear.

Being private, has multiple terms and meanings.
For property and land, it’s most commonly used to separate from public. Public open space is quite obvious, private can, imo, be to the front. A LA may wish to calculate any area how they see fit (unless it contravenes regs).

Just because a front garden is in public view does not prevent it from being private.
Being private, is not always the same as having privacy.

Right boys and girls, the opinion sharing and handbags at dawn ends and the online references and in-post quotations begin.

Time for some CPD, archiseek-style

This post from henno pretty much nailed it as far as housing goes, back in 2008:

The thread:

https://archiseek.com/content/showthread.php?t=6985

The post:

https://archiseek.com/content/showpost.php?p=82911&postcount=2

---

However I’ve just checked the link in the post and its broken.

This is a current reference Sustainable Residential Development guidelines mentioned in my 2007 reference given below.

Here is the 2009 link:

Guidelines for Planning Authorities on
Sustainable Residential
Development in
Urban Areas
(Cities, Towns & Villages)

http://www.environ.ie/en/Publications/DevelopmentandHousing/Planning/FileDownLoad,19164,en.pdf

Chapter 7 The home and its setting

Private and communal open space

7.8 All houses (terraced, semi-detached and detached) should have an
area of private open space behind the building line. The area of such
private space will be influenced by the separation between buildings
(see above) and plot widths. Smaller patio-type rear gardens may be
acceptable in more innovative layouts where communal open space
in the form of a courtyard is also available. For terraced houses in
particular, this can often be more appropriate as it offers a method of
accessing the rear of all dwellings (by residents only) and can be
visually more attractive than narrow fenced-in gardens.
Roof gardens may offer a satisfactory alternative to courtyard
communal open space, provided that climatic and safety factors are
fully considered.

7.9 The provision of adequate and well-designed private open space for
apartments23 is crucial in meeting the amenity needs of residents; in
particular, usable outdoor space is a high priority for families.
Private open space can be provided in the form of rear gardens or
patios for ground floor units, and balconies at upper levels. It is
important that in the latter case adequate semi-private or communal
open space, in the form of landscaped areas, should also be provided.

In the Chapter 7 Checklist the following question is asked:

• Do all houses (terraced, semi-detached and detached) have
an area of private open space behind the building line?

---

The below seems to be the 2007 position from the DOE on Apartments and its a current link so may work as detail advice with the above 2009 general guide – there don’t seem to be any contradictions from a quick scan.

http://www.environ.ie/en/Publications/DevelopmentandHousing/Planning/FileDownLoad,15335,en.pdf

Sustainable Urban Housing:
Design Standards for New Apartments

Chapter 4 Communal and private open spaces

Introduction

4.1 The provision of adequate and well-designed communal and private open space for each apartment is crucial in meeting the amenity needs of residents; in particular, usable outdoor space is a high priority for families. (The provision of public open space will be addressed in the Sustainable Residential Development guidelines).
Communal open space

4.2 Communal open space will commonly be provided within the landscaped courtyards of perimeter blocks; designers need to ensure that the heights and orientation of adjoining blocks permit adequate levels of sunlight to reach such space throughout the year. Roof gardens may offer a satisfactory alternative where climatic and safety factors are fully considered, but children’s play is not passively supervised as with courtyards. All communal and private open spaces need adequate sunlight – see “Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight: A Guide to Good Practice” (Building Research Establishment, 1991).

Private open space

4.3 Private open space can be provided in the form of rear gardens or patios for ground floor units, and balconies at upper levels. It is important that in the latter case adequate semi-private or communal open space, in the form of landscaped areas, should also be provided. Private open space at ground floor level needs some form of boundary treatment to ensure privacy and security.

Balconies

4.4 Balconies (or glass-screened “winter gardens”, separated from living spaces) need to be of a certain minimum depth to be useful from an amenity viewpoint, being able to accommodate chairs and a small table. A minimum depth of 1.5 metres is recommended, generally extending for the full length of the external living room wall. While deeper balconies might be desirable in certain cases, this has to be balanced against the need to avoid overshadowing the living room. Balconies should be accessed from living rooms, not bedrooms.

4.5 Site conditions, such as elevations facing north or overlooking busy streets, or tall buildings, may diminish the amenity value of balconies. In such cases, it will be the designer’s responsibility to provide some form of compensating amenity for the occupants. This might take the form, for instance, of above-average sized living rooms and generous landscaped communal open spaces.

4.6 Balustrading to balconies should be safe for children. Vertical privacy screens should be provided between adjoining balconies.

---

So in general:

Private Open Space to the front in general only exists in Apartment developments in screen off areas of patios [ground floors] and balconies [upper floors]

Where it is aggregated where it means reserved for the use of the residents of the scheme and is not publicly accessible, it is termed Communal Open Space – this inlcudes landscaped areas on the ground level and roof gardens.

My comments in relation to Housing Development stand.

Private Open Space is normally only deemed to exist behind the front building line, whether its to the side or the rear, but some townhouse-style developments and high density developments may have screened courtyards

Exceptions

In certain restricted Mews developments you could argue that the front courtyard enclosed by a high wall and gate is also private open space, but normally this is a feature of Mews Lane Developments and won’t replace the minimum back garden requriements.

We have recently fought and lost and appeal who provided NO rear garden and only a substandard side garden and had to move the front building line to within 500mm of the back of path on a site where the house was originally a shed in 1960 or thereabouts. Seems the funny decisions will always be with us, but this was a once off, beside an existing modernist intervention and on balance will probably improve the accommodation hugely, with a sloping roof to the rear going down to a 2.4M eaves and no dormers there was no real overlooking issue and no overshadowing. Clever fellow designed it.

FWIW

ONQ.

Well done ONG for making the effort and for trying to clear up the waffle and misinformation being peddled on this thread.
(Just a note- Planners also allow the bin store area to be included in the P.O.S. calculation for apartment developments).

It is clear that some who have posted do not have planning experience and have difficulty recognising differences in terminology, such as the difference between terms like “private property” (land under private ownership, eg. the front garden of a house) and “Private Open Space”, (a planning term referring to spatial amenity associated with residential developments, required and defined by Local Authorities under instruction from the Department of the Environment).

People here may debate until the cows come home about what is or what is not P.O.S. – At the end of the day, the Dept. of Environment/Local Authority defines P.O.S. in general terms in Development Plans and in specific terms, if need be, when assessing residential planning applications.

Those asserting that front gardens constitute P.O.S.- hey- make the planning application. Set a pecedent. Be the exception to the rule. Design that house with it’s arse hanging over a cliff and tell us how you got the permission.
😀

Tayto – its ONQ not ONG 🙂

Missed getting an e-mail from my accountant because of the same screw up in the e-mail.

LOL!

And thanks for your supportive comments – its not easy for laypersons or even people who specialise in design or theory or conservation or BER certs to get their ehad around planning matters.

It was the first thing I gravitated towards after qualification, because without permission you cannot build – apart from exempted development, but that’s a whole other thread.

ONQ.

@Tayto wrote:

Well done ONG for making the effort and for trying to clear up the waffle and misinformation being peddled on this thread.
(Just a note- Planners also allow the bin store area to be included in the P.O.S. calculation for apartment developments).

I think this was doen in the case of the house with no rear garden that we unsuccessfully appealed – AND they took space under an overhang into account.

No doubt we’ll see Basement Open Space at some point in the future!

(snip)

Those asserting that front gardens constitute P.O.S.- hey- make the planning application. Set a pecedent. Be the exception to the rule. Design that house with it’s arse hanging over a cliff and tell us how you got the permission.
😀

Haven’t ODOS done that yet?

@Tayto wrote:

Well done ONG for making the effort and for trying to clear up the waffle and misinformation being peddled on this thread.
(Just a note- Planners also allow the bin store area to be included in the P.O.S. calculation for apartment developments).

I think this was doen in the case of the house with no rear garden that we unsuccessfully appealed – AND they took space uner an overhang into account.

No doubt we’ll see Basement Open Space at some point in the future!

(snip)

Those asserting that front gardens constitute P.O.S.- hey- make the planning application. Set a pecedent. Be the exception to the rule. Design that house with it’s arse hanging over a cliff and tell us how you got the permission.
😀

Haven’t ODOS done that yet?

@onq wrote:

Right boys and girls, the opinion sharing and handbags at dawn ends and the online references and in-post quotations begin.

Time for some CPD, archiseek-styleONQ.

Like the answer no bullshit involved in it, clear concise information to stop the babbling on and on going around in circles. Your links were very good I will read up on these. But if I may say job well done.

@Tayto wrote:

@onq wrote:

I think this was doen in the case of the house with no rear garden that we unsuccessfully appealed – AND they took space uner an overhang into account./QUOTE]

Apologies ONQ for my dyslexia,

Your analysis deserves support. It’s clear you went to a lot of trouble and made the effort to provide clarification and provide sound advice while others muddied the waters. And all free of charge!

Re. your planning appeal- that sounds fairly interesting how planning was achieved without a rear yard/garden. Just for future reference, what was the final area of P.O.S.? Was it 25m2 or less?

-Tayto.

Hi Tayto,

I’ve been providing what I hope is competent advice free of charge online since the middle of last year.
I take the view if you advise people on planning and development matters, they’ll see the the complexity and the need to retain a professional, and so some good may come of it.

I post to AAM on the sites, planning, self-builds and extensions forum.
http://www.askaboutmoney.com/forumdisplay.php?f=82
With little new work coming in and none of it paying very well, this has kept me sane and reinforced my self image in the face of financial and professional armageddon.

[mods if this sounds like spamming or advertising please redact]

Herewith the ABP reference and you can research the original planning file from there over on http://www.dlrcoco.ie

http://www.pleanala.ie/casenum/233501.htm

We advised the observers and the third party appellants to little or no avail.
In one sense its a hugely positve outcome, since it supports improvements to existing /brownfield sites.
In another its a sign of things to come in terms of the reduced amenity of housing in the future in Ireland – the “little bit of land” mentality is gone.

Some would argue that’s a good thing, that we were building too dispersed layouts and still are, even with the recent development out at Santry Demense by DTA shedding a little light on the proceedings.

http://www.dta.ie/

Select Residential

Select Santry Demesne

For the record, I was banned from the Planning Forum on boards.ie for giving just the sort of informative answer you see on top but adding what the mods there deemed to be off-topic conversational waffle below.

You can’t please everyone it seems – no surprises there.

Also for the record, in terms of maintaining sanity and getting some good experience of comtemporary work as it happens you cannot be the AAI.

This is NOT the relatively recently formed Architect’s Association beloved of CK – this is a venerable institution many people who have a genuine interest in and love of architecture are members of.

http://architecturalassociation.ie/event/site-visit-santry-demesne-dta-architects/

ONQ.

@Solo wrote:

Like the answer no bullshit involved in it, clear concise information to stop the babbling on and on going around in circles. Your links were very good I will read up on these. But if I may say job well done.

Thanks but its merely an aberration.

My normal waffling and babbling circling mode will kick in again shortly.

Oops! Too late…

ONQ.

Is there an exemption required were the opposing windows are front windows opposing the back garden and rear windows of another house/ duex / maisonette.