A family in Ireland has lost its appeal and faces needing to remove a bike shed from the driveway of their home, the council claiming that the bespoke storage unit "would conflict with the existing pattern of development in the area" and constitutes "visual clutter" that "would set an undesirable precedent".
In a series of planning documents and appeals on An Bord Pleanála's website, first reported by the Irish Examiner, it is revealed that Denis O'Regan and his family were denied retention permission for a 5.3sq m timber-clad structure that would be used to store bicycles and bins on the driveway of their home in Ballintemple, Cork.
Mr O'Regan believed the decision was in contrary to rulings in similar cases and argued the "bespoke" structure was in line with planning requirements and would promote sustainable active travel by providing his family a secure and accessible place to store several bicycles, including an electric cargo bike.
> Cyclist threatened with €13 million fine and two years in prison over bike shed, forcing her to give up cycling
"Storing bikes in an easy-to-reach secure location helps to encourage adults and children to cycle more often," he said, pointing out the design was made to fit in with the recent extension to the property and was actually installed to reduce what the council called "visual clutter", allowing them a storage unit to keep bins and bikes without impacting off-street parking.
He also suggested the council should be promoting use of bike storage units if it wants to meet commitments and targets on sustainable development.
However, the planning inspector called it a "highly visible standalone structure" and expressed concerns that the reduced driveway space would cause "diminishment" of road safety if cars had to be parked on the road as a result.
Cork City Council deemed it "visual clutter", a "disorderly form of development", and did not take Mr O'Regan up on his offer to install screening to alter how it looked, instead noting that usually structures of that nature were only permitted behind houses.
The planning authority An Bord Pleanála rejected the family's appeal and argued it would "conflict with the existing pattern of development in the area" and be "visually incongruous and would set an undesirable precedent in the area".
In February, we reported that a Dublin cyclist had been threatened with a €13 million fine and two years in prison over a bike shed dispute, the council's threats over an "unauthorised development" forcing her to give up cycling.
Siobhán Kelly, a resident of Clontarf, a coastal suburb north of Dublin, said she was "flabbergasted, upset, and scared" after receiving a letter from Dublin City Council outlining the situation.
"At the end of our road, there's a €65 million cycle lane being built, and we can't use it. There's no point building all this infrastructure when you can't park a bike on your own property. There are two people now not on bikes because of this folly," she told us.
We've also seen similar cases in the UK too, perhaps the most famous, dubbed 'Shedgate' by locals, seeing a family in Leicester force the city's mayor to admit planning officers "got it wrong" when they were told to remove a homemade eco bike shed from their front garden, the structure apparently not in keeping with the Victorian character of the street. Following much support in the community and press it was soon announced the bike shed could stay.
In November, we reported that a homeowner who installed a wooden bike shed outside his one-bedroom property in a Grade II listed former workhouse in Ironbridge, near Telford, would not be allowed to keep the "very modest" storage facility after the council and a planning inspector objected to the structure, claiming it would "lead to a harmful cumulative change to the listed building".
There is some hope however (at least on this side of the Irish Sea), after the former Conservative government in March launched an open consultation on proposed changes that could relax restrictions on planning and development rights, including providing "further flexibilities to permit bike stores in front gardens".
> Are bike shed planning sagas set to become a thing of the past?
It remains to be seen how, if at all, the formation of the new Labour government impacts this but the proposed changes, which would only apply to England, suggested households could be allowed to "enlarge their homes, make alterations or extensions to the roof, and construct buildings incidental to the enjoyment of the main house, such as bin and bike stores" as part of a swathe of planned amendments to planning laws.
Add new comment
29 comments
Paint it the exact same color as the walls, it will disappear in the surroundings, and the council will think they removed it...
I suppose you have to just buy a nackered old van and use that for bike storage to keep the petrol-nerds happy. This whole, cars fine; bike storage not fine, thing is madness.
I am surprised that cars parked on public sidewalks and on driveways do not offend anybody but some shed on someone's private property is outrageous.
I'm with the Council on this one.
Why does Cork look like Romford?
Whilst I can't see the harm it's doing surly the
Simple solution would be to rearect it around the back that's where most sheds go.
TBH it looks like their boxy Grand Designs inspired extension blocks off all side access, which would mean access to the back garden is through the house... (to my eyes, anyway: I may be wrong)
They probably thought that as cars are stored at the front of the house that it's the correct place to store cycles too. It's probably more convenient to have the shed at the front, but I'd be inclined to have it out of sight of thieves at the back of the house.
"However, the planning inspector called it a "highly visible standalone structure" and expressed concerns that the reduced driveway space would cause "diminishment" of road safety if cars had to be parked on the road as a result."
So, will the council be adding double yellow lines to those streets that have driveways, so that the aforementioned road safety concerns can be addressed and roads can be used for travelling along, instead of storing personal property.
Put the box on a car trailer, it's no longer a fixture and will highlight the hypocracy of the decision. Don't even try to disguise it.
disguise it as a car/van/motorhome?
It's amusing to see the reflex action if it's related to bikes it must be good or whataboutism related to vehicles.
In the UK we tend to over regulate planning and under regulate what people do with their properties. In the US on most suburban estates there would be a home owners association which vociferously enforces covenants so no boats or commercial vehicles parked on drives etc.
In the UK I'd actually favour something whereby vans, horse boxes, camper vans and similar were banished from the front of houses. The planning system has no view on vehicles as they aren't buildings, unless their number and type result in a change of use to the property in which case they will be visiting (e.g. scrapped cars in the garden).
However in the case of the Irish one I can see the point of council. If they start letting people put random boxes around the front of the property it can rapidly get out of hand and leaving it to people's aesthetic preferences just results in ugliness.
The best process is to agree a design code that doesn't look ugly and it it agreed. In the case of a structure to contain a bike I'd suggest that unless it is on the side of the house it makes sense for it to be limited to only slightly higher than a bike and for it to be place in the position where it provides minimal visual instrusion. It's colouring and materials should be in keeping with the street.
The words 'lost cause' spring to mind.
It's not so much that they've rejected this construction, as the complete double standards in rejecting it having clearly not rejected any of the other, uglier, construction in evidence. Not least the 'random box' on the side of the property in question.
Yup, my initial thought too - that side extension on the house is way uglier. Maybe the council, accepting their previous error of judgement, decided they better draw the line now.
Comparisons with American HOAs directly after criticising whataboutism is particularly amusing.
I fail to understand your defence of the planning officer. He explicitly stated that one of the grounds for rejection was that the structure reduced the available parking space in front of the home, and a hypothetical increase in on-street parking as a result. This is entirely at odds with logic (how does refusing to allow people to store bicycles reduce the number of vehicles?!) and your assumption that the shed's aesthetic appearance had any bearing on the decision.
No thank you, I'd rather stay living in the land of the free. If want to store an abandoned rusted out peice of crap car that I never quite get around to restoring, then that is my business, and no one else's. By the same token, if I build an ugly (it's not even that ugly) bike shed, that's my business, and no one elses.
Additionally, I think planning laws should be relaxed for everything except perhaps listed buildings. As long as the building is structurally safe, and doesn't threaten other houses, people should be allowed to do whatever they want!
There's a picture of the bike shed in the linked report (below), hardly garish…frankly anything which hides any part of the view of those houses and offers relief from the solid concreted-over front gardens seems to be the least of the problems with the visuals in that area...
ETA picture at top of the article wasn't displaying when I read it!
Cork coucil stopped just short of calling it 'unhealthy clutter'
They could buy a big old transit van, park it in drive , paint it with lots of colourful images, and use that to store their bikes and tell the council to take a run and jump , f*%k1n bureaucratic bullshit again
You beat me to it! A transit would be a similar size to their 'bespoke bike shed', and I can't see the council objecting to a motor vehicle (even a SORNed one) being parked on their driveway since that is Normal.
I would have thought you could buy a small horse trailer, put it on blocks and remove the wheels. I bet nobody blinks an eye.
All the horse trailers are snapped up by entrepreneurs wanting to turn them into quirky gin or Prosecco bars for weddings etc..
better still paint the shed as a fake photo realistic transit van, as per this guy and his boat https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vd6fTlJXGXo
I would say c&nts is a better description for these jobsworths.
White Sprinter high-top, preferably old and quite rusty.
A very rusty van secured with big rusty chains, with flat tyres and some graffiti saying the manky old van is only there because the council didn't allow a neat little shed.
From the image at the top of the page, I find the bike shed the least visually offensive thing about that property.
Yeah - they let them do that side extension, but then complain about the bike shed?
Not to mention the 'visual clutter' in the drive of the adjacent property...
You beat me to it!
Additionally, "the reduced driveway space would cause "diminishment" of road safety if cars had to be parked on the road as a result."
1) Looks to me like there's still plenty of room to fit a car or two in there.
2) Do they even own a car to need car space?
And what's the" undesirable precedent" - that more people are encouraged to use active transport and reduce pollution?