Planning issues - post them here MOD WARNING post #1

sydthebeat

kidsbo wrote: »

No, it was permission consequent. Yes, the dwelling is complete.

permission consequent is intimitely tied to the outline application, they form 2 parts of the one "full" permission, therefore the conditions of the outline are applicable.

Thats my experience of it anyway.

its also my experience that the council will accept once the purchaser has local need.

Lougar

kidsbo wrote: »

We had direct experience of this when a client of ours was apppx 6 months short of the 7 year period. We submitted detailed evidence of their history in the area and evidence of their intention to continue living in the area (young children enrolled in local school etc) on the basis of which the planner decided to grant permission. I dont think the planner would conditionalise the grant of permission so that you can't start construction till after the 7 years. However, they might delibeately seek further info in order to extend matters so that any grant of permission will be issued after you have surpassed the 7 year period. That way they are covered and can argue that they applied planning plicy correctly.

Thank you Kidsbo for replying to my query, greatly appreciated. I am of the same opinion that they may seek further information in a bid to extend the time limit until the 7 years is fully complied with. I'm keeping my fingers crossed that this is the action that will be taken by the planner. I'll keep you updated on the situation. Thanks again

muffler

Lougar wrote: »

Thank you Kidsbo for replying to my query, greatly appreciated. I am of the same opinion that they may seek further information in a bid to extend the time limit until the 7 years is fully complied with. I'm keeping my fingers crossed that this is the action that will be taken by the planner. I'll keep you updated on the situation. Thanks again

Im not sure if Im reading that post or indeed a couple of previous posts correctly but what is the connection between this 7 year time you mention and a planner seeking further information?

mark11272

Hi Kidsbo,

In my opinion the conditions on the outline permission still apply. They changed the wording in the 2000 Act to permission consequent for this reason. If you look at the act this is further strengthened by the fact that:

1. the LA cannot refuse an application for permission consequent on the basis of any matter which had been decided in the grant of outline permission;

2. The outline permission is deemed to lapse if an application consequent is not recieved within 3 years of the outline grant. The implication is that the application consequent extends the, what you might call the overall permission by another 5 years and that the outline permission is still active.

Generally when dealing with the legislation where something is stated as being allowed in one instance it is not allowed in nay other instance by implication. Therefore in this case by stating that the outline permission would lapse if an application consequent is not made, the implication is that it does not lapse if an application consequent is made.

http://galwayplanningblog.wordpress.com

kidsbo

muffler wrote: »

Im not sure if Im reading that post or indeed a couple of previous posts correctly but what is the connection between this 7 year time you mention and a planner seeking further information?

In some areas a person must be local rural perosn to obtain planning. The def of a "local rural person" varies but generally it is someone who was born in the area, grew up in the area, or who has been living in the area for 7 years. If someone applies for planning permission as a local rural person but they have only only lived in the area for, say, 6 years 5 months then technically they do not comply with policy and permission should be refused. However, my experience is that rather than refusing permission the planner will often drag the application out (in this example by 7 months) by seeking further info so that on the the decision date the applicant would in fact have been living in the area for 7 years. Well, at least that is what reasnoble planners will do.

kidsbo

mark11272 wrote: »

Hi Kidsbo,

In my opinion the conditions on the outline permission still apply. They changed the wording in the 2000 Act to permission consequent for this reason. If you look at the act this is further strengthened by the fact that:

1. the LA cannot refuse an application for permission consequent on the basis of any matter which had been decided in the grant of outline permission;

2. The outline permission is deemed to lapse if an application consequent is not recieved within 3 years of the outline grant. The implication is that the application consequent extends the, what you might call the overall permission by another 5 years and that the outline permission is still active.

Generally when dealing with the legislation where something is stated as being allowed in one instance it is not allowed in nay other instance by implication. Therefore in this case by stating that the outline permission would lapse if an application consequent is not made, the implication is that it does not lapse if an application consequent is made.

http://galwayplanningblog.wordpress.com

Many thanks. Not what I wanted to hear but at least it's some clarification.

rayjdav

kidsbo wrote: »

However, my experience is that rather than refusing permission the planner will often drag the application out (in this example by 7 months) by seeking further info so that on the the decision date the applicant would in fact have been living in the area for 7 years. Well, at least that is what reasnoble planners will do.

I know what the local needs and residency is all about but just the manner in which the question appears is a bit confusing

Be careful if your depending on an RFI to close the "7 year" wait. You are allowed only 6 MONTHS to reply to an RFI, thereby leaving you still short. (On the asumption that the RFI is already issued). Maybe if it was agreed that a further Clarification on the RFI was to be issued nearer the date but, imho, you are starting to play a dangerous game with the Planning dept here.:eek:

muffler

rayjdav wrote: »

I know what the local needs and residency is all about but just the manner in which the question appears is a bit confusing

Be careful if your depending on an RFI to close the "7 year" wait. You are allowed only 6 MONTHS to reply to an RFI, thereby leaving you still short. (On the asumption that the RFI is already issued). Maybe if it was agreed that a further Clarification on the RFI was to be issued nearer the date but, imho, you are starting to play a dangerous game with the Planning dept here.:eek:

Agreed.

at least that is what reasnoble planners will do

What can I say but.........

Lougar

To clarify matters, my initial query centered around the situation of submitting a planning permission application when the individual is only living in the area just a few months short of fulfilling the 7 year requirement. In my particular situation, my partner and I have applied for FPP, but we will not be living in the area for 7 years until July of this year. The planner has already sought further information. This was complied with and submitted recently. Ultimately the decision will be forthcoming towards the end February but i was wondering would the decision be an outright refusal on the basis of not complying with the 7 year rule or is there the possibility that the planner may seek another further information; or would it be even possible for the planner to grant permission but specify that construction cannot commence till July. However if further information is requested, by the time the requested information is submitted, we will be living in the area 7 years. Hence complying with the provision. Apologies for all the confusion - new to this!

muffler

Lougar wrote: »

To clarify matters, my initial query centered around the situation of submitting a planning permission application when the individual is only living in the area just a few months short of fulfilling the 7 year requirement. In my particular situation, my partner and I have applied for FPP, but we will not be living in the area for 7 years until July of this year. The planner has already sought further information. This was complied with and submitted recently. Ultimately the decision will be forthcoming towards the end February but i was wondering would the decision be an outright refusal on the basis of not complying with the 7 year rule or is there the possibility that the planner may seek another further information; or would it be even possible for the planner to grant permission but specify that construction cannot commence till July. However if further information is requested, by the time the requested information is submitted, we will be living in the area 7 years. Hence complying with the provision. Apologies for all the confusion - new to this!

If as you say you have complied with the request for further information then the planning authority are legally obliged to make a decision within 4 weeks of the date they received the revised information.

They cant ask for more information. There is provision for "clarification" of the information received so this may or may not be applicable in your case. But I honestly cant see too many planners looking to prolong an application to the benefit of the applicant.

They can only deal with the application on the basis of the information given and your present status as of this time. They certainly wont be able to grant a permission with the proviso that the works may only commence after a certain date.

If this is your only problem then its not all doom and gloom as you will be in a position to reapply later in the year if that becomes necessary.

Good luck with it.

kidsbo

rayjdav wrote: »

I know what the local needs and residency is all about but just the manner in which the question appears is a bit confusing

Be careful if your depending on an RFI to close the "7 year" wait. You are allowed only 6 MONTHS to reply to an RFI, thereby leaving you still short. (On the asumption that the RFI is already issued). Maybe if it was agreed that a further Clarification on the RFI was to be issued nearer the date but, imho, you are starting to play a dangerous game with the Planning dept here.:eek:

you appear confused.If you re-read the posts you will see my comments relate to
my specific experience of a situation similar to the one on which advice was sought

Lougar

muffler wrote: »

If as you say you have complied with the request for further information then the planning authority are legally obliged to make a decision within 4 weeks of the date they received the revised information.

They cant ask for more information. There is provision for "clarification" of the information received so this may or may not be applicable in your case. But I honestly cant see too many planners looking to prolong an application to the benefit of the applicant.

They can only deal with the application on the basis of the information given and your present status as of this time. They certainly wont be able to grant a permission with the proviso that the works may only commence after a certain date.

If this is your only problem then its not all doom and gloom as you will be in a position to reapply later in the year if that becomes necessary.

Good luck with it.

Thanks Muffler. Really appreciate your advice. My knowledge and experience of the operations of the planning department is quite limited. We'll just have to wait and see now at this stage and play it by ear.

Mellor

7 year rule????


I think you all have spent too long in the sticks guys.
It's not a rule, its not a law. It's an internal council policy (one that may be against EU law). The difference is huge.

The idea of requesting an RFI to push an applicant over a time limit is bizarre. The senior planners can simply overrule the policy from the get go if he wishes.

The RFI, ws probably just an RFI

muffler

Mellor wrote: »

7 year rule????


I think you all have spent too long in the sticks guys.
It's not a rule, its not a law. It's an internal council policy (one that may be against EU law). The difference is huge.

In fairness now I think we all knew what was meant. In fact the word "rule" was only mentioned once I think and that was by someone who by their own admission are not familiar with the planning process. Lighten up man

Mellor wrote: »

It's not a rule, its not a law.

Its a legally adopted policy contained in the CDP and one which must be addressed by and adhered to by all affected applicants.

Mellor wrote: »

I think you all have spent too long in the sticks guys...........The senior planners can simply overrule the policy from the get go if he wishes.

And I think you have spent too long in Oz if you think senior planners can overrule contravene those adopted policies at the drop of a hat

Does a "material contravention of the county development plan" ring a bell

Mellor

muffler wrote: »

Lighten up man
Ah its friday, and **** isn't working out, boards is partially to blame

And I think you have spent too long in Oz if you think senior planners can overrule contravene those adopted policies at the drop of a hat

Does a "material contravention of the county development plan" ring a bell

lol, I know that. But have ben in Oz too long, almost 2 years now :eek:

I mean, if we are down to the line, and its in terms of weeks. Then I think they can just pass it. As the start date is often blurry, (does the CDP state how its measured, lodge date, decision date etc). for example.

Somebody moves to the town in April '04, applies/decision (which ever is the relevant date as per the CDP) in Feb '11

So, monthly its been, 6yrs and 10 months, but its 7 years in terms of spring '04-spring '07

muffler

Mellor wrote: »

muffler wrote: »

Lighten up man
Ah its friday, and **** isn't working out, boards is partially to blame




lol, I know that. But have ben in Oz too long, almost 2 years now :eek:

I mean, if we are down to the line, and its in terms of weeks. Then I think they can just pass it. As the start date is often blurry, (does the CDP state how its measured, lodge date, decision date etc). for example.

Somebody moves to the town in April '04, applies/decision (which ever is the relevant date as per the CDP) in Feb '11

So, monthly its been, 6yrs and 10 months, but its 7 years in terms of spring '04-spring '07

I see you logged in. I suppose you're finishing work now?

andy113

Residency matter just need a residency experts and consultant who know laws and legals, I met with couple of veteran and experts of properties <removed name> and they got me out of the trouble i was in related to property matters .You need to meet at least one time to property law experts

Mod Edit: Please read the forum charter about advertising.

mal_1

muffler wrote: »

Keep up at the rear please

An application for an extension of duration can now be got without any works having been carried out. The following is the relevant part of S.I. No. 406 of 2010 which came into force on August 19 last

Apologies if this has been addressed elsewhere. I've gone through a few linked threads.
A query on the above ; has anyone gone through the process of applying for an extension to the duration of planning permission, under the new regulations.

The particular project is for for a 'one off house' which hasn't commenced and permission is due to expire in Nov 2011.

I have been asked to apply for such or reapply for planning and on speaking to the local planner in a certain county, they inform me that an application for such would be unsuccessful.
They are discounting economic difficulties as a reason for allowing this application to be processed, citing new development plan policies, local needs, and the new EPA guidelines for wastewater treatment and site testing (which I can fully understand).

Would be interested to know have others gone through the process yet.

sydthebeat

mal_1 wrote: »

Apologies if this has been addressed elsewhere. I've gone through a few linked threads.
A query on the above ; has anyone gone through the process of applying for an extension to the duration of planning permission, under the new regulations.

The particular project is for for a 'one off house' which hasn't commenced and permission is due to expire in Nov 2011.

I have been asked to apply for such or reapply for planning and on speaking to the local planner in a certain county, they inform me that an application for such would be unsuccessful.
They are discounting economic difficulties as a reason for allowing this application to be processed, citing new development plan policies, local needs, and the new EPA guidelines for wastewater treatment and site testing (which I can fully understand).

Would be interested to know have others gone through the process yet.

Cant realy help you as i havent carried out an applictaion under the new regs, but did some under the old regs.

I think it needs to be understood that the spirit behind these ammendments were more pertinent to larger projects with greater social and economic impact than a one-off rural house. I can see why an application may be unsuccessful.

If they were willing to try to get the dwelling to substantial completion, they would have far greater chances of being granted an extension.

Poor Uncle Tom

mal_1 wrote: »

has anyone gone through the process of applying for an extension to the duration of planning permission, under the new regulations.

Yes

mal_1 wrote: »

The particular project is for for a 'one off house' which hasn't commenced and permission is due to expire in Nov 2011.

Very similar to the case I applied for.

mal_1 wrote: »

I have been asked to apply for such or reapply for planning and on speaking to the local planner in a certain county, they inform me that an application for such would be unsuccessful.
They are discounting economic difficulties as a reason for allowing this application to be processed, citing new development plan policies, local needs, and the new EPA guidelines for wastewater treatment and site testing (which I can fully understand).

The reason given for refusal would have been the EPA Guidelines and when pressed I was told one-off planning permissions using septic tank/treatment systems will not be considered for planning extensions as the sites were not tested in compliance with the EPA Guidelines. I think this is discriminatory as it is not in compliance with SI No. 406 0f 2010.

It is being checked out now I will report back when I know more.

mal_1 wrote: »

Would be interested to know have others gone through the process yet.

It would be interesting to know if any were successful.

mark11272

Dont know how the regs(SI 406 2010) can help you here. The planners are using the get out clause in the Act that was put in purposely. This clause is only there to give the provisions of the NAMA Act a solid legal footing in planning terms and is not intended for use for one off houses.

"A requirement is that there have been no significant changes in the development objectives in the development plan or in regional development objectives in the regional planning guidelines for the area since the date of the permission that would make the development inconsistent with the proper planning and sustainable development of the area. This is particularly relevant as the majority of lands with permissions in this situation are likely to be in the possession of NAMA, while at the same time it seems likely that many of the properties in the NAMA portfolio will in fact be inconsistent with ‘proper planning’, requiring them to be wholly redesigned or scrapped. This may make these provisions of the new act worthless". Read more here.

http://galwayplanningblog.wordpress.com/2011/01/26/extension-of-planning-permission-under-planning-development-act-2010/#more-109

muffler

mark11272 wrote: »

Dont know how the regs(SI 406 2010) can help you here. The planners are using the get out clause in the Act that was put in purposely. This clause is only there to give the provisions of the NAMA Act a solid legal footing in planning terms and is not intended for use for one off houses.

Sorry, but I have no idea what you are talking about here. Where does NAMA come into all of this?

FWIW I have had 3 clients who have all successfully applied for a 5 year extension of their PP's in Donegal.

Poor Uncle Tom

mark11272 wrote: »

Dont know how the regs(SI 406 2010) can help you here. The planners are using the get out clause in the Act that was put in purposely. This clause is only there to give the provisions of the NAMA Act a solid legal footing in planning terms and is not intended for use for one off houses.

Thank you for the link above and I have read through a number of the articles included and I find that there are a lot of parallels and as a result there is quite a bit of supposition.

The facts are as follows:

1. SI No. 406 of 2010 has no reference to NAMA.

2. SI No. 406 of 2010 is an amendment to the Planning and Development Act to extend the period of a planning permission.

3. SI No. 406 of 2010 does not differenciate between multi-house or one-off housing developments.

4. SI No. 406 of 2010 states that an application to extend the period of a planning permission should be;
i) made in writing,
ii) accompanied by the appropriate fee
iii) and, information
iv) setting out the reasons for extending a particular planning permission where there are substantial works carried out,

or, where there are considerations of commercial, economic or tecnical nature beyond the control of the applicant which militated against the commencement of the development or the carrying out of substantial works.

So to answer your question above, SI No. 406 of 2010 can help directly in extending the period of a planning permission, as that is exactly what the Planning & Development Act was amended for.

mark11272

Hi Guys:

Just to clarify what I was getting at:

I just mention the NAMA Act to give a bit of backround to the circumstances of the drafting of the new Planning Act and the objectives fo the drafters of the law. Of course technically this has no bearing on the interpretation of the new Planning laws, however it does give an insight as to how planners are approaching the assessment of these applications i.e. that they are not for one off houses. Of course you can never fully predict what individual councils are going to do as Muffler has just demonstrated by getting 3 through already.

Also fyi the NAMA Act is mentioned in the planning act as follows: "Section 42A of The Principal Act (inserted by section 238 35 of the National Asset Management Agency Act 2009) is amended as follows:..."

Secondly you are concentrating solely on the regulations to justify your case for an extension. This is not correct although it is a good tactic seeing as the regulations dont mention anything about proper planning etc. The regs are just setting out the procedure for the making of an application. They do not make any reference to the grounds for assessment of this application, these are contained in the Act as follows:

"On application to it in that behalf a planning authority shall, as regards a particular permission, extend the appropriate period by such additional period not exceeding 5 years as the authority considers requisite to enable the development to which the permission relates to be completed provided that each of the following requirements is complied with:
.............
(ii) the authority is satisfied—

(I) that there were considerations of a commercial, economic or technical nature beyond the control of the applicant which substantially militated against either the commencement of development or the carrying out of substantial works pursuant to the planning permission,

(II) that there have been no significant changes in the development objectives in the development plan or in regional development objectives in the regional planning guidelines for the area of the planning authority since the date of the permission such that the development would no longer be consistent with the proper planning and sustainable development of the area,

(III) that the development would not be inconsistent with the proper planning and sustainable development of the area having regard to any guidelines issued by the Minister under section 28, notwithstanding that they were so issued after the date of the grant of permission in relation to which an application is made under this section, and

(IV) where the development has not commenced, that an environmental impact assessment, or an appropriate assessment, or both of those assessments, if required, was or were carried out before the permission was granted...."

So under the act the planners do have the power to refuse this type of application on tghe grounds of anything contained in the current dev plan or any regulations.

Wantobe

Does anyone know how difficult it is to apply for permission for a 'granny flat' attached to a domestic house ( both being built at the same time). Our engineer says not to even bother applying- the council will say no.

We want to build on a green field site within an established estate in a small town.

sydthebeat

Wantobe wrote: »

Does anyone know how difficult it is to apply for permission for a 'granny flat' attached to a domestic house ( both being built at the same time). Our engineer says not to even bother applying- the council will say no.

We want to build on a green field site within an established estate in a small town.

strange attitude.

If you have a need for this accommodation then you can of course make your case. You need to show why current accommodation doesnt suit and why there is a need (social or medical) for the flat in this particular area.

The design however will have to include how you aim to absorb this 'granny flat' back into the main dwelling when it is no longer a granny flat. Designs with the granny flat detached, or scantly attached generally are not acceptable.

if its in an established estate then the design will also have to be sympathetic to the existing elevations in the estate.

get some rough sketchs done up and arrange a pre-planning meeting with your local authority. that will clarify issues for you.

Poor Uncle Tom

Exactly as syd says, just to add if the site is zoned for housing you may need only show your need for the granny flat as opposed to the entire house.

Lougar

Hi guys, just a general query - do the planners accept documentation submitted at their face value or do the make further enquiries with the relevant bodies/ organisations. For example if i were to submit a bank statement with my name and address but scored out my account number and balance would this be accepted by the planners or is their a possibility they would contact the bank to verify the said document. Also, if i submitted an esb bill would they contact the esb for verification?

In addition the planing department requested a letter from the bank in terms of proof of address but however the bank refused and stated that they no longer supply such letters. Just wondering has anybody else been refused by the bank for such or was i unfortunate to get a lady who was clearly having a bad day at work?!

sydthebeat

Lougar wrote: »

Hi guys, just a general query - do the planners accept documentation submitted at their face value or do the make further enquiries with the relevant bodies/ organisations. For example if i were to submit a bank statement with my name and address but scored out my account number and balance would this be accepted by the planners or is their a possibility they would contact the bank to verify the said document. Also, if i submitted an esb bill would they contact the esb for verification?

In addition the planing department requested a letter from the bank in terms of proof of address but however the bank refused and stated that they no longer supply such letters. Just wondering has anybody else been refused by the bank for such or was i unfortunate to get a lady who was clearly having a bad day at work?!

im not sure data protection would allow a planner request such information, by phone for example, from a bank or utility provider. What you provide is to be considered truthful, because if it is found to be fradulent after, it could quite possibly, invalidate the permission.

as regards the bank accounts, do you not get bank statements posted out to you?? if not, just order one.

Lougar

sydthebeat wrote: »

im not sure data protection would allow a planner request such information, by phone for example, from a bank or utility provider. What you provide is to be considered truthful, because if it is found to be fradulent after, it could quite possibly, invalidate the permission.

as regards the bank accounts, do you not get bank statements posted out to you?? if not, just order one.

Thanks Sydthebeat. We received a documentation from the planner requesting a letter from the bank or utility company as proof of address. I can ascertain bank statements and have submitted them with account number, balance scored out but wasn't sure whether they would suffice particularly since a specific request for a letter from a bank was sought. Then when i went to the bank they informed me that they do not issue such letters. Thanks again Sydthebeat