Planning permission - Second Further Informarion Request

I

iceman

Registered User
Messages
33
We have applied to our local county council for planning permission to renovate a cottage and demolish/rebuild an extension. In April 08, the council issues a request for Further Information (no advertisement or site notice needed), the main concern being that we had no provision for an amenity area. We contacted the council who suggested that we show the rather large garden at the rear of the property as an amenity area. We duly supplied a Rural Place Map showing the boundaries of the property and our and the garden as amenity. Today, the final day for the decision, the council have now requested clarification of Further Information and deem is as Significant Further Information (necessary for us to advertise & erect a site notice… with associated cost & delay, etc).
Our architect thinks that the planner is too busy and it is easier for him to request Further Information (20 mins work) AGAIN rather than issue a Grant of Permission (which is a bigger task) and he is just shoving this off his plate.
According to Planning & Development Regulations 2001-2007, Section 33 (2), it essentially states that an applicant shall not be required to submit any Further Information if Further Information has already been submitted and may (if reasonably necessary), ask for clarification on points in the Applicants response. It seems very wrong that they are now looking for Significant Further Information, when initially the request was for Further Information on the same point… and they never advised us that it was significant in the lifetime of the initial Further Information period.
Could anyone advise here if the council are entitled to do this… as it seems to go against the spirit of Section 33 (2)?
 
It clearly seems that the council are under pressure and have not got around to your planning, or their is an issue there were the planning has pssd them off and they want to extend it out. It is more likely that they are too busy though. They are fully entitled to do this, but cant do it again, ie they have to give an answer after Further Information is issued to them.

Get the information in as quick as possible and ring them every week to see how it is getting on. If you keep the file at the top and keep in contact, they are more likely to get it off their table. Furhter to this, contact your local councelor and tell them the situation. They can pop up to the planner and tell them that this is crazy.

Forget about complaining, Section 33 (2) and your human rights. These dont apply in this country. Go to boards.ie and the arch tech section and see how many similar issues have arisen for people who do this for a living. In truth, it is not a 20 minute piece of work to grant permission, but it would only be a little more work to review your file and get it off the desk. If defies belief...

All the best with this, and please let me know how you get on, as I am intrested.
 
Thanks for your comments folks.
The situation has taken a further twist today as we noticed that the Significant FI (requested yesterday) has to be submitted in 6 months from the original FI request (18th April) meaning that we have to have the information together, site notice in place and newspaper advert in by 18th Oct (only a few days away!!!).... otherwise the application is deemed withdrawn. Smoke coming out our ears at this stage as it seems very unfair. Will be getting politicans, etc all over this from now on.
We contacted the planning office and they confirmed this.
Architect is now requesting a 3 month extension to time limit.
 

you should easily get a newspaper notice and site noitce ready before the 18th... thats 10 days...

the architect cannot request an extension of time.
 
If the information is so little, just get it in. Let the 18th be the date, and dont extend, as you have waited long enough. Unless there are other underlying issues beyond what you have stated above, any architect should be able to get that information ready and in by mid next week. The architect should also be happy to get this out of the way.

To be honest, this smells a little! I dont want to overstep the line, but was the information that the architect submitted right? or was the legal lines etc actually wrong on the planning. I find it very strange that new ads etc have to go in and the council would expose themselves to this. This would suggest an error on yours on the architects part, that may be beyond your knowing, but should have been spotted by the architect? There seems to be a little more than this. PM me if you want with further information or the text from the AI...
 
I cant say for sure but I remember reading somewhere that you can get planning by default if the council ask for FI twice as they are not entitled to.
Problem is this could be ten times as long winded as just submitting the FI.
We had to submit FI 4 times.
Found out about the default thing afterwards but that could drag on.
You are damned if you do and damned if you dont.
Maybe get sols advice.
But best bet is prob to submit FI like a good little applicant!
 
Iceman,

from my own limited albeit 2 year exposure to planning was always told when they look for additional information - its a good sign you will get there eventually. So take some heart in that.

You can get extensions which will only postpone what they are looking for now. So I would pull the stops out and push to get what they want in by the 18th Oct.

But it is a frustrating experience. It took us 2 years, selling our existing home, pulling out of one site and moving to another (not as hard an area) and some major political grovelling to get ours. But now as we are nearly finished and after quiet a stressfree build I can categorically say its worth it.
 
One point to note, is that a Council can not deem something 'significant further information' until after they receive the information and have time to assess it for its 'significance'. Usually this is only done when a planning application is a large and complex one, and major modifications are proposed. (Refer Article 35 of the 2006 regulations). It is not proper procedure to ask for it in the further information request upfront (i.e. before information is received), much less in a clarification request – which I have never heard of before. This is clearly set out in section 5.9 of the Development Management Guidelines (which you yourself can download from the DoE website for reference).

In terms of an extension of time – , yes your architect can apply for this - (Article 33(3) of the 2006 Regulations) which entitles the planning authority (on agreement) to extend the time period from 6 months to 9 months. Edited to say: above relates to extension of time for submitting the clarification information - not the time period for putting up the Sig FI notices.
 
In a "Clarification of Further Information" no new points may be raised that have not already been raised in the Request for Further Information.
 

thanks for that lexi, didnt know that...
 
The Planning Authority in Question is at Fault in this case, as there is no facilty in the Planning & Development Regulations to request Clarification of Further Information.

A DoE circular was sent to all Authorities last year (Circular PD7/07 dated 13th July 2007) in relation to a High Court Judgement relating to Planning & Development Regulations- "Further Information and Clarification of Further Information".

This case identified an anomoly between the Act and the Regs in relation to Further Information and Clarification thereof.

The Act under Section 34(8) says where a planning authority, within 8 weeks of receipt of a planning application, serves notice in accordance with the permission regulations requiring the applicant to give the authority further information etc, the authority shall make its decision on the application within 4 weeks of the notice being complied with (i.e. submission of FI), provided that the total period is not less than 8 weeks.

However, the Regulations also provide for a discretionary power for planning authorities to seek clarification of further information.

The Judge in his ruling stated that he did not find any reason to interpret Section 34(8) as allowing for an increase in time to make a decision. Consequently he found that a case for default permision exists where a decision is not made within the timeframe set out in Section 34(8) above.
 
Thanks Folks for all the info.
On discussion with the Council, the garden which is proposed as amenity, is separated from the main property by a laneway, which is a public right-of-way, which might explain the Significant Portion of the FI.
So, we are proceeding on a number of fronts:
1. Submitting the Info to council & newspaper ad, ASAP
2. Have requested extension of time anyway as a safeguard
3. Got in touch with the owners of the right-of-way who are giving us a letter to say they have no objections to us using this to access the garden (which was always the case anyway)
4. We have got the original property drawings at time of purchase of the property to show that the cottage & garden was bought as a single lot.
5. Got in touch with a local politician who will keep on top of the matter.
Will post here later to let you know how it goes.
 
daithi28 said:
A DoE circular was sent to all Authorities last year (Circular PD7/07 dated 13th July 2007) in relation to a High Court Judgement relating to Planning & Development Regulations- "Further Information and Clarification of Further Information".
Click to expand...

Hi Daithi28 - Thanks for the info. For reference, do you have the text (or better still a link) to both the DoE circular or the High Court Case... in case we need it if we are asked for more FI ?
 
Maye v Sligo Borough Council
http://www.courts.ie/judgments.nsf/...02572e5003f2a2c?OpenDocument&Highlight=0,1347

I Can't find the Circular online. Will try to get a copy scanned.

Also, afaik an extension of time can only be requested within the 1st 8 weeks of a planning application being lodged. If you have already been on FI then it is likely it's more than 8 weeks ago and therefore an extension of time cannot be facilitated. See Section 34(9) of the Act.
 
Daithai - just to avoid confusion: Section 34(9) relates to extension of time for making a decision which must be within the 8 weeks. The extension of time to which i have referred to above, relates to extension of time for submitting Further Information - which is a separate issue. It can be applied for any time up until the expiration of the 6 month period. The rational for this extension was really to facilitate complex applications where EIA is required... but it extends to all applications.
 
Thanks Daithi28 - This is good info.
On the extension of time for extra FI details, we received this extension today, so it eases the time pressure.
Would be interesting to see the circular, if you get a chance.
Still going ahead with the submitting the info, etc asap, as we have been at thie planning since Sep 2007 at this stage...
 
[FONT=&quot]Well... after re-submitting more-or-less the same drawing again and re-advertising, with associated costs, etc., we received a Notification of a Decision to grant today.
Great (we thought) but there is yet again a twist... There is a small stone shed which was originally used as a piggery at the rear of the house plot. Conservation Officer viewed this about 1 year ago and said he had no interest in it, and was agreeable to demolish it as part of extension works. So, we proposed anyway to use the stone as a facing around the rear window of the extension and this formed part of the application (and hence the permission). HOWEVER, there is now a Condition in the Notification to Grant which states that this now must be dismantled systematically and the structures re-erected at a location on the rear garden plot to be agreed with the Conservation Officer prior to any works commencing.
If the shed is protected (and we think it is not), is it not logical to think that you cannot just take a structure and relocate it somewhere else. Surely this is bad practice?
Also, extra costs like this are the last thing we want in what has been a family home for generations.
We could appeal to An Bord Pleanala but this just adds a good few months on to the project before we can start building.
(Wonder if the Conservation Grant would extend to buying a few porkys to populate the reconstructed shed?)
[/FONT]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register