Planning issues - post them here MOD WARNING post #1

muffler

Nyla Helpless Medal wrote: »

Just been granted planning. Anyone know when you can take down the site notice?

You are only required to keep the notice up for 5 weeks from the date your application is made so you can remove it now.

ht9zni1gs28crp

muffler wrote: »

You are only required to keep the notice up for 5 weeks from the date your application is made so you can remove it now.

Cheers fella. Thanks a million. 3months from start to finish with planning isn't too bad!

sydthebeat

Heres a planning question id like to open up to the floor

Picture a prominent urban site which has planning for a large commercial block.
A commencement notice is sent in and work beings to demolish old buildings and unsafe boundary walls, all within planning permission.
The economy fails and main anchor tenant pulls out therefore works on site cease shortly after demolition stage.
Rather than leave the site as a building site the client cleans it up, erects precast decorative concrete fencing, tars over site. Site nice and clean and safe.

the client intends to apply to extend the duration of the original permission within a year of its expiry, as its a huge application with a lot of money already invested.

The question is this...
can the client make an application on that site for something that will drawn an income ie car parking, on a temporary basis.............. but do so without affecting an application to extend the original permission?
so there would be in effect two permissions active on the site?? one enveloping the other timewise??

has anyone any experience of this kind of thing?

Poor Uncle Tom

sydthebeat wrote: »

Heres a planning question id like to open up to the floor

Picture a prominent urban site which has planning for a large commercial block.
A commencement notice is sent in and work beings to demolish old buildings and unsafe boundary walls, all within planning permission.
The economy fails and main anchor tenant pulls out therefore works on site cease shortly after demolition stage.
Rather than leave the site as a building site the client cleans it up, erects precast decorative concrete fencing, tars over site. Site nice and clean and safe.

the client intends to apply to extend the duration of the original permission within a year of its expiry, as its a huge application with a lot of money already invested.

The question is this...
can the client make an application on that site for something that will drawn an income ie car parking, on a temporary basis.............. but do so without affecting an application to extend the original permission?
so there would be in effect two permissions active on the site?? one enveloping the other timewise??

has anyone any experience of this kind of thing?

No reason why not, I would imagine that there would have to be a condition on the car park permission that once the other planning permission was being worked on then the car park planning would automatically wither.

A similar situation to having planning permission on a site for a particular house and making an application to change the house type. If it is granted then there are actually 2 valid planning permissions on the site, and either one can be built. Actually one can be built, demolished and the other can be built, all within the planning permission period.

sydthebeat

Poor Uncle Tom wrote: »

No reason why not, I would imagine that there would have to be a condition on the car park permission that once the other planning permission was being worked on then the car park planning would automatically wither.

A similar situation to having planning permission on a site for a particular house and making an application to change the house type. If it is granted then there are actually 2 valid planning permissions on the site, and either one can be built. Actually one can be built, demolished and the other can be built, all within the planning permission period.

i would have thought the general consensus was that once one permission was enacted ie commenced then that would nullify any previous permission???

is that not the case?

Corkblowin

sydthebeat wrote: »

i would have thought the general consensus was that once one permission was enacted ie commenced then that would nullify any previous permission???

is that not the case?

You've an odd one there syd. In general you are correct in saying that implementing a permission supplants any previous permissions you had on the site. However the complication you have is that using the site as, say, a car park does not alter the land in a way that prevents the permission for the commercial building from being carried out - ie no demolitions would be required to allow the work to proceed.

I have a similar one where a playing field has been laid out on a site with permission for houses and the field is being rented out. If we apply for permission for the field the council have told us the houses permission is dead. My situation is different though as the houses were part of a larger scheme which is 50% complete- so we've commenced and completed much of the development. In my instance the Council are turning a blind eye for the moment, which is not ideal at all, but the development is in the hands of a receiver who says he cannot make a move that eliminates have the value of the site.

If I were you I'd meet with the area planner making the argument above and see how it goes!

sydthebeat

well funny you should say...

we are meeting the planner very soon, as what has happened in the meantime is that the council have send an enforcement notice to the client for the work done on site... which in my opinion is a bit mad.. but anyway.

i was just hoping to have some ammo going into that meet where i could point to a previous example of this having happened. Your point about no work being required to continue the original permission is an interesting one, but id love to be able to point to a facility in the planning regs which would allow for this.

Poor Uncle Tom

sydthebeat wrote: »

well funny you should say...

we are meeting the planner very soon, as what has happened in the meantime is that the council have send an enforcement notice to the client for the work done on site... which in my opinion is a bit mad.. but anyway.

i was just hoping to have some ammo going into that meet where i could point to a previous example of this having happened. Your point about no work being required to continue the original permission is an interesting one, but id love to be able to point to a facility in the planning regs which would allow for this.

Turn that on its head and find somewhere in the Act which stops it from happening. There isn't as far as I'm aware.

Think of it this way, you can have planning permission to develop a site as a stand alone planning permission. You can also have a separate planning permission on the same site for the temporary use of say a mobile home. The mobile planning will wither while the other one remains in place.

Corkblowin

I'll have a look when I get home later, but it seems to me that the enforcement issue can be addressed by referring to the works undertaken to date being measures aimed at preventing the site becoming 'derelict'.

I'm guessing though they're coming after your client for an unauthorised change of use in making it a car park. Trickier to argue obviously!!

sydthebeat

Its not a car park at the moment, the enforcement it's simply on the the boundary treatment and the tar finish. I'm not worried about the enforcement.

As you can imagine, I just don't want to advise the client to apply for permission for a car park if that extinguished the much more valuable commercial permission.

Ill argue the temp permission stance with the planner and let you know how I get on.

etcetc

If a site has commercial zoning for high technology (Fingal) but has existing derelict bungalow on it would an application to demolish and build a house be successful?

I looked through Fingal's zoning for HT and it doesn't list residential in the allowable uses or will be considered list

LVC

Discuss the flaws exposed in the current Building Control System by the Priory Hall development and the proposals for reform?

muffler

LVC wrote: »

Discuss the flaws exposed in the current Building Control System by the Priory Hall development and the proposals for reform?

No discussion will be allowed on this. I assume you're a student so if you take the time to read our forum charter you will see that we are not here to assist with college projects or the likes.

tb66

Hi all
I recently submitted an objection to retention of a shed adjoining my garden.Permission was refused but a footnote to regularising it
included by the planner suggested reducing the size and explained the way this could be achieved.
Fresh planning permission is now being
sought with part of it to be demolished to reduce the size to the suggested one by the planner. Im still not happy with this proposed
reduction in size and intend to submit another objection.However Im curious to know if anyone here has come across this before,and is
this application just a formality or would another planner actually go against a previous planners report. Dublin Council area btw.

kilclon

antob wrote: »

Hi all
I recently submitted an objection to retention of a shed adjoining my garden.Permission was refused but a footnote to regularising it
included by the planner suggested reducing the size and explained the way this could be achieved.
Fresh planning permission is now being
sought with part of it to be demolished to reduce the size to the suggested one by the planner. Im still not happy with this proposed
reduction in size and intend to submit another objection.However Im curious to know if anyone here has come across this before,and is
this application just a formality or would another planner actually go against a previous planners report. Dublin Council area btw.

Does the reduction in size of the shed bring it into the category of exempted development? If it does there is probably not much you can do.

tb66

kilclon wrote: »

Does the reduction in size of the shed bring it into the category of exempted development? If it does there is probably not much you can do.

No,the proposed reduced size will be 32sqm internal floor space from 42sqm,so still not falling into exempted category.This is a shed built to the rear of a house built adjacent to an existing one on a corner.Because of the site layout this shed is built in what was the old front garden(now back garden) and basically forms the boundry of the sites with the rear wall of it being the boundry between my front garden and the new (ex front) back garden.

kilclon

Can you link to the planning application? Hard to picture what exactly is going on. From what I gather the shed is to the front of your house? What was the boundary made of before the shed was built and how has the height of the boundary changed? It is not uncommon for planning applications to be overturned on appeal so if you feel that it is affecting you to a high enough degree you should do so. I assume there is no talking to your neighbor to come to some sort of agreement?

sydthebeat

kilclon wrote: »

Can you link to the planning application?

please dont do that in an open forum

send pms if you want to

kilclon

sydthebeat wrote: »

please dont do that in an open forum

send pms if you want to

Oops sorry.

tb66

kilclon wrote: »

Oops sorry.

It probably is difficult to describe alright.Basically another house was built in a side garden next door on a corner.What was the front/side garden of the original house is now the back garden of the new one.A shed 10x5mtrs was built at the bottom of this land abutting my front garden and now forms the boundry with my front garden.The council have refused retention permission but a footnote on planners report suggests a shed of 32sqm would not be unreasonable.New permission is now being sought for retention with a portion to be demolished to comply with planners suggestion.
I still feel this is not enough and intend to object again but although a different planner is assinged to this application is it possible they would go against their colleagues recommendation or am I just laying the foundation for a B.P.appeal.
Ive upped a pic to maybe give you a better idea.

kilclon

It looks like a good size shed for that size of garden alright. In my experience it does happen that a planner may go against the recommendation of a colleague if they deem the development to be inappropriate. In other words, it may or may not be granted. Its more likely to be refused of course since you are lodging an observation. Did you make an observation on the original retention application? Pretty cheeky to build something that size without any permission in a built up area.

tb66

kilclon wrote: »

It looks like a good size shed for that size of garden alright. In my experience it does happen that a planner may go against the recommendation of a colleague if they deem the development to be inappropriate. In other words, it may or may not be granted. Its more likely to be refused of course since you are lodging an observation. Did you make an observation on the original retention application? Pretty cheeky to build something that size without any permission in a built up area.

My thoughts exactly.I did lodge an observation to the original but was caught between sending in a token one this time in order to be able to appeal to An Bord Pleanala or a comprehensive one if there is a chance a a different planner would make a fresh decision and not be swayed or influenced by the first one.

From what your saying I guess I should go for the latter and hope for a favourable decision if there is a possibility of this planner having a different opinion to the other.

db

I am assuming that your house is to the left of the shed in the photograph. Is there any rainwater runoff into your garden from the roof of the shed? This could be grounds for refusal that you could include in your submission. Also, a shed that size looks like it could be used as a workshop for commercial activity. If there has been a business running from it you could also mention that.

Gru

Is it common practice to obtain planning for a house first before transferring land? Even in cases where the land is being gifted from parent to child?

Aard

A lot of people obtain planning permission and then sell their property, as the permission could add considerable value.

I see no reason why it shouldn't be done in your case, although be aware that in rural areas there are often constraints on who can build to avoid urban-generated development.

sydthebeat

Gru wrote: »

Is it common practice to obtain planning for a house first before transferring land? Even in cases where the land is being gifted from parent to child?

yes.

but from a tax perspective see page 16 here

muffler

Gru wrote: »

Is it common practice to obtain planning for a house first before transferring land? Even in cases where the land is being gifted from parent to child?

If it was being sold to someone outside of the family then yes, it is normal to seek PP in advance so as to increase the value of the land as stated above.

When transferring from parent to child again it is recommended that PP be sought in advance. It would be pointless (and costly) to gift a "site" that may get refused PP.

Gru

sydthebeat wrote: »

yes.

but from a tax perspective see page 16 here

So it works out better financially to obtain planning and then transfer the land over once it's been granted?

sydthebeat

Gru wrote: »

So it works out better financially to obtain planning and then transfer the land over once it's been granted?

if the site is less than 1.0 acres and not valued above 500k... then yes, absolutely

Gru

Cool, thanks for clarifying that for me everyone. I wasn't sure which was the best way forward with this. Onward with planning then!