Further information / Clarification

Brando_ie

Following a recent percieved change in policy by my local planning authority I wonder if anyone can shed some light on the time periods allowed for both Further informatrion and any subsequent clarifications sought by the LA.

I have read the 2001 regulations, pasted below but it doesn't seem to confirm what I need one way or another.


Further information.


33. (1) Where a planning authority acknowledges receipt of a planning application in accordance with article 26, it may, by notice in writing, within 8 weeks of receipt of the planning application, require the applicant—



(a) to submit any further information (including any plans, maps or drawings, or any information as to any estate or interest in or right over land), which the authority considers necessary to enable it to deal with the application, or



(b) to produce any evidence which the authority may reasonably require to verify any particulars or information given in or in relation to the application.



(2) A request made under sub-article (1) may not require the submission of any further information in respect of the matters specified in articles 18, 19(1)(a) or 22, save the proposals referred to in article 22(1)(h).



(3) A planning authority shall not require an applicant who has complied with a requirement under sub-article (1) to submit any further information or evidence save-



(a) as may be reasonably necessary to clarify the matters dealt with in the applicant's response to a requirement to submit further information or evidence or to enable them to be considered or assessed, or



(b) where a request for further information is made under article 108(2) or 128(1).



(4) Where a requirement under sub-article (1) is not complied with, the planning application shall be declared to be withdrawn after the period of 6 months from the date of the requirement for further information or evidence has elapsed.

It would be best to highlight my question using an example.

An application is submitted and a request for further information is issued by the LA on say 1st Jan. A reply is returned to the LA on 1st March. And a clarification of further information is issued by the LA on 1st May. Does the reply have to be submitted before the 1st June or does the six months reset on the 1st May allowing a submission before 1st November?

Also does this change if the 'clarification' does not only contain points which had be in the original further information request but also totally new points not previously raised (which seems in contravention to the 2001 regs anyway?..... no?) Using a simple example the first RFI asks about overlooking, drainage and landscape and the clarification has points about the drainage responce, overlooking responce but adds issues over roads / sightlines and parking.

Previously the LA would reset the clock for every RFI or clarification but they are now issuing the clarifications within the first 6 month clock and have actually issued clarifications in the last few weeks of the 6 months which wouldn't allow sufficient time to even formulate a reply.

This link to Limerick's Planning website would seem to clearly indicate a reset of the clock but as it is different to my LA's policy it would be useful to know what the proper line is?

http://www.lcc.ie/Planning/Planning_Application_Guide/Stage3/Request_for_further_information.htm

sinnerboy

LA must decide 4 weeks after receiving CFI

Brando_ie

sinnerboy wrote: »

LA must decide 4 weeks after receiving CFI

Fair enough but the main point was do both the RFI and the CFI have to be submitted within 6 months of the RFI being issued or does the CFI reset the clock giving (the applicant / agent) another 6 months to respond to the clarification request?

sydthebeat

i think the question is how long has the OP to submit the clarification information... is it 6 months from the date of the original FI or 6 months from the date of any clarification.

To be honest ive seen this being policed both ways. Some counties restart the 6 month period at the clarification stage whilst others keep to the initial FI date. My own personal reading of it is that the clarification is still the same further information that hasnt been answered to the LAs satisfaction. Therefore the 6 month period should elapse after the date of the initial FI.

The whole issue of significantly separate information being asked at clarification stage is a different matter altogether. Sometimes the further information submitted throws these issues into the equation, so it would be bad planning not to deal with them. If the planner can show why these issues are now relevant then you should have no problem answering them.

Brando_ie

sydthebeat wrote: »

To be honest ive seen this being policed both ways.

Me to, but surely that flies in the face of the planning regulations. I can just about understand the reluctance of LA's to adopt the standard application recently introduced. But it would appear that how RFI and CFI's are dealt with, in relation to a statutory time limit, should not be dealt with differently from area to area. We have actually had a situation previously where we received a CFI letter along with a 'six months are up.... you lose' letter from the LA..... ON THE SAME DAY AND SIGNED BY THE SAME PERSON!?!?!

As for the addition of points to the CFI. I would totally agree with you regarding including something new if the RFI has made it relevant (i.e... overlooking designed out, but now increases overshadowing... or increase in parking at RFI stage so queries on open space requirements) but we see things popping onto CFI's that have remained unchanged from the original application, like sight lines or access and are not referred to in the RFI in any way. This also seems in direct contravention to the planning regulations...... or should they be viewed more as..... guidelines???

sydthebeat

Nothing surprises me anymore with LAs.

Some days im sympathetic to the fact that they do the best with the limited resources they have, and other days im incensed by the absolute adversarial bureaucracy they practice.

Its very frustrating when you are hit with LA bullsh1t and the you have a client on your back for not foreseeing it.

I live by the motto "dont fight with a pig, because the pig loves to get dirty".

I have also changed my outlook on political interference from the 'dont bother' viewpoint when i started working first to the now 'get any and every political leaning you can, it definitely makes a difference' opinion....... i miss my naivety.

250882

They revised the planning act recently. Both FI and clarification ahve to be asked within the 6 months. If you leave the FI to the last day then the council have 4 weeks to give you a decision however you can apply for an extension of time allowing you 3 months extra and allowing the council to ask for a clarification. Hope this helps but I'll try and get a link to the relevant sections of the act.

Brando_ie

250882 wrote: »

They revised the planning act recently. Both FI and clarification ahve to be asked within the 6 months. If you leave the FI to the last day then the council have 4 weeks to give you a decision however you can apply for an extension of time allowing you 3 months extra and allowing the council to ask for a clarification. Hope this helps but I'll try and get a link to the relevant sections of the act.

BINGO..... that my friend is exactly what I was after. I have found the relevant section in the 2006 regulations (I had scoured up to the 2002 regs.... typical) which does make some sense of it for me. I must make a note to apply for an extension if our reply goes back to the LA close to the 6 months period. I assume the granting of such extension would be fairly routine?

Now if I could just get the LA to stop adding new stuff onto the CFI's i may be able to remain at least partially sane.... this industry is neither art nor science

Mellor

does the extension resolve the fact that the La may issue a CFI very close to the end of the 6 month period. (ie if they do it on final day)

Brando_ie

Mellor wrote: »

does the extension resolve the fact that the La may issue a CFI very close to the end of the 6 month period. (ie if they do it on final day)

It would appear so. It may well become routine to apply for the extension if it looks like a scheme is going to ride the RFI roller coaster?

250882

Again, I'm not a planning expert but as far as I know a clarification can only ask questions originally asked on the FI.

muffler

250882 wrote: »

Again, I'm not a planning expert but as far as I know a clarification can only ask questions originally asked on the FI.

True.

Compare it to the NCT if you like. If you fail it you get a list and go back and they will only look at the points that needed addressing. The planning authority cant request unrelated additional information after it has requested an FI on particular items - they can look for clarification or further supporting documentation in relation to the original FI buts thats it.

Sparky78

Brando_ie wrote: »

As for the addition of points to the CFI. I would totally agree with you regarding including something new if the RFI has made it relevant (i.e... overlooking designed out, but now increases overshadowing... or increase in parking at RFI stage so queries on open space requirements) but we see things popping onto CFI's that have remained unchanged from the original application, like sight lines or access and are not referred to in the RFI in any way. This also seems in direct contravention to the planning regulations...... or should they be viewed more as..... guidelines???

I got a condition on the grant of permission requesting sight lines of 90 metres in each direction(cant commence before new maps are sent in and approved.)
Sight lines hadn't been raised in RFI or CFI.
So if they don't get you in CFI they'll just slap a condition on at the end anyway!Or is this illegal too?

archtech

Sparky78 wrote: »

I got a condition on the grant of permission requesting sight lines of 90 metres in each direction(cant commence before new maps are sent in and approved.)
Sight lines hadn't been raised in RFI or CFI.
So if they don't get you in CFI they'll just slap a condition on at the end anyway!Or is this illegal too?

No its not illegal, if planning officials took a practical approach, in many cases rather than requesting further information , a planning condition could be included with a decision of grant rather than requesting further information.

One point a planning authority can't rise new issues at Clarification of Further information stage.

Sparky78

archtech wrote: »

No its not illegal, if planning officials took a practical approach, in many cases rather than requesting further information , a planning condition could be included with a decision of grant rather than requesting further information.

One point a planning authority can't rise new issues at Clarification of Further information stage.

Thats fair enough but putting a condition that requires me to carry out works to the ajoining land that i don't own is hardly taking a "practical approach".

archtech

Sparky78 wrote: »

Thats fair enough but putting a condition that requires me to carry out works to the ajoining land that i don't own is hardly taking a "practical approach".

If it had been asked at further information stage, you would have had to address the matter in a similar way anyway (most properly) there is/was always the option of appealing the condition in An Bord Pleanala, if you are not happy with a planning condition.

Surely you would rather have permission and an opportunity to achieve the required sight lines rather than have planning permission refused and all the expenditure that when with it go down the drain! I know I would and anyone however had planning permission refused for a dwelling would too!

Sparky78

Your right but when it wasn't raised in further information I assumed it wouldn't be an issue.
I found this in the planning and development act 2000 in relation to conditions on lands adjoining a development. I read it as they are allowed to attach conditions that affect adjoining lands if your the land owner but not if you dont own the land.
Is this the right interpretation?

Thanks

"(4) Conditions under subsection (1) may, without prejudice to the
generality of that subsection, include all or any of the following—
(a) conditions for regulating the development or use of any land
which adjoins, abuts or is adjacent to the land to be
developed and which is under the control of the applicant,
so far as appears to the planning authority to be
expedient for the purposes of or in connection with the
development authorised by the permission;"