extension of duration of planning

sydthebeat

quick query

has anyone ever obtained a second extension of duration on a planning permssion period?

No6

No but you can apply for one, its on the same form here in Mayo anyways!!

sydthebeat

its caes where the extension period has expired...

im just wondering how likely it is to be granted a second extension... are they always refused, or are they always granted....???

muffler

Never was involved in a second one but I would imagine that it should be straight forward. Its easier and handier all round for the PA to issue a single document as opposed to processing a full application for retention & completion.

lindabeirne

We recently had our extension of duration planning application refused due to new changes in the law. However what I would like to know is, can conditions be attached to the EOD like the initial planning application or can they point blank refuse it? It seems exceptionally unfair. We had to move the proposed location of the percolation area to a spot outside the perimeters of the site where T or P values were better. It is still within the family holding and doesn't present a problem to anybody but it was for this reason we were refused an EOD.
Can anyone assist please??

Supertech

As far as I'm aware, it is simply an extension of the life of the original Planning Permission, inclusive of its conditions, and not a reassessment of the file. I don't believe its possible to add or remove conditions at that stage. When you say you had to move the percolation area, is this built already ? I would presume that in order to avail of an EOD , works completed to date (or proposed) need to be in compliance with the original PP, otherwise you're in a retention and completion situation, or facing an application for alterations to previously approved plans. Moving the percolation area outside the site boundaries is essentially a material change to the approved proposals. (Your planning permission applies to the site outlined in red on the original Site Plan and Location Maps) Did your site suitability assessment not flag the t value issue in the first place ?

rayjdav

Under the legislation they can add/remove conditions attached to the parent permission as they see fit to more fit the current/present Development Plan and any subsequent directives/legislations issued since the granting of the original permission. Its a sly way to tidy up some of the mess they made in the last number of years..
The one that gets most people is the requirement under the EPA 2010 guidelines for treatment systems. If the site does not pass this, you is fecked regardless.....
The alteration of the site boundary at RFI stage can be sticky so despite the refusal of the EOD, and if all current circumstances can be met, would it not be an option to reapply. Design and technical I assume are same as before, just EPA test?

lindabeirne

Supertech wrote: »

As far as I'm aware, it is simply an extension of the life of the original Planning Permission, inclusive of its conditions, and not a reassessment of the file. I don't believe its possible to add or remove conditions at that stage. When you say you had to move the percolation area, is this built already ? I would presume that in order to avail of an EOD , works completed to date (or proposed) need to be in compliance with the original PP, otherwise you're in a retention and completion situation, or facing an application for alterations to previously approved plans. Moving the percolation area outside the site boundaries is essentially a material change to the approved proposals. (Your planning permission applies to the site outlined in red on the original Site Plan and Location Maps) Did your site suitability assessment not flag the t value issue in the first place ?

No works have been carried out on the site; apparently since we first received planning permission, T values have changed and need to be deeper??? These were required under an FI request. Also some rubbish about the Natura 2000 sites which are nowhere within the 15 km radius of the site....So once again we had to fork out almost €800 for both of the above to be completed, the Nautra 2000 sites TWICE!!! Its turning into the most expensive house never to get built.
I would really like to know a bit more before I do up a letter to the Council; I know I am wasting my time but I would like it to be on file.

lindabeirne

rayjdav wrote: »

Under the legislation they can add/remove conditions attached to the parent permission as they see fit to more fit the current/present Development Plan and any subsequent directives/legislations issued since the granting of the original permission. Its a sly way to tidy up some of the mess they made in the last number of years..
The one that gets most people is the requirement under the EPA 2010 guidelines for treatment systems. If the site does not pass this, you is fecked regardless.....
The alteration of the site boundary at RFI stage can be sticky so despite the refusal of the EOD, and if all current circumstances can be met, would it not be an option to reapply. Design and technical I assume are same as before, just EPA test?

Yes, reapplication is probably best but Im fed up with the whole thing....one would think we were going building a nuclear incinerator!! Totally agree as regards trying to back track on the mistakes previously made - thank you for your assistance!