Planning refused

mickdw

I had a planning application refused for the following reasons:

Sightlines,
Water level on site.

Now this might look like typical reasons for refusal but the detail seems crazy to me.

In relation to sightlines, the site exit was onto a local road where the speedlimit of the entire area is 80 km/hr. The Mayo development plan states 145m sight distance is required however on local road where speeds of greater than 80 km/hr will not be achieved, a distance of 120m is acceptable. So the refusal was due to us showing 120m distance where the planner wanted 145m. She said this distance may have been ok if a letter from local engineer had been submitted saying the 120m distance was acceptable. I then said ok, I will resubmit and get a letter from the local council engineer re sight distance. The planner said no! The letter should be submitted as part of the engineers report on the site and no requested by the applicant. When asked why it wasnt therefore submitted during the now refused application, the planners response was "I dont know" together with a shrug of her shoulders.

THe water level issue is even stranger. The site had a high level of water in the trial hole during planners site visit - it was mad weather. Anyway, advice note from planner at further information stage said that perhaps a new trial hole at another location on site might show better ground conditions. So new trial hole was dug, ground water report carried out by specialist, all ok. Informed planner of new hole etc when replying to further info.
I then read the final planners report on the site and it basically stated that although the groundwater report found the site acceptable, she could not ignore the high level of water on site. They never acknowledged the new trial hole/ site conditions or that the groundwater report was carried out on a different part of the site to that which they had observed.
They had not inspected the revised hole and basically dismissed the groundwater report as lies.

Does this seem normal or a little odd?

sydthebeat

nothing surprises me any more with planners....

strange and inconsistent is EXACTLY how i would describe them...

Poor Uncle Tom

Not to make lite of your refusal, but, welcome to our world.

mickdw wrote: »

In relation to sightlines, the site exit was onto a local road where the speedlimit of the entire area is 80 km/hr. The Mayo development plan states 145m sight distance is required however on local road where speeds of greater than 80 km/hr will not be achieved, a distance of 120m is acceptable. So the refusal was due to us showing 120m distance where the planner wanted 145m. She said this distance may have been ok if a letter from local engineer had been submitted saying the 120m distance was acceptable. I then said ok, I will resubmit and get a letter from the local council engineer re sight distance. The planner said no! The letter should be submitted as part of the engineers report on the site and no requested by the applicant. When asked why it wasnt therefore submitted during the now refused application, the planners response was "I dont know" together with a shrug of her shoulders.

It looks as though you are getting a rough time from the planner. She should explain things better for you. She should be able to tell you EXACTLY what the required sightlines at this entrance location would be. If I were you I would see the local area engineer and talk to him/her and get a letter from them if you can, stating the required sightline.

mickdw wrote: »

THe water level issue is even stranger. The site had a high level of water in the trial hole during planners site visit - it was mad weather. Anyway, advice note from planner at further information stage said that perhaps a new trial hole at another location on site might show better ground conditions. So new trial hole was dug, ground water report carried out by specialist, all ok. Informed planner of new hole etc when replying to further info.
I then read the final planners report on the site and it basically stated that although the groundwater report found the site acceptable, she could not ignore the high level of water on site. They never acknowledged the new trial hole/ site conditions or that the groundwater report was carried out on a different part of the site to that which they had observed.
They had not inspected the revised hole and basically dismissed the groundwater report as lies.

Unfortunately, the planner has to take account of the information provided with the application primarily. This information has to correlate with the information provided be the planners desk study and site visit. In your case this information did not match, apparently site conditions were very different at the time of the visit from the information submitted. Another report can not justify this. Either the information initially submitted was inaccurate or the trial pits were not properly covered and protected from the elements for the planners inspection. Either way you should have been informed of this by the planner.

If I were you I would make an appointment with the Director of Services put your best case to him/her, in light of a refusal it will not be easy. You might get another shot at this, it's worth a try. Good luck if you do.

No6

Sorry to hear about that mick, are they the only reasons? Some of the Mayo planners will not change their mind on anything, but as some of them are now being laid off (6) they may start getting a little more reasonable (although I dont hold out much hope for it!!!!)

muffler

Sounds as though you have gotten a raw deal. It happens and in reality it shouldn't happen but I wouldn't give up all hope on it.

When an application is refused it is done so for the reasons that they set out. In order to have any reasonable chance of making a successful repeat application you need to address and overcome the reasons for the original refusal. So get your letter from the local engineer and get your site assessment report and request a pre planning meeting.

Get your agent to attend the meeting, present your case and do take a pen and paper with you and take down notes and make it very clear to the planner, by way of reading out from your notes, that you intend to include a record of the discussions in a covering letter with your repeat application. By reading the notes back to her and getting her to agree verbally that they are a true record of the discussions removes any ambiguity that may be raised at a later date.

In a nutshell what you will be doing is presenting her with proof that you can overcome the reasons for refusal and you are then putting her in a situation whereby she would have to agree that those particular issues no longer exist.

fatchops

you could always appeal the decision, assuming you're within the time frame

JuniorB

Don't talk to me about planners..

Like everything else in this country ... get onto your local councillor. Local Elections coming up so they'll all be clamouring to help you out !!:)

CamperMan

We had our application refused early this year on one issue, sight distances, planners wanted something like 120m, we had 60m, so was refused, what is frustrating is that the planners must have known that the new county development plan was coming out, a couple of weeks later it came into force, the plan showed a decrease from 120m to just 70m.

We have now re-submitted our application showing we can get 70m, lets see what happens

annoyed1980

does it have to be 70m each side of your entrance or 35m each side ???

muffler

annoyed1980 wrote: »

does it have to be 70m each side of your entrance or 35m each side ???

70m each side would be the minimum.