Bord Pleanala Decision

mirror mirror

A planning officer recommends refusal for a p.a submitted by a local to build on their own land,but this is overturned by the senior planning officer and the county manager resulting in planning approval. however a person objects to an bord pleanala and B.P in turn go with the first planners report ,refusing planning. this is based on report that the bungalow is visually obtrusive . is it normal procedure for bord pleanala to over turn a senior p.o and county manager decision (who had specified a landscaping plan).......funnily enough the objector house is more larger and more visible than proposed dwelling and has many features without planning. what i'm trying to ask is there anything that can be done between council planning office and bord pleanala to again look at decision by B.P... in my opinion B.p totally disregarded the managers report

sydthebeat

to answer your question

no.

Once the bord make sits decision thats it. The only recourse is a high court action on the basis that the bord carried out its duties incorrectly.

It is normal procedure for the bord to makes its own decision on the case, notwthinstanding where the decision came from in the council. Thats why they are an independent body. Just because they come to a different conclusion than the county manager does not mean they 'disregard' it. It happens every day that all information is taken into account before a decision is made.

The usual next step is to taken on bord the reasons for refusal and the bords report, and significantly alter your proposal to resolve the issues and resubmit.

I cant really see where this thread can go (apart from off topic or outside forum rules), as the one question within is answered.

But lets see what happens.

rayjdav

sydthebeat wrote: »

The usual next step is to taken on bord the reasons for refusal and the bords report, and significantly alter your proposal to resolve the issues and resubmit.

I cant really see where this thread can go (apart from off topic or outside forum rules), as the one question within is answered.
But lets see what happens.

+1 to Syds reply.
Basically if they take on board ABP comments and resubmit, as Syd advised above.

mirror mirror

thanks for replies.taking in what your are saying. just trying to understand why someone ,who meets all criteria set out in planning law and whose house is signifigantly lower in height and floor area than this objector is refused planning.does the bord visit the site,if so do they not see what houses are adjacent to it .

sydthebeat

mirror mirror wrote: »

thanks for replies.taking in what your are saying. just trying to understand why someone ,who meets all criteria set out in planning law and whose house is signifigantly lower in height and floor area than this objector is refused planning.does the bord visit the site,if so do they not see what houses are adjacent to it .

there is no such thing as status quo in planning.

every time a dwelling is added to an area it changes the factors for any new dwelling.

also, planning policies change all the time. Just because something else exists is no precedent to allow similar in the future. if its the planners or bords opinion that the existing houses cause an unwanted obtrusive vista, they are not going to add to this by allowing another dwelling. They cannot retrospectively clear errors, but they can make sure they dont make them again.

muffler

sydthebeat wrote: »

also, planning policies change all the time. Just because something else exists is no precedent to allow similar in the future. if its the planners or bords opinion that the existing houses cause an unwanted obtrusive vista, they are not going to add to this by allowing another dwelling. They cannot retrospectively clear errors, but they can make sure they dont make them again.

Feck it syd, you sound just like a planner :eek:

mirror mirror

thanks sydthebeat , thats well put .just to add this is a rural area and on the road there are only 9 houses built by locals. all these houses were built with a lot of recommendations as set out by co.co. except this arse hole who objected .some previous applications were refused by co.co because of issues of applicants not meeting the criteria as set out by co.co.this may be longwinded to you sydthebeat but i just trying to get my head around this decision and your replies are giving me the answers ..why im so interested ? my brother is the applicant involved .

mickdw

And the objectors house has features that dont have planning permission you say! You think they would have left well enough alone so.

muffler

mickdw wrote: »

And the objectors house has features that dont have planning permission you say! You think they would have left well enough alone so.

Glass house, stones etc

sydthebeat

i guess i sound like a planner cos ive heard this being spouted from them for years now.

mirror, i completely understand where your coming from, im just trying to give you the other side of the decision.

as you say that this is on a local road where 9 locals hace already built, then that would sound alarm bells to me that the area is already over developed from a planning point of view.

i think your brother needs to sit down with a good local planning consultant, architect, technician and discuss possibilities. when this has been down sit down with either a senoior planner and or the chief exec planner. also, as much as it pains me to say it, get your local councillor to push it from their end as well.