Planning appeal - something fishy?

jjmcclure

Hi,

Recently we lodged objections through an agent about a planning application our area. We were successful and the applicant appealed the decision to the local cc and was again refused on multiple grounds. He then applied to an bord pleanala, their inspector also recommended refusal on multiple grounds BUT the board gave permission with NO conditions!!!

Do we have any further recourse apart from the courts??

Poor Uncle Tom

I'm reading between the lines here, but this application was not for a house, was it?

There is something puzzling here though, you say the applicant appealed the decision to the County Council. There is no facility in the Planning and Development Act to appeal a planning decision to the Local Authority, only to An Bord Pleanala. So, did the applicant make two planning applications and each were refused and only one appealed or did something else happen?

BTW, An Bord Pleanala deciding not to accept the findings of their assigned officer is not at all strange, granting a planning permission with no conditions is strange though, that is why I think it can't be for a dwelling house.

jjmcclure

Yes it's for a house. Building it in a back garden of a private house that backs onto a cul de sac in a private estate, breaking through the wall of the cul de sac for access. Had planning refused twice and he withdrew it once.

Poor Uncle Tom

....and An Board have granted it on appeal with no conditions?

muffler

I dont think we are being given the full facts here. First there was one application and with the last post by the OP that has changed to 3 applications.

jjmcclure

muffler wrote: »

I dont think we are being given the full facts here. First there was one application and with the last post by the OP that has changed to 3 applications.

Easy there magnum pi. It's a long story. Would take a long time to go through all the details. Just put up a rough post with some details of what happened.

sydthebeat

As with most things Higgins, the devils in the detail.

perhaps you can give us a breakdown of the planning history, or maybe pm the bord pleanala ref no. To me and I'll take a quick look

muffler

sydthebeat wrote: »

As with most things Higgins, the devils in the detail.

perhaps you can give us a breakdown of the planning history, or maybe pm the bord pleanala ref no. To me and I'll take a quick look

Was just about to post this - i.e. ask for the ABP reference number as Im intrigued as to how permission can be granted unconditionally.

Easy there magnum pi. It's a long story. Would take a long time to go through all the details. Just put up a rough post with some details of what happened.

No sh1t Sherlock.

If you want good advice you need to post good details. I haven't seen the latter yet.

profplanner

muffler wrote: »

Was just about to post this - i.e. ask for the ABP reference number as Im intrigued as to how permission can be granted unconditionally.

I am also intrigued ... whats the reference number?

jjmcclure

It looks like the inspectors file will not be available until later today/tomorrow.

However is ABP decision final, unless you take it to the courts?

Do Meath CoCo have any recourse, can the block by refunsing access to services such as sewer/water etc?

sydthebeat

the only court action that can be taken is regarding the 'due process' of the appeal... and not actually questioning the decision itself.

and no, meath co co cannot block any connections if granted permission

jjmcclure

It's frustrating. Meath CoCo and our town planner had strong arguments, one being that best practice does not allow for the opening of entrances onto a turning circle as it causes a traffic hazard. This has been ignored by ABP. Also the house is over 3000sqft, completely different to the other houses in the cul de sac, another reason Meath CoCo refused planning. Looks like its a done deal though.

sydthebeat

can you still pm me the bord ref number?
ill take a look, im not from meath BTW :P

1865

It looks like your only hope is a Judicial Review of the decision. To do this you would have to find a point of law which they errored on - i.e. you cannot argue the merits of the case. you can only point out to the courts where they made an error.

This is a very difficult process and costly and even if you win, the courls might still allow it to proceed so you need to get good advice before you start down this route.

The lesson here is, and I appreciate that it is too late for you in this case, when you appeal to the Board you need to make a very detailed and rigorous appeal.

sydthebeat

i have investigated this appeal and i wish to clarify this thread:


1. the bord granted permission, in doing so overturned the inspectors decision to refuse

2. the bord granted permission with nine conditions

3. the conditions are usual. Two conditions have a 'material' aspect to the development, namely the alteration of a first floor window and the requirement for solid self closing automatic gates.


the inspector looked at it from 3 view points:
zoning, amenity and access.
Ultimately access is deemed to be acceptable
The zoning is designed for 'new residential area' and while the inspector argues against the piecemeal nature he cannot argue against the spirit of the zoning. Had the area been zoned to protect existing residences, the development would have been refused.
With the amentity, the inspector argues against the size of the house in that they exceed the "quality housing for sustainable communities guidelines" but ultimately has to cede that the development would be compatible with with the residential amenities of the area, the CDP, housing guidelines and would be to the satisfactory standard of future occupiers.


To be honest, after having read the inspectors report i cannot see, in any area, why he recommended the refusal. Each issue he deals with he ultimately comes to the conclusion that it is acceptable.....
He does not make a concise coherent reason for refusal at all.

I can see quite easily why the bord overturned his decision.

muffler

So the OP first of all claims that there was 1 application made to the council when in fact there was 3.

The OP also claims that ABP granted the permission with no conditions and now we find that it was granted with 9 conditions.

To say I'm less than impressed is a bit of an understatement. When people come to this forum and look for free, independent advice the least they can do is provide us with the facts and the truth.

sinnerboy

Some take whats given freely for granted. Charge nothing and it's worth nothing.