planning issue

irishlad1415

this is a long story but I want go give all the details...

so got planning for 11 years ago for a house in a rural location it happens to be an area of special conservation right next to a major waterway... 50 meters go be exact.  so I broke a few rules after the house was built major one being removal of mature trees which shielded the house from the water way.

it was 3 years before the local planning authority noticed and after a year or so later they took enforcement proceeding s against me.... I met them discussed all the issues they raised and went about correcting all of them.  they inspected the site and sent written confirmation that they were happy...

fast forward 4 years... I submit planning for a garage half expecting it to be refused based on my history and the size of the garage... which is what happened. .. but their major issue this time is another unauthorised development item relating to a driveway.. this was in place when they took the enforcement proceedings before but was never mentioned as an issue...and is in place for 8 yrs. they had to walk on it to inspect the site before.

I have no issue with being refused for reasons relating to the new garage size location etc and willing to work with them in that.

but I take issue with the fact my site was inspected on numerous occasions and was told enforcement proceedings would be dropped as I had carried out the necessary works to resolve all the issues they raised. then only when I go for planning again they hightlight another issue they missed before as unauthorised development... this I find hard to believe as they actually walked on it.

looks like I need retention now for the driveway ... what do you guys think?

if I never wanted a garage guess I could do nothing as the 7 yr rule wld kick in ... I.e its been there 7 yrs and more so they  can't make me remove it... but thats not the approach I want to take better to be above board...

I plan on meeting them but wondering if I shld ask the question why this was not raised last time.. what do u guys think?

Gumbo

Mature trees = Enforcement problem 1
Driveway = Enforcement problem 2

They came out last time because of problem 1, they don't need to do a full site survey to list all compliance issues with you as that should have been the job of whoever signed off on the project. Another half arse lazy architect/engineer not supervising correctly IMO.

Now that problem 2 has been noticed, they can mention it. Planning enforcement will only act on complaints received from members of the public or other departments/state bodies so maybe nobody complained about the driveway before.

Can you not just go for retention now to regularise the driveway?

The 7 year rule can help here, but the address will always have an enforcement issue raised against it and will never be in compliance. So it could hamper you if ever selling or applying for a loan for the house, which I've seen recently here in Dublin.

Rabbo

Even though to incorrect driveway is in place for over 7 years, the council are entitled to refuse permission for other developments on the site until it is resolved. As mentioned above, the council were in no obligation to go through your site and list out all non-compliance issues. They will take the view that the non compliance issues are your fault and up to you to resolve. They can't entertain further development on site until you do so. You can combine the planning application for the new garage with the retention application for the driveway.

sydthebeat

The statutory limitations only sets in 7 years (and some days) after planning expires.

So that's 7 + 5 = 12 years after planning.

So I'd suggest your not outside the limitations on time for enforcement action.

sydthebeat

Rabbo wrote: »

You can combine the planning application for the new garage with the retention application for the driveway.

Just on this, some councils say that you cannot make a valid planning application where unauthorised development exists in site, so therefore you need to regulate the unauthorised development first.

Some other councils might accept both applications together, they're all a law onto themselves.

Strolling Bones

irishlad1415 wrote: »

I plan on meeting them but wondering if I shld ask the question why this was not raised last time.. what do u guys think?

Unles your initials are (redacted) - you can't fight City Hall.

Rabbo

sydthebeat wrote: »

Just on this, some councils say that you cannot make a valid planning application where unauthorised development exists in site, so therefore you need to regulate the unauthorised development first.

Some other councils might accept both applications together, they're all a law onto themselves.

That's interesting. I've submitted countless combined applications and never come across that issue. As you say, different councils interpretation of the law seems to vary wildly at times.

irishlad1415

ok I need to make things a little clearer. ..

the enforcement taken was not just relating to one issue I.e. the trees there were 6 other issues which were minor enough no screening for oil tank etc.

I had a drive way fenced off with a light layer of stone ontop .... due to the lack of suitable soil in the area they wanted planted I had a verbal agreement with the enforcement officer to remove the soil from the drive and use it in the planting area and 804 fill was used to replace the soil taken from the driveway..... so they were ok with the driveway at this point I assumed. noe 4 yrs later its a problem

Gumbo

irishlad1415 wrote: »

ok I need to make things a little clearer. ..

the enforcement taken was not just relating to one issue I.e. the trees there were 6 other issues which were minor enough no screening for oil tank etc.

I had a drive way fenced off with a light layer of stone ontop .... due to the lack of suitable soil in the area they wanted planted I had a verbal agreement with the enforcement officer to remove the soil from the drive and use it in the planting area and 804 fill was used to replace the soil taken from the driveway..... so they were ok with the driveway at this point I assumed. noe 4 yrs later its a problem

The driveway was not the enforcement issue at the time. You built it illegally, and you know it so it's easy to rectify and lodge a retention. I don't see the problem tbh.

Just because the council didn't do anything about it at the time doesn't mean it's ok. Why did your engineer/architect sign off on the project if the project is so far into non-compliance territory.

Strolling Bones

irishlad1415 wrote: »

so they were ok with the driveway at this point I assumed.

That may be your perception. But it is not relevant.
They are not "ok" with it now - and they can be.

Strolling Bones

kceire wrote: »

Why did your engineer/architect sign off on the project if the project is so far into non-compliance territory.

assuming s/he did

Poor Uncle Tom

irishlad1415 wrote: »

...the enforcement taken was not just relating to one issue I.e. the trees there were 6 other issues which were minor enough no screening for oil tank etc.

So it can be argued that the enforcement was for the whole site at that time, if it wasn't just for one item and especially if one of the items mentioned for enforcement previously overlapped onto the current item of issue. I believe you could put up a good argument to this effect, if you didn't carry out more works to the drive since their last visit.

However, is it worth arguing with them? Just sort the issues, find out what is acceptable regarding the garage and make a new application for that.

Regarding the limitation on enforcement, as Syd pointed out, once there is a planning permission involved the time is 7 years and 63 days after the expiration of the planning permission which is 5 years and 45 days after the date of grant of the permission, and once there is a new permission involved (for the garage) this time starts all over again.

irishlad1415

No further work was carried out on the driveway since the last inspection.... its just annoying now that the enforcement officer agreed to the removal of the top soil off the driveway to facilitate the planning they wanted in another area..... between labor costs and stone (which was used to replace the soil that was taken from the driveway) it costs over 2500 euro... its annoying to think i could have to spend more money to revert it back to the previous state and especially when the enforcement officer agreed to it at the time and pass the inspection on it.

I have no issue with applying for retention, or even if i lose the driveway but its simply the costs involved feels like im getting the runaround.