Development density

garbo speaks

Hi,
Myself and my partner have been refused planning permission for a site in Clare in a rural area. The reason for the refusal has been density and that our house would lead to an over densification. I'm just wondering is there a real definition of 'density'? or is it just the planners opinion? I know 5 houses or more in a row is ribbon development, but this term 'density' seems to be vague, with different people having different interpretations.

Metric Tensor

Unless stated somewhere in the Clare County Development plan there is no overarching rural definition that I know of. It is unfortunately based on the planners interpretation of what would be inappropriate for the area in question.

There can sometimes be refusals based on intensification of septic tanks in a vulnerable area. Was that a factor?

Do you have an alternative nearby site?

garbo speaks

Metric Tensor wrote: »

Unless stated somewhere in the Clare County Development plan there is no overarching rural definition that I know of. It is unfortunately based on the planners interpretation of what would be inappropriate for the area in question.

There can sometimes be refusals based on intensification of septic tanks in a vulnerable area. Was that a factor?

Do you have an alternative nearby site?

My engineer said that the septic tank we were to install met all the separation distances with the neighbours tanks and wells. Its frustrating that this idea of 'density' is just one planners opinion!:mad:

Metric Tensor

It can meet all the required separation distances and still place too much of a load on a vulnerable aquifer.

But you haven't said whether the refusal is due to the effluent alone or over intensification of actual buildings in the landscape?

garbo speaks

My refusal just sited that the new house would be an "overdensification of a rural area". Nothing mentioned about house design or effluent.

Metric Tensor

Is it family land? Sounds like you'll need to try elsewhere on the farm.

My experience of effluent based refusals (not in Clare) is that they will give effluent and the aquifer as a reason.

garbo speaks

I think I will just appeal to an bord pleanala.

sydthebeat

garbo speaks wrote: »

I think I will just appeal to an bord pleanala.

Highly highly unlikely ABP will over turn a refusal based on over density of effluent treatment systems.

kieran.

Did you get an RFI or a straight refusal?

Metric Tensor

Without having seen the refusal I'd say an appeal to ABP would be very unlikely to succeed.

Read some of ABP's decisions - in straightforward cases like yours (simple things like houses) they look to see if the planning authority upheld the planning guidelines outlined in their own County Development Plan. Over intensification of rural dwellings is almost certainly included in the plan as an undesirable item. This leaves you trying to prove that your own development does not represent undesirable intensification. Possible in some cases but not easy.

Also, considering it's going to take ages and be very unlikely to succeed it might be worth cutting your loses and moving on to the next available site.

Metric Tensor

sydthebeat wrote: »

Highly highly unlikely ABP will over turn a refusal based on over density of effluent treatment systems.

To be fair Syd - I'm the one who brought up effluent. I don't think the refusal has anything to do with effluent in this case.

sydthebeat

I suppose we'd have to be given the exact wording of the refusal

garbo speaks

sydthebeat wrote: »

Highly highly unlikely ABP will over turn a refusal based on over density of effluent treatment systems.

How many times must I say that the refusal mentioned nothing about effluent treatment systems?

garbo speaks

Metric Tensor wrote: »

Without having seen the refusal I'd say an appeal to ABP would be very unlikely to succeed.

Read some of ABP's decisions - in straightforward cases like yours (simple things like houses) they look to see if the planning authority upheld the planning guidelines outlined in their own County Development Plan. Over intensification of rural dwellings is almost certainly included in the plan as an undesirable item. This leaves you trying to prove that your own development does not represent undesirable intensification. Possible in some cases but not easy.

Also, considering it's going to take ages and be very unlikely to succeed it might be worth cutting your loses and moving on to the next available site.

Well, it is unfair that for one planning application, one planner's opinion might deem the application to be over-densification, while on another day, another planner might have no problem with same. I understand the definition of ribbon development, and it is laid out in black and white, but density is completely undefined and essentially left to the whim of a planner. The rest of my planning was fine- design, entrance and treatment, but one persons opinion on density means refusal? I think this is very unfair.

sydthebeat

garbo speaks wrote: »

How many times must I say that the refusal mentioned nothing about effluent treatment systems?

Will you give us the exact refusal and reason please, because over density in rural areas tends to be specifically related to effluent treatment systems.

Metric Tensor

garbo speaks wrote: »

Well, it is unfair that for one planning application, one planner's opinion might deem the application to be over-densification, while on another day, another planner might have no problem with same. I understand the definition of ribbon development, and it is laid out in black and white, but density is completely undefined and essentially left to the whim of a planner. The rest of my planning was fine- design, entrance and treatment, but one persons opinion on density means refusal? I think this is very unfair.

It could be the opinion of every planner in Clare (or the country) for all you know.

Gumbo

garbo speaks wrote: »

Well, it is unfair that for one planning application, one planner's opinion might deem the application to be over-densification, while on another day, another planner might have no problem with same. I understand the definition of ribbon development, and it is laid out in black and white, but density is completely undefined and essentially left to the whim of a planner. The rest of my planning was fine- design, entrance and treatment, but one persons opinion on density means refusal? I think this is very unfair.

In fairness, it’s not one planners opinion.
It is the low level planner, then mid level planner and then the senior planner to agree or disagree.

It goes through the chain to avoid one person making decisions on their own.

You should scan up the wording of the refusal (blanking out private details of course) and the local rural lads on here will be able to give their opinion in greater context.

Think of it as a couple of architects opinions, a couple of engineers opinions for free might I add.

Metric Tensor

The OP briefly posted the wording earlier but decided to remove it again.

My interpretation of it was the planner decided there was a lot of houses willy nilly in the area already and to add another one would be pushing the area in a semi suburban type of set up when there are no services there to support it.

Based on that OP I think you'd be wasting your time with ABP if you have any other family land available. If this is the only site you have available then there's nothing to lose by going to ABP.

If you have the family farm maps then pick another site at the opposite end with less neighbours and give it a go again.