Withdrawn planning application protocols

Parawata

Hi, question on normal procedures when an applicant withdraws a planning application and submits a new one within days. Sorry for the length btw.

Posted on this over a year and a half ago https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057918044.

So the neighbour ended up submitting two retention applications for the same thing each with a lot of factual porkies, second just slightly less than the first.

We objected to the first pointing out the inaccuracies. They were asked to respond and basically doubled down, this time elaborating the lies told in the first. i.e. although commercial in nature they went as far as to suggest it was the previous owner who illegally used a house as a commerical site even though at a casual glance you could tell it was an old barn. They also insisted buildings they had built were there the whole time. Things are basically warehouses at nearly 3000sq ft.

We provided satellite photo's timestamped before and after which clearly showed they were new. We also proved it was a commercial site amongst other things.

They then withdraw the application. A couple of days later a new application went in, again seeking to retain the same as before and still claiming all buildings were existing. Only change they made was to dispense with the insistence that an obvious barn was previously a house.

So we again objected citing references to our previous objection that they never replied to. Note The council site clearly showed the links to the previous application referencing it as related application. Because of this we didn't resubmit our previous objection, just referenced all the points that had never been answered. As they already had it we didn't think we needed to send it again.

So the council made their decision. Full retention of everything, no questions asked. He wasn't even asked to respond to our objection.

The council told us as it was a new application it was judged on it's own merits and ignored the fact he had adapted it to counter one of our original main objections (changing commercial to residential) even using terminology from our original objection in his new application. It also directly contradicted his original application.

Our previous objections were ignored. Even though they were on the related application they didn't exist as far as the council are concerned because it was withdrawn and would therefore not be considered for the new application. As our latest objection relied 100% on this for references it became worthless.

I had even called the council before making a new objection after he withdrew asking what it meant and they simply said you need to object to the new application. Never mentioned that I needed to repeat everything we'd already said.

Is this standard council planning legislation? Seems insane that despite the council site linking the two as related and the second application applying for the exact same as the first, the first application for all intents & purposes ceases to exist. And provides a massive loophole that encourages you to lie your a** off safe in the knowledge you can just withdraw and reframe to counter the objections.

As I said in my original thread the applicant is local to the area, the family are well known, a well known councillor even endorsed the original retention application to demonstrate he was a pillar of the local community for local needs (which was dropped as he owns a few more houses in the area). The same councillor is good friends with his whole family.

Gumbo

Parawata wrote: »

Hi, question on normal procedures when an applicant withdraws a planning application and submits a new one within days. Sorry for the length btw.

Posted on this over a year and a half ago https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057918044.

So the neighbour ended up submitting two retention applications for the same thing each with a lot of factual porkies, second just slightly less than the first.

We objected to the first pointing out the inaccuracies. They were asked to respond and basically doubled down, this time elaborating the lies told in the first. i.e. although commercial in nature they went as far as to suggest it was the previous owner who illegally used a house as a commerical site even though at a casual glance you could tell it was an old barn. They also insisted buildings they had built were there the whole time. Things are basically warehouses at nearly 3000sq ft.

We provided satellite photo's timestamped before and after which clearly showed they were new. We also proved it was a commercial site amongst other things.

They then withdraw the application. A couple of days later a new application went in, again seeking to retain the same as before and still claiming all buildings were existing. Only change they made was to dispense with the insistence that an obvious barn was previously a house.

So we again objected citing references to our previous objection that they never replied to. Note The council site clearly showed the links to the previous application referencing it as related application. Because of this we didn't resubmit our previous objection, just referenced all the points that had never been answered. As they already had it we didn't think we needed to send it again.

So the council made their decision. Full retention of everything, no questions asked. He wasn't even asked to respond to our objection.

The council told us as it was a new application it was judged on it's own merits and ignored the fact he had adapted it to counter one of our original main objections (changing commercial to residential) even using terminology from our original objection in his new application. It also directly contradicted his original application.

Our previous objections were ignored. Even though they were on the related application they didn't exist as far as the council are concerned because it was withdrawn and would therefore not be considered for the new application. As our latest objection relied 100% on this for references it became worthless.

I had even called the council before making a new objection after he withdrew asking what it meant and they simply said you need to object to the new application. Never mentioned that I needed to repeat everything we'd already said.

Is this standard council planning legislation? Seems insane that despite the council site linking the two as related and the second application applying for the exact same as the first, the first application for all intents & purposes ceases to exist. And provides a massive loophole that encourages you to lie your a** off safe in the knowledge you can just withdraw and reframe to counter the objections.

As I said in my original thread the applicant is local to the area, the family are well known, a well known councillor even endorsed the original retention application to demonstrate he was a pillar of the local community for local needs (which was dropped as he owns a few more houses in the area). The same councillor is good friends with his whole family.

A Planner cannot carry over objection from a previous Application to a new Application.
You, as the objector must object again stating all of your previous points.

You can go to ABP if you wish?

Parawata

kceire wrote: »

A Planner cannot carry over objection from a previous Application to a new Application.
You, as the objector must object again stating all of your previous points.

You can go to ABP if you wish?

Hi KCeire, thanks for confirming that. Yeah guessed as much, just couldn't understand why the council would refer to it in the new application if they weren't going to use it, or mention that to us when we called. Seems a bit mental to ignore all this information that is still relevant.

Bit gutted by the whole thing to be honest but not sure if we want to go any further. As in my original OP we never wanted them not to be able to live there, just wanted a liveable compromise for both parties.

My understanding of ABP is if they rule against them they'll have no recourse if they lost the appeal, i.e. they couldn't reapply seeking to retain just some of the development?

Thanks

Gumbo

Parawata wrote: »

Hi KCeire, thanks for confirming that. Yeah guessed as much, just couldn't understand why the council would refer to it in the new application if they weren't going to use it, or mention that to us when we called. Seems a bit mental to ignore all this information that is still relevant.

Bit gutted by the whole thing to be honest but not sure if we want to go any further. As in my original OP we never wanted them not to be able to live there, just wanted a liveable compromise for both parties.

My understanding of ABP is if they rule against them they'll have no recourse if they lost the appeal, i.e. they couldn't reapply seeking to retain just some of the development?

Thanks

They have to refer to it in both the planners report and recommendation on decision. Some councils will also refer to previous applications on their public website.