Dodgy Planning Permission

LawBoy2018

Would it be strange for an environmental consultant to describe a house as a 'derelict dwelling', even if that's not the case and a family live there?

The property in question is in close vicinity to a proposed 'Extraction of Material' operation, i.e. a quarry.

Any help would be greatly appreciated!

Thanks

Peregrinus

Yes, it would be strange, if at the time he used the term the house was in fact in active and open use as a residence. "Derelict" means "abaondoned".

There might of course be other facts or some context relevant to this that you don't know or aren't mentioning. So it's hard to jump from two words from an environmental report quoted in isolation to a conclusion that a planning permission that is presumably linked in some unstated way to that report is "dodgy".

nuac

The Planning Office usually queries and returns a material misdescription

LawBoy2018

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yes, it would be strange, if at the time he used the term the house was in fact in active and open use as a residence. "Derelict" means "abaondoned".

There might of course be other facts or some context relevant to this that you don't know or aren't mentioning. So it's hard to jump from two words from an environmental report quoted in isolation to a conclusion that a planning permission that is presumably linked in some unstated way to that report is "dodgy".

Apologies for the delay in getting back to you sir, thanks for the reply! I'm a complete nube when it comes to planning permission so this is all quite new to me.

X company is seeking planning permission to extract x tonnes of gravel/sand/etc. from a hill they purchased back in 2018.

My instinct is telling me that their environmental planner foresaw issues with noise/dust/etc. as the 'derelict' property in question is within 100 meters from the proposed site. The young family in question moved into the property back in 2019, but the planning application was made in 2020. Even if the house did happen to be empty, it's the newest house in the village? I would have presumed that the term 'derelict' would mean that the property had in fact been abandoned/was in ruin.

Surely the Council would have some sort of system in place whereby they'd cross-reference the maps provided by an applicant with their own records? The house is question has an Eircode like?

Peregrinus

"Derelict" means abandoned. It doesn't necessarily mean "in ruins", though an abandoned house will pretty quickly fall into ruin, so you would generally assume that a derelict house was also in ruins, or well on the way to being so.

I don't think the planning authority fact-checks all the submissions it receives. That would involve a lot of work and expense, and would greatly increase the delay and cost involved in getting planning permission.

The system assumes that anyone with an interest in the matter will draw relevant information to the Council's attention. Any member of the public can make a submission, so there's nothing to stop someone pointing out to the Council that the house is not, fact, derelict but is a recent construction, occupied and in use as a family home. Someone like the people living in the house, for example.

LawBoy2018

Peregrinus wrote: »

"Derelict" means abandoned. It doesn't necessarily mean "in ruins", though an abandoned house will pretty quickly fall into ruin, so you would generally assume that a derelict house was also in ruins, or well on the way to being so.

I don't think the planning authority fact-checks all the submissions it receives. That would involve a lot of work and expense, and would greatly increase the delay and cost involved in getting planning permission.

The system assumes that anyone with an interest in the matter will draw relevant information to the Council's attention. Any member of the public can make a submission, so there's nothing to stop someone pointing out to the Council that the house is not, fact, derelict but is a recent construction, occupied and in use as a family home. Someone like the people living in the house, for example.

The planning application seems to be in its final stages so the submission period has well passed. Might the foregoing be grounds to appeal the planning permission, if granted? (presuming the other requirements are satisfied)

TheBoyConor

Don't let the submission date being passed put you off notifying the apparent inaccuracy to the council.
Maybe just send in a letter about it anyway, asking the planners to check this and consider this in its decision on the application. You could get on to them with a phone call too to inform them or follow up on the letter.

LawBoy2018

TheBoyConor wrote: »

Don't let the submission date being passed put you off notifying the apparent inaccuracy to the council.
Maybe just send in a letter about it anyway, asking the planners to check this and consider this in its decision on the application. You could get on to them with a phone call too to inform them or follow up on the letter.

I tried calling the County Council last week to find out more, but they said it would not be possible to speak with the planners directly.

Tbh I don't want to rock the boat too much, the field/hill in question was purchased for a large sum of money for the sole purpose of extracting sand/gravel. It's just unfortunate that the land in question is adjacent to my family home!

Hopefully the noise/dust emissions aren't too severe. The proposed term for the permission is 15 years.

Thoie

Rock the boat as much as you want. A quarry 100m from the house will create a huge amount of dust/noise. They probably won't be stopped from doing it, but the permission may be granted with conditions such as air quality monitoring/dust reduction measures, etc.

The environmental report could have been done years earlier. The county council won't cross reference every location, so at the moment no-one other than you knows about the young family right next door.

Send a registered letter (keep a copy for yourself) making them aware of the error in the report, and ask that it be taken into consideration in the decision. 15 years is a long time to regret not sending a letter

brian_t

In 15 years time they might apply for a further 15 years.

TheBoyConor

Do not let it go. A quarry that close to your house will massively harm the value of your house, and your standard of living in it.
Who would want to live in a house because a quarry where you have loads of dust, noise, and a constant stream of lorries and machinery coming and going all day everyday.

Absolutely get that registered letter to the planning department ASAP. I would even say get onto a planning consultant and have them prepare the letter on your behalf as a matter of urgency, cos they will know the right way to word it and the right terminology to use
.
How could anyone believe a fairly below built house was derelict. I wonder was it a mistake on purpose?

Getting a planning consultant to write your letter will cost a few hundred but it is money well spent.. The quarry that close to your house could knock 25% off is value. Easily.

Get on this immediately. There is no time to waste.

LawBoy2018

Thank you to all of the above posters for your encouraging words, I really appreciate it!

Upon your advice, I bit the bullet last night and sent a preliminary email to the planning section of the CoCo, bringing the issue re the 'derelict dwelling' to their attention.

I have decided that if the local authority grants the planing permission without any caveats, I will challenge their determination via the 'leave to appeal' route as I would be confident that we would meet the relevant criteria.

15 years is far too long to be listening to lorries coming and going from 7am-6pm every day.

In their initial application, the company also alluded to the possibility that they may conduct 'screening' on the site. Would I be correct in thinking that 'screening' is the smashing of rocks? lol.

The grounds on which I will be challenging the permission, if granted, are:

- Dust emissions (3/5 members of my family have sever asthma)
- Traffic congestion (our road is too narrow to even fit a double line markings)
- Excessive noise in what would be otherwise a tranquil area

There was also a well within the site that people in the area used to use, but the company has since buried it in stones/gravel.

I got an email from the CoCo this morning, confirming receipt of my email and that it is 'receiving attention'.

I'll keep you all posted! It might not go anywhere but we'll see what happens

Thanks again! You've all been great.

TheBoyConor

Fair play for sending the email. But in your shoes I would certainly follow up with a planning consultant, and all them to look into the planning issues around this application and have them submit an observation/objection on your behalf. As I said, they will know the right things to say and highlight on the letter so that the council will give it proper attention.

A few hundred euros on this works be money very well spent. I can't stress this enough.

LawBoy2018

TheBoyConor wrote: »

Fair play for sending the email. But in your shoes I would certainly follow up with a planning consultant, and all them to look into the planning issues around this application and have them submit an observation/objection on your behalf. As I said, they will know the right things to say and highlight on the letter so that the council will give it proper attention.

A few hundred euros on this works be money very well spent. I can't stress this enough.

Thanks for the advice, I really appreciate it! Will begin looking into this immediately.

brian_t

brian_t wrote: »

In 15 years time they might apply for a further 15 years.

30 years or more of reversing lorries beeping warning sound which can be heard from a kilometre away. Dust being thrown up and travelling kilometers. Potholes appearing large quantities on every road approaching the quarry.
After that if the quarry is exhausted they won't push the earth back to return it to agricultural use.
That is my experience of Quarries where I come from.

If you fail to get the Quarry stopped don't think of buying a darker coloured car as they show the dirt from the filthy roads and assume that you'll have scratches on the nearside of the car from having to pulling in to the ditch to avoid the Lorries barreling past you.

ax530

I would be worried about structural damage if house within 100m quarry when blasting

LawBoy2018

ax530 wrote: »

I would be worried about structural damage if house within 100m quarry when blasting

Ok I am officially spooked... I thought I was the one being awkward raising the potential issues with the CoCo. Obviously I was being naive.

If it is just gravel they are after they won't be blasting but that is little consolation when you have a busy quarry near you.

brian_t

TheBoyConor wrote: »

Don't let the submission date being passed put you off notifying the apparent inaccuracy to the council.

TheBoyConor wrote: »

I would certainly follow up with a planning consultant, and all them to look into the planning issues around this application and have them submit an observation/objection on your behalf...

A few hundred euros on this works be money very well spent. I can't stress this enough.

If the submission date has passed then surely it's too late to make any objection other then for inaccuracies.

The OP will now have to wait until after Planning Permission has been granted and appeal to An Bord Pleanála.

http://www.pleanala.ie/guide/appeal_guide.htm#C33

1hnr79jr65

I would be concerned about changes to water runoff, land subsidence/shifting affecting the structure of your home or ground pollutants affecting water supply if you have a well.

LawBoy2018

brian_t wrote: »

If the submission date has passed then surely it's too late to make any objection other then for inaccuracies.

The OP will now have to wait until after Planning Permission has been granted and appeal to An Bord Pleanála.

http://www.pleanala.ie/guide/appeal_guide.htm#C33

Yes exactly, there's no point worrying until the permission has actually been granted. We'll have 4 weeks from the day the decision is made to appeal, provided we can satisfy the requirements for said appeal.

LawBoy2018

Sour Lemonz wrote: »

I would be concerned about changes to water runoff, land subsidence/shifting affecting the structure of your home or ground pollutants affecting water supply if you have a well.

That's interesting. The company made a previous application back in 2018 which was subsequently withdrawn and the local authority seemed to be quite concerned re the potential for water pollution.

Might that be why they buried the well back in October before submitting a new application?

1hnr79jr65

LawBoy2018 wrote: »

That's interesting. The company made a previous application back in 2018 which was subsequently withdrawn and the local authority seemed to be quite concerned re the potential for water pollution.

Might that be why they buried the well back in October before submitting a new application?

Certainly worth a look again in relation to water pollution potential. Also if land shifting happens cos of removing of layers from ground could cause ground to move and damage or destroy house.

to99

I recall reading a case once where the pollution affecting a household's washing out on the line constituted a nuisance.

I'd imagine the washing line will be destroyed from the quarry.

1hnr79jr65

LawBoy2018 wrote: »

Thanks for the info, I'll be sure to raise those issues with the planning consultant!

In all honesty, it's probably unlikely that the CoCo would reject the planning application in its entirety. I'm just hoping that some of the issues associated with the project may be mitigated somehow. What do you think?

You could go the route of bringing legal proceedings with option of the quarry company buying out your property at a price that mutually agreeable due to health concerns and other items discussed here.

BattleCorp

Seeing as you are only 100m away from the quarry I'd be pretty worried about silicosis for yourself and family members.

https://www.hse.gov.uk/quarries/silica.htm

BattleCorp

LawBoy2018 wrote: »

I would be apprehensive to bring legal action as I work in a law firm and would be concerned about the optics, if I were to be named in any articles.

Thanks for the suggestion though!

I'd be far more worried about the health implications than being worried about optics.

LawBoy2018

BattleCorp wrote: »

Seeing as you are only 100m away from the quarry I'd be pretty worried about silicosis for yourself and family members.

https://www.hse.gov.uk/quarries/silica.htm

I've come across this point while researching dust emissions. Have there been any studies done re how far the silica dust can travel?

Even that article says, "No cases of silicosis have been documented among members of the general public in Great Britain, indicating that environmental exposures to silica dust are not sufficiently high to cause this occupational disease."

BattleCorp

I'm not sure to be honest. It's not something I've researched. I've only looked at it among workers and not people who live adjacent to a quarry.

Here's one study of two communities living near a quarry.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3885176/

LawBoy2018

BattleCorp wrote: »

I'm not sure to be honest. It's not something I've researched. I've only looked at it among workers and not people who live adjacent to a quarry.

Here's one study of two communities living near a quarry.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3885176/

Perfect, thanks for the link! Much appreciated.

Upon reflection, I feel like it was quite rude for the company not to approach my family and I before submitting the application, despite naming us several times in their EIA and associated correspondence.

Well, they're going to be in for a shock Full steam ahead..

1hnr79jr65

Might also be worth contacting any groups who would be interested in the environmental impact of the quarry action. Also walking or hunting groups that may use the land, could cause more legal challenges and headaches for the quarry company.

JustAThought

You should explore the issue of the well and them dmaging g or re-routing a water source. There are lots of environmental agencies interested in water courses and sources and pollutants of- a google should throw up a lot of resources OUtSIDE of council and uisce ireland companies.

The twenty or so families in north county dublin whose houses are falling into the sea due to extreme coastal errosion ( dunabate area) will NOT be protected or saved not allowed to errect their own coastal errosion defences even as their walls fall into the beach below. Fhe reason? Coastal defences that wouod protect their homes would also affect the waterflow and have a knock on effect on the watercourses a few hundred meters up the beach - thereby affecting the feeding grounds and nests of wildfowl and birds and an EU protected area in a marina € esturary.

The well may also be one of the historic and culturally significant ones protected as historically or archeologicLly of interest - you’d ve surprised how many random ricks and dolmens and mounds fall into this category.

Don’t overlook anything - and include everything.

Is there a path nearby where people walk ( or none?) - is there photo evidence of stones from the back of trucks flying off and being a potential risk to pedestrians?

Or drivers driving with all eyes down on their phone/ devices while running up to, entring or leaving the quarry? On a narrow shred traffic space that cannot admit two cars?

etc

LawBoy2018

Ok lads, an update... So yesterday when I checked the 'Decision Progress Indicator' on the ePlanning webpage, it was at 98%.

Just checked there, it's at 25%? Might it be a glitch? Or has the party begun?

BattleCorp

LawBoy2018 wrote: »

Ok lads, an update... So yesterday when I checked the 'Decision Progress Indicator' on the ePlanning webpage, it was at 98%.

Just checked there, it's at 25%? Might it be a glitch? Or has the party begun?

Don't count your chickens just yet. You are at the start of a journey, not the end.

LawBoy2018

JustAThought wrote: »

You should explore the issue of the well and them dmaging g or re-routing a water source. There are lots of environmental agencies interested in water courses and sources and pollutants of- a google should throw up a lot of resources OUtSIDE of council and uisce ireland companies.

The twenty or so families in north county dublin whose houses are falling into the sea due to extreme coastal errosion ( dunabate area) will NOT be protected or saved not allowed to errect their own coastal errosion defences even as their walls fall into the beach below. Fhe reason? Coastal defences that wouod protect their homes would also affect the waterflow and have a knock on effect on the watercourses a few hundred meters up the beach - thereby affecting the feeding grounds and nests of wildfowl and birds and an EU protected area in a marina € esturary.

The well may also be one of the historic and culturally significant ones protected as historically or archeologicLly of interest - you’d ve surprised how many random ricks and dolmens and mounds fall into this category.

Don’t overlook anything - and include everything.

Is there a path nearby where people walk ( or none?) - is there photo evidence of stones from the back of trucks flying off and being a potential risk to pedestrians?

Or drivers driving with all eyes down on their phone/ devices while running up to, entring or leaving the quarry? On a narrow shred traffic space that cannot admit two cars?

etc

This is extremely helpful, thank you very much! I will most definitely be mentioning all of this to the planning consultant.

LawBoy2018

BattleCorp wrote: »

Don't count your chickens just yet. You are at the start of a journey, not the end.

I agree 100%. The acknowledgement email I got from the planning board had a number included at the bottom and the name of the relevant planner, I will be giving her a call in the morning.

to99

LawBoy2018 wrote: »

I agree 100%. The acknowledgement email I got from the planning board had a number included at the bottom and the name of the relevant planner, I will be giving her a call in the morning.

You might consider getting your local cllrs and TDs on to this.

A little bit of political pressure never hurt.

1hnr79jr65

Just another thought, look into contacting wildlife conservation groups to see if there are any protected or nesting species in the area which would also be affected. Anything you can use as ammo and all that.

TheBoyConor

brian_t wrote: »

If the submission date has passed then surely it's too late to make any objection other then for inaccuracies.

The OP will now have to wait until after Planning Permission has been granted and appeal to An Bord Pleanála.

http://www.pleanala.ie/guide/appeal_guide.htm#C33

The official submission date is passed yes, but I wouldn't let that stop you making a submission all the same. Get your consultant, get them to go through the application docs with a fine tooth comb and have them get the letter wrote in ASAP by registered post.
There might be some hope that they'd consider it especially if the application documents were inaccurate or there were mistakes. If so they would be making their decision on flawed information, and surely they would be open to considering the importance of flawed information.

IF no joy after that , they absolutely appeal the decision to ABP.

Another very important thing, even if there is no blasting, if they are excavating down and having to pump water out of the quarry that will have a massive draw down effect on the local water table for quite a distance around - certainly 100m will be within the radius of influence. Obviously this could render a well useless but a more serious consideration is that massive changes in the water table can cause fairly significant settlement of the ground. The extent of this would depend on the type of soil in the area. It could have huge consequences for your house's structural integrity.

LawBoy2018

TheBoyConor wrote: »

The official submission date is passed yes, but I wouldn't let that stop you making a submission all the same. Get your consultant, get them to go through the application docs with a fine tooth comb and have them get the letter wrote in ASAP by registered post.
There might be some hope that they'd consider it especially if the application documents were inaccurate or there were mistakes. If so they would be making their decision on flawed information, and surely they would be open to considering the importance of flawed information.

IF no joy after that , they absolutely appeal the decision to ABP.

Another very important thing, even if there is no blasting, if they are excavating down and having to pump water out of the quarry that will have a massive draw down effect on the local water table for quite a distance around - certainly 100m will be within the radius of influence. Obviously this could render a well useless but a more serious consideration is that massive changes in the water table can cause fairly significant settlement of the ground. The extent of this would depend on the type of soil in the area. It could have huge consequences for your house's structural integrity.

Could a local authority be sued for negligence if it proceeded to grant planning permission without having regard to a crucial discrepancy within the application which was brought to their attention prior to the granting said permission? My instinct says potentially.

TheBoyConor

I don't know. But it does sound plausible at least.
A planning consultant would now more about that.

But either way, if the quarry goes ahead and there is subsidence to your house that can be attributed to the quarry, then you would 100% win a claim for damages. Or if they make your well useless, then absolutely 100% , they would be responsible for providing you with a new water supply, or at least bearing the cost of it.

BattleCorp

LawBoy2018 wrote: »

Could a local authority be sued for negligence if it proceeded to grant planning permission without having regard to a crucial discrepancy within the application which was brought to their attention prior to the granting said permission? My instinct says potentially.

It's quite possible that nobody did anything wrong here.

The house may well have been abandoned (either unfinished or unoccupied) when the Environmental Consultant did his report so he may have done nothing wrong.

The Council usually only consider planning based on the documents in front of them so they may not have done anything wrong either.

LawBoy2018

BattleCorp wrote: »

It's quite possible that nobody did anything wrong here.

The house may well have been abandoned (either unfinished or unoccupied) when the Environmental Consultant did his report so he may have done nothing wrong.

The Council usually only consider planning based on the documents in front of them so they may not have done anything wrong either.

But the EIA report was submitted in November, so presumably it's irrelevant as to when the report was conducted as it should have been considered by the Council as of the date of submission.

The property in question was only granted planning permission back in 2006 and a simple search on the land registry would show that it was purchased by the current owners back in 2018.

TheBoyConor

Yeah but what LawBoy is saying is that if a significant discrepancy was found in the application that made a material difference to the effect of the development on the surroundings, and this was brought to the attention of the council after the submission closing date, then would they be negligent or reckless if they made their KNOWINGLY made their planning decision based on inaccurate or misleading information in the documents.

From my knowledge of the P&D regs, the submission date is only relevant for the bit on newspaper notices and site notices. To my (albeit not completely comprehensive) knowledge there is nothing definite to say that a council must not include any information received after the submission date to inform their decision.

All well and good if they were not aware of it, but if they were aware of it, ignored it and carried on regardless, that is a very different matter.

I doubt the council could be held liable for any damage to the house on account of the quarry, as it was the actions of the quarry that cause the damage - the quarry would be liable.
Similarly, any effect on health would be as a direct result of the quarry operator, so they would be mostly liable, not the council.

However, I wonder could some smaller portion of blame be apportioned to the council for knowingly granting permission on the basis of flawed information, therefore allowing the situation to to occur and knowing that there was a reasonable chance of structural damage or environmental nuisance to the residents.

I wonder could the planning grant be invalidated or overturned by the courts?

I think that is something for the courts to decide. There would be a lot of complexities to it.

BattleCorp

LawBoy2018 wrote: »

But the EIA report was submitted in November, so presumably it's irrelevant as to when the report was conducted as it should have been considered by the Council as of the date of submission.

The property in question was only granted planning permission back in 2006 and a simple search on the land registry would show that it was purchased by the current owners back in 2018.

Sorry, I may have made a mistake. I thought that the Environmental Report was carried out in 2018 when the site was bought and therefore before the house was occupied which would make the Environmental Report accurate. Obviously if it was carried out after the house was occupied, it would be inaccurate.

What's the date on the Environmental Report (not the date it was submitted)?

LawBoy2018

BattleCorp wrote: »

Sorry, I may have made a mistake. I thought that the Environmental Report was carried out in 2018 when the site was bought and therefore before the house was occupied which would make the Environmental Report accurate. Obviously if it was carried out after the house was occupied, it would be inaccurate.

What's the date on the Environmental Report (not the date it was submitted)?

No bother at all. The date on the report is October 2020.

BattleCorp

LawBoy2018 wrote: »

No bother at all. The date on the report is October 2020.

Looks like an inaccurate report so. Another weapon in your arsenal to go to the Council with. Include a bill with your current address from 2019 as proof that the house was occupied when pointing out that the Env. Report is incorrect.

LawBoy2018

BattleCorp wrote: »

Looks like an inaccurate report so. Another weapon in your arsenal to go to the Council with. Include a bill with your current address from 2019 as proof that the house was occupied when pointing out that the Env. Report is incorrect.

My home is actually 150m from the quarry, I live on the other side. It's my neighbours who live in the house within 100m of the proposed development. Our land surrounds the majority of the development but most of that land is for agricultural use.

LawBoy2018

Well lads, an update re the planning application!

After submitting an email last Friday re the 'derelict dwelling' issue, the local authority got back to me and said it was far too late to make a submission or express an observation. They said that if I'm unhappy with the CoCo's decision, that I could appeal the decision as a landowner with property adjacent to the proposed development.

I thanked the planner and politely asked her where the costs of such an appeal would lie, where a local authority failed to address a discrepancy in a planning application, despite the discrepancy being brought to their attention prior to a decision being made..

I never got a reply but the decision was due to be made yesterday, 9 March, and today, the 'Decision Progress Indicator' provides that the decision is now on hold. Thoughts?

to99

That might just be because everything is delayed with Covid.

LawBoy2018

to99 wrote: »

That might just be because everything is delayed with Covid.

That was my first thought too! I know next to nothing about how the planning permission process operates on a practical basis.