Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Dodgy Planning Permission

2

Comments

  • #32
    JustAThought
    Registered Users Posts: 5,323 ✭✭✭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


  • #33
    LawBoy2018
    Registered Users Posts: 1,162 ✭✭✭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? ;)


  • #34
    BattleCorp
    Registered Users Posts: 11,758 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #35
    LawBoy2018
    Registered Users Posts: 1,162 ✭✭✭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.


  • #36
    LawBoy2018
    Registered Users Posts: 1,162 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    to99
    Registered Users Posts: 105 ✭✭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.


  • #38
    1hnr79jr65
    Registered Users Posts: 916 ✭✭✭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.


  • #39
    TheBoyConor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,292 ✭✭✭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.


  • #40
    LawBoy2018
    Registered Users Posts: 1,162 ✭✭✭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.


  • #41
    TheBoyConor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,292 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    BattleCorp
    Registered Users Posts: 11,758 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #43
    LawBoy2018
    Registered Users Posts: 1,162 ✭✭✭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.


  • #44
    TheBoyConor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,292 ✭✭✭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.


  • #45
    BattleCorp
    Registered Users Posts: 11,758 ✭✭✭✭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)?


  • #46
    LawBoy2018
    Registered Users Posts: 1,162 ✭✭✭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.


  • #47
    BattleCorp
    Registered Users Posts: 11,758 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #48
    LawBoy2018
    Registered Users Posts: 1,162 ✭✭✭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.


  • #49
    LawBoy2018
    Registered Users Posts: 1,162 ✭✭✭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?


  • #50
    to99
    Registered Users Posts: 105 ✭✭to99


    That might just be because everything is delayed with Covid.


  • #51
    LawBoy2018
    Registered Users Posts: 1,162 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    LawBoy2018
    Registered Users Posts: 1,162 ✭✭✭LawBoy2018


    The website has updated and now provides that the CoCo have sought further information from the applicant.

    Looking forward to seeing what information they're referring to!


  • #53
    runawaybishop
    Registered Users Posts: 9,499 ✭✭✭runawaybishop


    LawBoy2018 wrote: »
    The website has updated and now provides that the CoCo have sought further information from the applicant.

    Looking forward to seeing what information they're referring to!

    Check if they have uploaded the letter they sent


  • #54
    LawBoy2018
    Registered Users Posts: 1,162 ✭✭✭LawBoy2018


    runawaybishop wrote: »
    Check if they have uploaded the letter they sent

    Nope, not yet! There seems to be a delay of 7 days from when the other documents were issued to when they were subsequently uploaded.


  • #55
    LawBoy2018
    Registered Users Posts: 1,162 ✭✭✭LawBoy2018


    Should an IPC licence be required for a quarry?


  • #56
    LawBoy2018
    Registered Users Posts: 1,162 ✭✭✭LawBoy2018


    An update re the planning permission!

    The most recent request for further information has been published, and the CoCo wants clarity re the following:

    1. The profile of the ground water level monitoring shows a significant difference in the ground water levels between borehole 1 and borehole 3, i.e. approx 3m over a distance of approx 100m. This is a significant hydraulic gradient that requires validation and a scientific explanation. Please examine and compare the data used in the delineation of the Source Protection Zone which was commissioned by the National Federation of Group Water Schemes and approved by GSI.

    2. The proposed excavation level of the quarry is 98m. The is below the winter water table level at BH 1. The abstraction and drainage of groundwater will have to be regulated in this instance. As the proposed area is located in a drinking water source protection area, this may pose a significant risk to the quality of water and may affect the zone of contribution of the abstraction. This would require careful examination and regulation and this is not properly addressed in the proposal.

    3. The proposed restoration plan will replace 500mm of overburden on the excavated quarry floor at 98mOD. This will render the groundwater vulnerability as 'extreme' in terms of the GSI classification. This creates a high risk for pollution transmission to the underlying groundwater. A depth of 3-5 metres of overburden would be classified as a 'high' vulnerability and this would be more suitable, however, minimal depth of protection for the water supply.

    4. Please give an approx. figure in tonnes/cubic metres of material to be removed in total from the application site area.


  • #57
    Ginger83
    Registered Users Posts: 3,414 ✭✭✭Ginger83


    The level of incompetence and then ignorance in some councils is amazing.


  • #58
    LawBoy2018
    Registered Users Posts: 1,162 ✭✭✭LawBoy2018


    Ginger83 wrote: »
    The level of incompetence and then ignorance in some councils is amazing.

    It seems like double Dutch to me if I'm being honest!


  • #59
    Ginger83
    Registered Users Posts: 3,414 ✭✭✭Ginger83


    LawBoy2018 wrote: »
    It seems like double Dutch to me if I'm being honest!

    How can you appeal if a decision has not been made yet?


  • #60
    LawBoy2018
    Registered Users Posts: 1,162 ✭✭✭LawBoy2018


    Ginger83 wrote: »
    How can you appeal if a decision has not been made yet?

    I can't! I'll need to wait until a decision has been made.


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    Lenar3556
    Registered Users Posts: 1,346 ✭✭✭Lenar3556


    Ginger83 wrote: »
    How can you appeal if a decision has not been made yet?

    There is a window to make a ‘submission’ to the local authority which the OP tells us has now past. It is generally necessary to show evidence of having made a submission in order to subsequently lodge an appeal against a decision to an bord pleanala.

    Without having in the first instance made a submission, your options to intervene / object to the development are significantly narrowed.


Advertisement