planning notice removal
- This topic has 5 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 8 months ago by Anonymous.
November 13, 2007 at 12:02 pm #709682lisaParticipant
I’ve just been speaking to council who’ve advised me that all site notices should now , under new regulations, state : THIS SITE NOTICE SHALL BE REMOVED AFTER NOTIFICATION OF PLANNING AUTHORITY DECISION
I can’t see anything on the DOE website. Does anyone know anything about this?
November 13, 2007 at 12:26 pm #795762AnonymousInactive
A quick Google turned up this:
A SITE NOTICE SHALL BE MAINTAINED IN POSITION ON THE LAND OR STRUCTURE CONCERNED FOR A PERIOD OF 5 WEEKS FROM THE DATE OF RECEIPT OF THE PLANNING APPLICATION BY THE PLANNING AUTHORITY AND SHALL BE RENEWED OR REPLACED IF IT IS REMOVED OR BECOMES DEFACED OR ILLEGIBLE WITHIN THAT PERIOD. THE SITE NOTICE SHALL BE REMOVED BY THE APPLICANT FOLLOWING THE NOTIFICATION OF THE PLANNING AUTHORITIES DECISION AS PER ARTICLE 31 OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS 2001-2007.
Having had a quick look, it doesn’t appear to be in Article 31 of the original P&D Regulations 2001, so it must have been an amendment since then. I haven’t time to look further, but hopefully this will point you in the right direction.
November 13, 2007 at 1:05 pm #795763AnonymousInactive
SI 685 of 2006 (Planning and Development Regs) show:
Time limits for site notice.
In addition to the requirements of article 17(1)(b), a site notice shall be maintained in position on the land or structure concerned for a period of 5 weeks from the date of receipt of the planning application by the planning authority, shall be renewed or replaced if it is removed or becomes defaced or illegible within that period and shall be removed by the applicant following the notification of the planning authority decision under article 31.
This does not say that that this statement must be reproduced on the site notice itself….
perhaps its another example of a LA trying to subvert the planning laws… wouldnt be the first time…
November 13, 2007 at 1:18 pm #795764AnonymousInactive
I know – the council I spoke to have this specified on their sample notice – couldn’t turn it up on any others though. It may be something that’s going to come in, but jgoing on the text of the regulations, it is yet another interpretation of the by one LA which is not actually compulsory under legislation. The thing is, if one LA starts it, the rest may follow.
November 13, 2007 at 2:08 pm #795765AnonymousInactive
can the council not direct you to the exact legislation they are supposedly working from??
If they cannot perhaps inform them that you are apprehensive about including something on the site notice thats not required by law, for fear that the planning decision may be open to legal challenge afterwards. Their response would be interesting.
November 13, 2007 at 11:57 pm #795766AnonymousInactive
Fingal Co Co include it on their website download site notice too . However , I see that the “Form no 1” text ( site notice) in the SI does NOT include “the site notice shall be removed …. etc ” . wording .
I guess the LA’s will invoke 19 1 (A) which states Form 1 “or a form substantially to the like effect”
Anyone else think it curious that the whilst the “application may be purchased” line in the newspaper ad now must include ” for a fee not exceeding the cost of making a copy” , whereas the site notice does not have to say this?
The SI 600 2001 regs DO require the ” for a fee not exceeding the cost of making a copy” in the case of advert for response to request for additional information ( Art 35 1 c iV ) …..
What’s the betting that some civil servant will see fit to discover this shocking “ommision” and that another SI will issue , we won’t all spot this and ….. more invalidations …. We have taken to including the phrase in our ads and site notice text in this office .
All of this is tedium extremium , a box tickers delight . And the stuff of extreme frustration when we all work so hard to make deadlines to have it all washed away with invalidations relating to such petty tediums
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.