Site Notices

Home Forums Ireland Site Notices

Viewing 26 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
    • #709239
      Deaglan
      Participant

      guys, what’s the story concerning site notices? Recently a neighbour of mine applied for planning permission, what this entailed was description of development in newspaper and corresponding site notice, however, no application was lodged and two weeks later a notification of a new development appeared in the newspaper and on the date the plans were lodged, lo and behold the old site notice that was erected from the previous intention was removed and replaced with the new site notice.

      Is this all above board, so to speak?

    • #787669
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      nothing wrong with it. it would appear they put up the site and newspaper notice with an intention to lodge, but were delayed in preparing the application. The application has to be submitted within 2 weeks of the notices so if the 2 weeks ran out they would have to readvertise. The first set of notices are irrelevant.

    • #787670
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      If the description of the development in the newspaper notice differs from that on the site notice is this acceptable?

    • #787671
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      They have to have the same development description,

    • #787672
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      Yup. As nikmead says, the written description on the site notice must match the text as printed in the newspaper. Otherwise, it should be grounds for invalidation by the LA.

    • #787673
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      does it?
      you didnt mention it in your first post,

      they put up a site notice, and placed an ad.
      two weeks past
      so they placed a new ad, new site notice, and lodged an application?

      all good, if thats what happened

    • #787674
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      Not quite guys. The first site notice was erected on the 16th of December last, however, no application was lodged in lieu of this. The site notice remained in placed and on the 27th of Feburary a second site notice was placed over the one that originally was erected and an application was lodged with the LA on the same date.

      The site notice description and the newspaper description of the proposed development differ. It’s been 4 weeks and as it currently stand the application is still at the pre-validation stage.

      What piece of planning legislation may I consult to confirm what the requirements are in relation to newspaper notice and site notice corresponding?

    • #787675
      Anonymous
      Inactive
    • #787676
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      @Deaglan wrote:

      what this entailed was description of development in newspaper and corresponding site notice, however, no application was lodged and two weeks later a notification of a new development appeared in the newspaper and on the date the plans were lodged, lo and behold the old site notice that was erected from the previous intention was removed and replaced with the new site notice.

      Is this all above board, so to speak?

      What dates are on these ads, because you said they were 2 weeks apart, but the site notices are ten weeks apart. The newspaper ad has to be within 2 weeks of the lodgement. Is there a chance that you misssed a latest newspaper ad.

    • #787677
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      Nope, didn’t miss any planning notice in paper. I surveyed it religiously since I saw the initial ad. I deliberately left out the timespan betwwen these two applications, firstly because I felt no one would pay it any thought and secondly because it has already occurred in the past so I just placed it at 2 weeks in an attempt to make it less complicated, the first ad was actually in the required newspaper on the 13th of December last and the site notice was erected on the 16th.

      No application was lodged then, however, it is the newspaper notice and site notice both published and erected on the same date (Feurary 27th last) that gives me cause for concern, especially since the description on both differs.

    • #787678
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      the written description on the site notice must match the text as printed in the newspaper.

      I read through the planning and development regulations 2006 and specifically articles 17, 18, 19, and 20 and I fail to see where it outlines that both descriptions that are in the newspaper and on site notice must be worded the same. :confused:

      Am I missing something?

    • #787679
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      @Deaglan wrote:

      I read through the planning and development regulations 2006 and specifically articles 17, 18, 19, and 20 and I fail to see where it outlines that both descriptions that are in the newspaper and on site notice must be worded the same. :confused:

      Am I missing something?

      you don’t say which coco this comes under but to use Dublin as an example

      http://www.dublincity.ie/Images/Planning%20Application%20Form-Check%20List-Explanatory%20Notes%20Mar%2006_tcm35-34070.doc

      refer to the NB after clause 19.1.c in the application form checklist – “Is Information on Newspaper notice and Site Notice identical?” Section 7 of the form needs to be the same. Applications can be made in many different papers. There’s no need to place it in the same paper twice.

      Frankly I’m not sure what you’re on about – which seems to be a common thread in your posts, Deaglan. T

      Just go to the council and pay for a copy of the application. If there’s a newspaper ad in there then cool. If not then it should have been inlvalidated. Similarly, if the newspaper ad differs from the site notice and, of course, if the site notice lodged differs from that on the site (I’ve seen this sneaky move before to try to avoid objections, especially if it’s possible that a planning officer may not bother to get out of the car!)

      If there’s a discrepancy, pay your money and make your objection. If you’re too late contact someone who did object and point it out to them so they can appeal if necessary.

    • #787680
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      Cheers wearnicehats and everyone for your advice.
      I try to make simplify things but tend to over elaborate, So apologies to all.

    • #787681
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      I’ve just returned from the civic offices (North Tipperary County Council) and the application that I referred to has been validated as of yesterday. The description entailed in the newspaper notice and on the site notice are not the same and yet the application was validated. As it was at pre-validation since the 27/02/2007 I have only til monday to lodge a submission. I asked to speak with a planner/technician to ascertain why the application was vaildated when there are clearly discrepencies in the wording of both the newspaper and site notice but as expected no one was available.

      Has anyone any suggestions as to how I may address this particular element of the validation process by way of an observation. The development one I can manage. Thanks again all.

    • #787682
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      In what way are they different.
      They dont have to be word for word the same, just detail the same proposed works.

    • #787683
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      The difference is this. The newspaper notice is for planning permission for two storey extension to front and side/gable end of dwelling, whereas the site notice contains the following ‘two storey extension to side/gable end of dwelling’.

      The drawing for the above show that a two storey extension approximately 61″ in lenght is also proposed to the front with the gable end side extension and continuing on from the two storey side extension is a one storey extension to the side which is a further 32″ and this is worrying as the dwellings are local authority terraced housing aproximately 12metres lenght in frontage.

    • #787684
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      I’ve just received notification from the planning authority that permission is granted for the proposed development that was applied for in the application. I viewed the planners report and there is no mention whatsover regarding my submission highlighing the fact that the description of the newspaper notice and site notice concerning the proposed development were incompatible.

      I think that this is astonishing that such a fundemental point would be overlooked.

      I am also concerned that the development was fully granted as I assumed allowances might be made considering the magnitude of it in proportion to the terrace housing both adjoining and adjacent to it.

      I am at a loss as to what steps I should take from here. Obviously, I am not satisfied irregardless of the decision, that no one commented about the description of the site notice when it was deceptive.

      Is it worth lodging an appeal with an bord pleanala concerning this?

      Any advice you can offer would be most appreciated.

      Thanks.

    • #787685
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      You were clearly seeking to prevent this from getting planning.
      You may have well been right in your observation about the difference between the site and newspaper notices,
      but this isn’t reason for it to be refused planning, it would only need to be resubmitted. Which would take a day. Once a new site notice was up it could be resubbmitted, (as long it newspaper was still valid.
      it appears that this application was validated even though there may have been a small error in it.
      so this kind of ruled your observation out as after being validated the CC couldn’t overturn the validation.
      I dont see the point in appealing on validaton grounds, rather than planning grounds. and i dont know if it is even grounds for appeal

    • #787686
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      Bren88, I think your statement is unfair. if you read my submission you’d see that I actually commended the applicants on their proposed development. I am in favour of appoximately 80% of it. Only one element of it I felt did not harmonise with the architectural character of the area. That’s what I dealt with.

      As I stated, the site notice description was misleading and as a factor others may have been prevented from lodging a submission on the grounds that what they assumed was being proposed wouldn’t impact on their dwelings.

      I also felt that even though the application was validated that there should have been mention of the fact of what I brought to the attention of the planning authority regarding site/newspaper notices.

    • #787687
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      I think the only method of overturning this, by reference to the site notice issue, would be to seek leave for a judicial review, as a technical, legal error has been made. If you succeed in your review, the decision will be quashed. But of course they can relodge and get permission again. Otherwise you can appeal to An Bord for normal planning reasons as you outlined. Bren is right. Validation has nothing to do with the planner. It’s an admin function. He or she will never refer to it in the report, as validity is a given. It’s difficult to assess the problem without drawings. How significant was the difference? I read your post above and it’s still quite difficult to imagine it. Not your fault, it’s always poxy….

    • #787688
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      It’s not that I’m anti development alonso. That’s the truth. I live in an local authority housing estate and I am amazed that the front extension element of the proposed development was permitted. That’s the part that the site notice had no mention of. The dwelling in question is a gable end one on a terrace of four.

      I give up! Honestly. I just dont get what planners take into account when they make their decisions. I wrote to the planning authority regarding the site notice but my letter ended up in the planning file, that’s why I assumed it might be addressed there. Looks like no one’s likely to answer it now.

      Regarding the development. On the scale of the terraced housing, it is rather large and although I’ve only seen the drawings, it really looks out of place.

      I know, the easiest thing would be say, that’s it, live with it. 🙁

    • #787689
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      yeh I can see that. I didn ‘t really imply that you were anti-development. What you describe does actually sound like a very bad development. It is rare that the building line is allowed to be breached as you described, especially in a housing estate, which by virtue of it’s uniformity, creates a set pattern.

      (I gave up on Local Authority planners years ago, and I’m a planner myself!!! Check out an old thread on the Monkstown Ring Road here somewhere for some damning evidence)

      I think you have to seperate the two issues here. The site notice issue is a legal one, and at this stage can only be dealt with by the courts, as far as I know. I’m open to correction here. As I said, success in having the decision quashed may merely delay the development.

      An Appeal to An Bord Pleanala on pure planning grounds (forget about the site notice.. maybe mention it, but focus on the development) would seem, given your description, to be a worthy path. I would seriously consider doing this. It seems, from what you say, that you would have a case. I’m not saying you’ll win, but nothing ventured and all that…

    • #787690
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      As I understand it, if an observation is made, the planner dealing with the file should take that observation into account when making their decision.Notwithstanding the whole site notice issue, which seems like it might just have slipped through, maybe the planner decided that the grounds of your observation weren’t enough to refuse the application. Given that you’ve said you were notified of the decision, this surely means that your observation was noted on the file, and therefore should have been considered by the planner. Sounds like the planner simply didn’t agree. Did you make mention of other reasons why you felt the development wasn’t suitable in your observation, or was it simply the site notice issue ? (By the way, in my part of the country, unless the newspaper notice, site notice AND description on the Application Form match exactly, the application is invalidated immediately)

    • #787691
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      I did JB. I highlighted several factors concerning the proposed front extension aspect of the development as I was aware the aplication had been validated and therefore, I had to lodge an observation regarding the development too and not just focus on the site notice issue.

      I am considering appealing the decision regarding that aspect of the development. Has anyone any knowledge of what An Bord Pleanal may taken into account in an appeal and indeed what type of material ought I to use to address the particular element of the development that will look out of context in the estate.

      Thanks a lot all.

    • #787692
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      A front exrension is unusual, How big is it?
      from your comments i assume its bigger than the 2m or bay window and porches you see people building on.

    • #787693
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      It’s 1.5m so it doesnt breach the building line. However, what is most unusual is that is the lenght of it. The frontage of the terraced housing is appox 32ft and the extension element is proposing to run out to a lenght of 61ft, well past the gable end extension that’s been granted permission too, so it does look quite out of place with the character of the dwellings.

      Im not great at describing it and I don’t have access to attaching a drawing here, which would make it easier for you to judge.

      Any suggestions on what I could add about it if I appeal or is it worth pursuing?

    • #787694
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      if you give the council and the reference number, or prehaps the adress than the drawings could be on the web

Viewing 26 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Latest News