Granted Outline Planning but now refused Full Planning

Just an enquiry. Just got a refusal on a site when going for full planning. Reason given was for public health and safety. Basically site did not pass perculation test. Although we provided plans for a extensive bio treatment unit and raised bed system, they refused planning.

Do they have to give planning permission if outline planning permission has been granted. And we applied consequent to the outline permission within the 3 year time limit.
Thinking of appealing the decision. Any advice would be great thanks

the reason you did not get planning is for the reason as outlined by the planners. Outline planning does not get into the exact specifics of the actual property and system of the build which when planning was lodged is where you ran into problems.

you have been told that in general the planners have no major problem with a planning application for the site so all you need to do is sort out the design of a sewage system that works on your site to local authority guidelines and you should have no problem

thanks for you post. Would that involve appealing to board pleanala or contacting planners in local planning office. We have been in discussions with the planners and the area engineers who refuse to accept any way to fix the problem.

Try to talk to the Planner or Environ Tech before time limit to Appeal is up.

IMO sewerage, percolation, site safety, house position, sightlines etc should have been resolved as part of the Outline application, leaving the Consequent application about the design of the dwelling only.

Something is not quite right here. You may have a strong case for appeal especially if the Council are trying to apply new EPA standards to a site that passed SR6 standards as part of your Outline application.

Was percolation the only reason for refusal?

RKQ said:

Try to talk to the Planner or Environ Tech before time limit to Appeal is up.

Click to expand...

I was under the impression that the Planners would not talk to anyone whilst a decision was appealable as it could prejudice their case if appealed.

Yeah it was the only reason.
On the decision date we were asked for further information. They requested change of house design and revised landscape drawing. They never mentioned any problem with anything else.

So we sent in revised drawings and landscape drawing. Our architect had verbal approval that everything seemed to be in order and we were expecting to get the planning no problem

Decision was only made this week. so we have the 4 weeks to appeal

Outline planning was given with out any perculation being done on site.

You need ot check three things:

#1.
+1 What RKQ has advised re the changeover in standards [check this]

#2.
+1 What RKQ has said re on approval consequent on outline. My understanding of outline is that it paves the way "in principle" for a permission. This requries you to show title, access and drainage usually [check drainage was included].

#3.
Has their requirement for revisions compromised the original layout in terms of distances to septic tanks and boundaries?

Armed with these three pieces of information you need to retain a planning consultant to fight your appeal.

However it will not necessarily be fought on planning grounds alone - the environmental gurus and tree-huggers own the world now - so you'll have to propose a workable solution.

Contact someone like Biocycle NOW to have them assess the site and put forward a proposal.
Yes, they are the dearest but they are also the best I have come across and their systems offer the cleanest effluent.
No, I have no connection to them other than their system helped my clietn obtain a permission last year near an SAC in Donegal.

Don't take my word for this and if you find another better system, let us know here on AAM.

For maximum credibility, you will need an engineer's report AS WELL to back up the Biocycle report and the engineer may have a preference for a system they used - but ask them to prove their choice of systems is as good as or better than Biocycle's.

My experience last year with another system was that by not putting out best foot forward we nearly lost the permission.

You need to get moving on this - reports will take a week or two assuming they are free to take on the work - this may be a recession, but many offices have downsized and the remaining staff are "out the door" with workload.

1. Planning Consultant
2. Consulting Engineer
3. Biocycle Report

This will cost you, but if you don't shell out you will be left with a refusal on record.
You maybe able to clear the record by appealing the matter to the Bórd and then withdrawing the application befoer the Bórd.
That usually just annoys everyone, even if that loophole hasn't been plugged yet, and can make any repeat aplications even mroe difficult.

Check the basis of the outline, retain the professionals, put your best foot forward with Biocycle [or a better one, and tell us here], if you want to lodge the best appeal you can.
Also since we are remote from the action, listen to your professionals if they give you advice at variance with the advice offered here.

Last, but not least, take care in choosing your professionals.

For a planning consultant I prefer someone with a track record achieving results on projects like yours in the locality rather than an office who does most of their work on urban sites - unless they also have the track record doing your knid of project successfully.
Don't be worried about where the office is based - planning consultants work nationally.

Similar comments apply to the engineer, except that sometimes local engineers really do have an "in" through long familiarity working with people in the office.
However I think in your case you seem to be long past that kind of negotiated solution, so again an office of national standing might be your best approach.

When justifying the cost of all of this, just remember, as of now, without your permission, you own a field.
Its horses for courses, and right now you need to put your best foot forward and you have little time.

In the planning permission I refer to above, I had all the players in place months before, the planner agreed with us and we received a permission.
We very nearly got refused because we used a lesser form of treatment plant, but the planner took a view and we came in again best foot forward.
You're going to have to do this "from scratch" with a submission to An Bórd Pelanála and if your new measures vary the application materially you may need to re-advertise.
THis is where you need professional advice of teh standard I describe, but there is a huge degree of co-ordination between all the other three parties for your archtiect to co-ordinate and he will have a role in this too.

Two final caveats:

A)
Notwithstanding the advicI offered above, there may be a good argument for appealing and withdrawing and going in again.
IMO this should be your primary question NOW to your planning consultant and architect.

B)
Also find out what implication this might have for your Outline Approval.
I seldom have done Approvals consequent on Outlines, and there may be an "out" in what was already granted.

Let us know how you get on.

ONQ.

[broken link removed]

All advice on AAM is remote from the situation and cannot be relied upon as a defence or support - in and of itself - should legal action be taken.
Competent legal and building professionals should be asked to advise in Real Life with rights to inspect and issue reports on the matters at hand.

thanks for all the info. I have started looking in to what you suggested, and contacted biocycle.

In your opinion will they have to agree to some sort of drainage system considering there is outline permission on the site.

One of the conditions off the outline was that a perculation test had to be done. it doesnt say that it needed to pass any standards or anything.

Outline was granted in 2007. We just applied for full planning a few months before it expired. It has expired since so if we applied again we would have to be bound by the new EPA standards so thats why we took the refusal and hoping to appeal.

+ ONQ has said above.
This is a very interesting query. It is a pity that the Outline permission has now lapsed. Personally I am very surprised that outline was given in 2007 without a percolation test to SR6.

You don't have any alternative but to appeal but An Bord Pleanala are very strict on protecting ground water from inadequate sewerage treatment. There have also been a number of EU ruling on Irelands lax enforcement of standards - ie EPA guidelines isn't referrred too in the Building Regulations, whereas SR6 is referred too. Does you site have mains water or Group scheme water?

An Bord Pleanala will now have to consider the point of planning law - can an application for "Permission consequent to Outline" be refused on an enviromental issue - a fault in the original 2007 Outline permission?

To have any chance of winning your appeal you must show strong evidence that your sewerage treatment will be safe and will comply with EPA guidelines. Show all neighbouring wells and septic tanks. You will need to show that it was the Councils standard practice to issue Outline Permission on sites that did not have any percolation test or soil suitability report done on them. You need to find similar cases on An Bord Plenala site that were granted permission by the Bord.
If the Outline has now lapsed then you have no alternative, you must appeal. Seek strong professional help.

Shooter said:

thanks for all the info. I have started looking in to what you suggested, and contacted biocycle.

In your opinion will they have to agree to some sort of drainage system considering there is outline permission on the site.

One of the conditions off the outline was that a perculation test had to be done. it doesnt say that it needed to pass any standards or anything.

Outline was granted in 2007. We just applied for full planning a few months before it expired. It has expired since so if we applied again we would have to be bound by the new EPA standards so thats why we took the refusal and hoping to appeal.

Click to expand...

I didn't say that they will have to agree to anything.

What I said was

"My understanding of outline is that it paves the way "in principle" for a permission. This requries you to show title, access and drainage usually [check drainage was included]"

I referred you to the Outline to see what it included.

It is evident from the comment you just made above that it was consequent on a successful test being done, i.e. it wasn't definitively included at the time.

So +1 what RKQ has posted and best of luck with Biocycle and any Appeal.

ONQ.

[broken link removed]

All advice on AAM is remote from the situation and cannot be relied upon as a defence or support - in and of itself - should legal action be taken.
Competent legal and building professionals should be asked to advise in Real Life with rights to inspect and issue reports on the matters at hand.

i'll try and get letter from architect. and i'll post here then. thanks

Shooter said:

i'll try and get letter from architect. and i'll post here then. thanks

Click to expand...

Is the decision available on the Council website in word or pdf format?
If so, why not copy & paste the decision - remove the planning number, applicants name, site address, Council name etc for obvious reasons. This is a very public forum.

hi guys. sorry bout the delay with this. Here is the exact wording

1. Having regard to the information submitted, the Planning Authority are not satisfied that the proposed development would not be prejudicial to public health because soakage charachteristics of the site would not permit the effective and satisfactory disposal of septic tank effluent.

2. Having regard to the information submitted, the Planning Authority are not satisfied that the proposed development would not be prejudicial to public health because it would create a danger of septic tank effluent seeping into and polluting the stream and would endanger the quality of water from private wells in the area.

As I posted before;

"So +1 what RKQ has posted and best of luck with Biocycle and any Appeal."

ONQ.

[broken link removed]

All advice on AAM is remote from the situation and cannot be relied upon as a defence or support - in and of itself - should legal action be taken.
Competent legal and building professionals should be asked to advise in Real Life with rights to inspect and issue reports on the matters at hand.