Planning Enforcement: Worried-septic tank location, site runnoff & well contamination

We objected to a development opposite and above our home last year. It went all the way to an BP. Planning was granted with some conditions.

However then the build started The garage was specifically listed as not being for commercial or residential use. Its been built as a small house. Obviously to live in while they build the main house.

There was no draining pipe put under new entrance. Also local run off water from site has been channelled off to local drain before the blockage so now we're worried as we are down hill that this excess water will run onto out site.

However the major concern at all stages of planning was that our well would be contaminated. We have a puraflow system for waste water, and in addition fitted a water treatment system for our own water supply but it isn't set up to cope with bateria etc as this wasn't an issue within the environment at installation. We have 3 small kids (including one with some health issues) so I'm really keen not to have any impact on our environmental health and is why we were so keen to comply with our own planning and even take it up a notch. The way the site has been dug out it is hard to see how they proposed tank will be fitted in the location as per planning.

Half of me is wondering will I bring a lot more crap upon us by asking for certain aspects of planning to be enforced. (we had issues where a family member got beaten up for our objections last year - we didn't get gaurds involved as my brother was emigrating to Oz and felt it would just create more bad blood). And tbh is it worth the call as will the co co do anything or will the developers just continue to ignore us and our concerns?

Hi mummol,

You should have reported the assault to the guards instead of enabling these thugs.
I know its easy for me to say this so remote from the situation but look at the consequences.

The local authority may not take action over the temporary use of the garage as a dwelling.
However, they should put down a marker that this won't be given retention permission.
The only way to make sure that happens is to refer the matter to Enforcement.

No occupation of the house or the temporary accommodation should have occured until the drainage systems is in place.
This is to prevent contamination of the ground water by the products of human living processes.

Finally a family living so close to a building site could give rise to significant hazard.
Look at how dangers farms are to farmer's children and their friends.

The Enforcement Section, Planning Officer, Environmental Health Officer and Health and Safety Officer should be advised.
Also consider reporting the matter to [broken link removed] - a building site is a place of work and you can report confidentially.

These are only ports of call for you, but being remote from the action I cannot weight up the risks to you.
Please consider letting us know on AAM 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.

We haven't done anything but I think somebody else locally has gone to the enforcement section as windows have been placed in garage roof that overlooks their land. We were approached and asked.

I hear you on getting the law involved. I wanted to but the person who was assaulted didn't want too so I couldn't over ride him. The site is secure and locked every evening - dh says he will go in and look some evening to see where the tank is going but I'm worried about him doing that. Our own house is secure too and gates are usually closed so I'm not too worried about my guys getting into theirs.

The garage isn't been lived in yet. At this stage all I really want is the council to make sure our area isn't affected either superficially with water damaging drives or environmentally in terms of our well. I can't see not been granted retention worrying anyone who has so blatantly flouted planning or even bothered paying contributions. Makes me wonder why we bothered :-(

What exactly are your objections? It sounds to me like you just didn't want them to build.

You are objecting to them living in the garage, yet they are not. Do you know for certain they will?

Your effluent is going into your septic tank and you are getting drinking water from your well, yet you're worried about contamination from someone else's site?

I will admit we didn't want them to build where they were building as it overlooks our house. But now they have planning I'd like them to comply with said planning like the rest of us fools. That doesn't make me a crank . . . why else would we have a planning system. Regarding the garage - as its built to be a domestic dwelling they got planning for one house, not two. The fact it was listed to be simply a garage and not intended for domestic or commercial use wasn't an edict we requested but was a restriction they've ignored.

We've installed a puraflow system and with location of that on our site to our well I am under the impression that we are not polluting our own water.

Actually mummol I think you are right. Unfortunately the majority in this country think that the planning system is an inconvenience and that regulation is some sort of infringment of their constitutional rights. It's that juvenile attitude as a nation that has got us into this mess and getting us fined from EU for our poliferation of unmonitored septic tanks.
Any build should not interfer with your right privacy, adequate screening should be in place. Now that the the house has been approved you should only go to Enforcement once something has actually taken place. Speculation about what might happen is not a case. Keep a diary of developments if you intended to follow this. If your are worried about your well you should in any case have the water tested, you would be amazed how many fail the standard tests.
However remember that there has already been violence in this case so maybe a better option would be to approach the neighbour through a third party to see if you can work together on this. If you are up front why you went to BP then maybe they may understand and choose to move on. At least you will have tried to repair the damaged relationship.

mummol said:

I will admit we didn't want them to build where they were building as it overlooks our house.

Click to expand...

I think this might be the crux of the issue.

mummol said:

Regarding the garage - as its built to be a domestic dwelling they got planning for one house, not two.

Click to expand...

My shed looks like it could be lived in too. It's well kitted out with power and water, proper windows etc. But like their's, no-one is living in mine either.

mummol said:

We've installed a puraflow system

Click to expand...

Correct me if I'm wrong but that removes pollution from your drinking water?

mummol said:

and with location of that on our site to our well I am under the impression that we are not polluting our own water.

Click to expand...

Your septic tank probably is creating some form of pollution, I'm no expert, but your Puraflow cleans it again.

I agree with what ong says above.

You main concern about the possiblitiy of contamination of your drinking water is a valid one.

You should have your well water tested to establish a "before and after baseline". Get your well water tested by a reputable independant laboratory. Make sure you include bacteria, general water chemistry, turbidity and a the full range of metals. Ensure that your own waste water, drainage and well head arrangements are up to and exceed all the regulations/best practice. Get an Engineer to certify to this effect.

Assuming that your water is perfect then retest when the neighbouring development is nearing completion. If the retest shows a deterioration in quality (or quantity - it is not unknown for a new neighbours well to adversly affect an existing well) then I recon you may have grounds for a civil action against the developer. (NOTE: IANAL = I am not a lawyer!)(not a planner either!)

Mummol,

I've looked a little bit further into this matter and I can offer only cold comfort.

Garages can be converted at a later stage to habitable use if it complies with the several requirements of the exempted development schedule.
There are further amendments to the acts and regulations but as far as I know the below exempted development schedule remains largely in force.

See my bold and italics in the quoted regulation below.

Because the garage was permitted as what I understand to be part of the original primary permission, it may not need to avail of the exempted development schedule.
Therefore what ajay and I have posted about the whole drainage issue becomes very important if you want to try to maintain the quality of your existing water supply.

You should also insure they do not build a mezzanine or first floor within the garage to increase the anticipated incidence of overlooking of your property you describe above.
Such a mezzanine would represent a further increase in floor area but as it constitutes development within the envelope of the building, this might be a gray area in terms of planning law.

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.

================================

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2001/en/si/0600.html

S.I. No. 600/2001 — Planning and Development Regulations, 2001





Development within the curtilage of a house



CLASS 1


The extension of a house, by the construction or erection of an extension (including a conservatory) to the rear of the house or by the conversion for use as part of the house of any garage, store, shed or other similar structure attached to the rear or to the side of the house.




1. (a) Where the house has not been extended previously, the floor area of any such extension shall not exceed 40 square metres.
(b) Subject to paragraph (a), where the house is terraced or semi-detached, the floor area of any extension above ground level shall not exceed 12 square metres.
(c) Subject to paragraph (a), where the house is detached, the floor area of any extension above ground level shall not exceed 20 square metres.
2. (a) Where the house has been extended previously, the floor area of any such extension, taken together with the floor area of any previous extension or extensions constructed or erected after 1 October 1964, including those for which planning permission has been obtained, shall not exceed 40 square metres.
(b) Subject to paragraph (a), where the house is terraced or semi-detached and has been extended previously, the floor area of any extension above ground level taken together with the floor area of any previous extension or extensions above ground level constructed or erected after 1 October 1964, including those for which planning permission has been obtained, shall not exceed 12 square metres.
(c) Subject to paragraph (a), where the house is detached and has been extended previously, the floor area of any extension above ground level, taken together with the floor area of any previous extension or extensions above ground level constructed or erected after 1 October 1964, including those for which planning permission has been obtained, shall not exceed 20 square metres.
3. Any above ground floor extension shall be a distance of not less than 2 metres from any party boundary.
4. (a) Where the rear wall of the house does not include a gable, the height of the walls of any such extension shall not exceed the height of the rear wall of the house.
(b) Where the rear wall of the house includes a gable, the height of the walls of any such extension shall not exceed the height of the side walls of the house.
(c) The height of the highest part of the roof of any such extension shall not exceed, in the case of a flat roofed extension, the height of the eaves or parapet, as may be appropriate, or, in any other case, shall not exceed the height of the highest part of the roof of the dwelling.
5. The construction or erection of any such extension to the rear of the house shall not reduce the area of private open space, reserved exclusively for the use of the occupants of the house, to the rear of the house to less than 25 square metres.
6. (a) Any window proposed at ground level in any such extension shall not be less than 1 metre from the boundary it faces.
(b) Any window proposed above ground level in any such extension shall not be less than 11 metres from the boundary it faces.
(c) Where the house is detached and the floor area of the extension above ground level exceeds 12 square metres, any window proposed at above ground level shall not be less than 11 metres from the boundary it faces.
7. The roof of any extension shall not be used as a balcony or roof garden.

ONG thanks for the information. The garage has a mezzinine level and velux windows in the roof.

If we were as difficult as some posters seem to think we'd have gone legal on the past assault but we're not the sort of people who try to be unduly difficult. In fact even in light of that we haven't gone to enforcement yet and we wouldn't if we could be sure that the run off water which is an issue every time it rains (I have photos) were to be addressed as every time there is a thunder storm water runs off the site, onto the road and down into our driveway. In addition we would like to ensure the proper sewage treatment system is installed. We can't see what has been installed and have no interest in trespassing to find out. But we are terrified of having our water polluted. Like rock of ages we too have a garage kitted out with power water, proper windows etc built as per our planning process so we know the difference between what has been built as a garage and whats been built to live in as the house hasn't been started yet and their is a container on site to store work materials.

Possibly I haven't been clear enough but our water is NOT polluted. I want to ensure it stays unpolluted. With young kids and a premmie baby who has had some alarming bouts of illness this year in situ I don't think anyone in our situation would act otherwise.

My primary question is if we go back to the county council, how far will they push the couple in question to ensure that the aspects dealing with public health are complied with.

mummol said:

....our water is NOT polluted. I want to ensure it stays unpolluted.

Click to expand...

Have you had your water tested by a reputable independent laboratory? What do the results show in terms of Bacteria, General Water Chemistry and Metals (Iron, Manganese, Lead, Arsenic etc).

Assuming that your water met the EU Driniking water regulations in every respect before the development and that your deep bored well has been properly constructed (sealed) and operated then if you neighbours development can be shown to have adversely affected your well then you can take a civil case against them.

You should test your water at least once a year and in your case every 6monts to determine whether the water quality/quantity has deteriorated.

mummol said:

My primary question is if we go back to the county council, how far will they push the couple in question to ensure that the aspects dealing with public health are complied with.

Click to expand...

You're very welcome.

(I'm now considering changing my nic to ONG instead of ONQ - it is just me? LOL!)

In relation to your primary question the answer is not clear cut.
You don't know the relationship between your nasty neighbours (who threaten people) and the Council.

I would tend to pave the way by making a formal complaint against them to the Gardaí to raise a smell around them.
Then any request for enforcement action along the lines of the concerns discuses above may be less likely to be dismissed.

=============================

BTW, was the upper window included in the garage in the primary permission?

Normally Condition 1 requires that the property be built "in accordance with the plans and particulars lodged" first.
After than, then the exempted development schedule kicks in but only if its built in accordance with the permission first.

Some local authority planning officers have never even been asked this question, so you may need to inform them if that's the case.
After that they may either ignore you, treat you as a crank or step lightly around you - hint: a softly, softly approach first tends to work best.

You can always crank up the "volume" later and have irate phone calls and send terse e-mails.

Hope this helps.

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.

sorry!!! Font and me being in a rush! But its good to get some experienced insights.

No velux windows weren't part of planning.

I'm not keen to take a civil action . . . I just want them to do what they are suppossed to do. Niavity or what but for us once we got planning and the conditions it was a matter of building it and conforming so as not to bring a shed load of trouble down on us in future. As it is my stomach churns at a future of bad relations with neighbours.

Mummol,

Its not a civil action in the sense of a legal action.
You merely refer the matter to the planning enforcement section of the local authority.
If there is any legal action to be taken - from a warning letter to a district court appearance - its their call and their cost.

As for future relations with your neighbours, that's up to you - I find that bullies respond best to being abused publicly - they're cowards and they leave you alone then.
Regarding having them around for BBQ's, I don't think that was ever on the cards - look at their recent aggressive history as a heads-up, thank your lucky stars and enjoy your lives without them.

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.

OK it seems that we are at cross purposes here.

ONG has given you advice in relation to planning and planning enforcement.

I have given you alternative advice relating to the quality of water in your well. Regardless of any civil case if you are concerned about the quality of your drinking water you should have your water sampled and tested by a reputable independent laboratory at least once a year.

Remember that even if you and your neighbours are perfectly compliant with planning your well water could still get contaminated.

In my opinion you should expend time and effort into testing and managing your water supply than going on a Planning Enforcement crusade - the outcome of which may be inconclusive.

ajay,

There is a water quality issue.
There is a planning compliance issue.
But I don't see cross-purposes or an "either-or" choice.

I see a "both-and" scenario, where both of the issues discussed here are pursued.
To pursue either one without the other would be to drastically lessen the effectiveness of both.
The more local authority departments you can get looking at an issue of potential non-compliance, the better.

Its known as "shaking the tree" - the more you shake it, the more tends to fall out.
Add the referral to the Gardaí for alleged assault and the bullies are dealt with.
I don't see a downside to this approach, assuming some stand will be taken.

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.

onq said:

Garages can be converted at a later stage to habitable use if it complies with the several requirements of the exempted development schedule.

CLASS 1

The extension of a house, by the construction or erection of an extension (including a conservatory) to the rear of the house or by the conversion for use as part of the house of any garage, store, shed or other similar structure attached to the rear or to the side of the house.

Click to expand...

This exemption relates to garages which are attached to the side or rear of a house. I believe in Mummol's case the garage is a detached one. Hence Class 1 of Exempted Development does not apply.

rockofages said:

Correct me if I'm wrong but that removes pollution from your drinking water?

Click to expand...

No it doesn't, so I must correct you.
Puraflow system is a biological system that cleans effluent water from a septic tank. Puruflow system is not connected in any way to a well or well water. It therefore does not remove pollution from drinking water.

I believe the OP should issue a written complaint to the Local Authority once a definate "change" has been made. If the septic tank is repositioned, or gargage is lived in then complain.

The LA must legally investigate a written complaint. Many L.A's have a specific form for this purpose. Do not waste L.A's time with your ideas of what might happen.

Woodie makes a great point "Unfortunately the majority in this country think that the planning system is an inconvenience and that regulation is some sort of infringment of their constitutional rights". I'd have to agree.

daithi28 said:

This exemption relates to garages which are attached to the side or rear of a house. I believe in Mummol's case the garage is a detached one. Hence Class 1 of Exempted Development does not apply.

Click to expand...

You might infer that given the description of the temporary use, but I could not find it stated anywhere that it is separate.

That was why I posted the relevant section in bold to draw attention to the requirements for the exempted development schedule.

No harm doing it twice daithi

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.

Small update, I rang the council to see how I'd do it and the person was very open. Turns out there is a file open already with enforcement and a warning letter has been sent in relation to another person sending a complaint. Who/how/where I have no idea. But I pointed out that at this stage my primary issue is water run off and water safety. I'm not looking to ruin the couple by having what they've built. However the lady on the county council couldn't fathom why I was asking who would be responsible if our water does become tainted. My point is we've raised our concerns, they've been ignored and work has been done in a willy nilly fashion contrary to planning where as the council should have a duty of care to existing developments? Don't think she was too happy with my line of questions.

But next question is looking at the co co file it seems from the reply which is on line that they have ceased work and intend to apply for retention. Can a county council give retention which is in contravention of an bord pleanalas edict? Just curious. And if they apply for rentention do we go back to square one with us ojecting again in terms of water etc.