planning application / objection

peasant

Don't know whether this is the right forum or if I should post this in legal ... I'll try here first:

We live in the sticks and so far have been lucky to be surrounded by fields on three sides and the road on the other. Now the field next door is for sale subject to planning permission.

While not overjoyed at the idea of possibly getting a next door neighbour, there is probably not a lot that we could do about this to prevent it from happening.

There is one minor problem though ...we keep dogs ...three of them... and we intend to keep doing so for the forseeable future. Now the dogs are used to roaming their 1/2 acre (fenced in) run and making the noises that dogs usually make.
So far this has bothered nobody, as the next neighbours are far enough away not to be bothered plus most of them have dogs themselves.

With a neighbour across the fence that might be a different story.

Is there any way, that we can stipulate in the planning permission for next door, that we have kept dogs for years and will keep doing so, so that our possible future neighbour will have no grounds for any possible future neighbouring "war" over noise, fences etc?

muffler

personally i dont think you have any chance of having conditions like that attached to any planning permission.

In the event that planning is granted and house or houses built you should have a look at this

godtabh

If possible explain to whoever is going for planning permision what the situation is and see what kind of reaction there is.

A simple converstaion now could save loads of hassle in the future

Diaspora

The planning authorities are not entitled to take your word into account that you may have had use of another landholding and would be unable to refuse or modify a proposed scheme on the basis of submission claiming such rights.

Your claim relates to the right to use another landholding essentially as a convenience and if you have done this long enough you may have acquired a right of way. The person you would want to consult is a solicitor who could if you have satisified the criteria apply to have this right entered onto the neighbouring site 'Land Folio'

You could at this point with the entry on the land folio claim that the scheme was in breach of your registered (onb the land folio) right of way and as a result the land owner did not having a legal right to develop the land in a way that compromised your right of way. However this route would be expensive and bear no guarantee of success.

A more pragmatic approach would be to talk to the owner; outline your concerns ask to have an input into the exact siting of the house and boundary walls/fences/hedges and offer to support any application that guaranteed continuity of your (percieved) right of way as opposed to objecting if your reasonable stance was ignored.

muffler

Diaspora wrote:

The planning authorities are not entitled to take your word into account that you may have had use of another landholding and would be unable to refuse or modify a proposed scheme on the basis of submission claiming such rights.

Your claim relates to the right to use another landholding essentially as a convenience and if you have done this long enough you may have acquired a right of way. The person you would want to consult is a solicitor who could if you have satisified the criteria apply to have this right entered onto the neighbouring site 'Land Folio'

You could at this point with the entry on the land folio claim that the scheme was in breach of your registered (onb the land folio) right of way and as a result the land owner did not having a legal right to develop the land in a way that compromised your right of way. However this route would be expensive and bear no guarantee of success.

A more pragmatic approach would be to talk to the owner; outline your concerns ask to have an input into the exact siting of the house and boundary walls/fences/hedges and offer to support any application that guaranteed continuity of your (percieved) right of way as opposed to objecting if your reasonable stance was ignored.

YOU NEED TO READ THE OP AGAIN - NO MENTION OF USE OF ANY OTHER LAND OTHER THAN THEIR OWN HALF ACRE SITE

Diaspora

Yes I should have but given that there is absolutely nothing that an adjoining land owner can do I assumed (which is always a dangerous thing) that it would be obvious that there was nothing to worry about unless the dogs in question are totally rabid and their own holding relies on the neighbours boundary fixtures and fittings as the sole barrier.

peasant

Diaspora wrote:

Yes I should have but given that there is absolutely nothing that an adjoining land owner can do I assumed (which is always a dangerous thing) that it would be obvious that there was nothing to worry about unless the dogs in question are totally rabid and their own holding relies on the neighbours boundary fixtures and fittings as the sole barrier.

We're well clear from that point of view. The fence for the dog run is within the boundary, followed by another barbed wire fence that borders the field.

I'm just worried that whoever builds there, while noticing the dogs at the buying stage and even being told about them, will most likely change their mind some months or even years down the line and suddenly decide that they are a nuisance and fire all sorts of complaints and legal action our way.

Diaspora

They would need sufficient grounds to sustain any complaint which unless your dogs leave your property and enter their property would not exist.

I have heard so many storys of barking dogs in urban areas pissing people off over the years but there are no legal remedies to the complainants; A dog is after all there to protect you and if the dog barks it is only doing what comes naturally to it.

If they are planning to build I would have a word and say that whilst you have no objection to them building a reasonably sized dwelling that you would be grateful if they located their house on the part of the site that would minimise the impacts of their building on your dogs so that you can all get a good nights sleep.

aphex™

Diaspora wrote:

I have heard so many storys of barking dogs in urban areas pissing people off over the years but there are no legal remedies to the complainants; A dog is after all there to protect you and if the dog barks it is only doing what comes naturally to it.

Not true, you can make a complaint to the District Court under Section 25 of the Dog Control Act, 1986.

Also: in urban areas dogs usually bark because of lonelyness and neglect.

muffler

aphex&#8482 wrote:

Not true, you can make a complaint to the District Court under Section 25 of the Dog Control Act, 1986.

Also: in urban areas dogs usually bark because of lonelyness and neglect.

Yes indeed. I give the link in my first post and I think the OP would be well advised to read that in its entirety.

There is obviously a problem at the moment with the dogs barking or at least i assume that is what this thread is about. If the dog owner is aware of it well then its safe to say that anyone going to build beside it will be more than aware of it.

For what its worth there probably wont be much hassle in my opinion but in weather like this when windows will be left open and night could lead to a noise problem

peasant

The dogs are inside the house at night, only out during the day and there always is someone at home.

Still...dogs bark ...and they were there first. That's all I want any possible neighbours to realise.

muffler

Im not posting just to oppose what you are saying, Im just trying to help by pointing out that there are laws about dogs barking. When they bark continually it can be argued that they are not under control at that stage.

Im aware of a case where a man had to relocate a few greyhounds he kept at the back of his house because the neighbours complained. And yes the dogs were there first but it didnt make any difference

peasant

Personally, I'm convinced our dogs aren't barking excessively or constantly ...but other people might be of a different opinion.

But from what I can gather from here, all I can do is hope that I don't get the "wrong" kind of neighbour ..if indeed I get a neighbour at all.

(apparently the owner of the field has unsuccessfully applied for PP several times for years)

Thanks for your opinions and advice, folks !