shafted by council

recipio

:mad: I don't know if anybody else has this experience but I've been shafted by the Planners in North Tipp. I bought a site with outline for 2 houses on it but by the time I got my planning in for one house they brought out a new set of regs --a " Development Plan " which states I need to be born within 5 kilometers of the site or show good reason to move such as having a business up and running etc.
I think this is outragous. The planners have become unelected social engineers , deciding the fate of thousands of Irish citizens. They have "moved the goalposts " giving me no notice of their intent ,now I'm stuck with a site I can't sell. Bord Pleanala say they have to support the Council plan . I'm thinking of engaging a legal opinion as there's something in the European Constitution about living in the EU without hinderance assuming legalities are observed.
Anyone have any opinions about this. ??!!

Cantab.

recipio wrote:

:mad: I don't know if anybody else has this experience but I've been shafted by the Planners in North Tipp. I bought a site with outline for 2 houses on it but by the time I got my planning in for one house they brought out a new set of regs --a " Development Plan " which states I need to be born within 5 kilometers of the site or show good reason to move such as having a business up and running etc.
I think this is outragous. The planners have become unelected social engineers , deciding the fate of thousands of Irish citizens. They have "moved the goalposts " giving me no notice of their intent ,now I'm stuck with a site I can't sell. Bord Pleanala say they have to support the Council plan . I'm thinking of engaging a legal opinion as there's something in the European Constitution about living in the EU without hinderance assuming legalities are observed.
Anyone have any opinions about this. ??!!

Do you know anybody in the council? :cool:

mikemac

Many county's have a "locals only" rule but being from North Tipp, I can tell you that the council are one of the strictist in the country at enforcing it.
You're correct, there is a new plan and it does make sense.

The council don't want loads of one-off housing for commuters to Limerick and would prefer to concentrate in towns. Ballina is an example and I've seen the draft plan for my own village, Portroe.

Console yourself with the fact that it is still difficult for locals to get permission for one-off housing as I've seen An Taisce object many times. This happens even when a farmer gives a site to their son or daughter.

godtabh

Cantab. wrote:

Do you know anybody in the council? :cool:

How is that gona help? A few brown envelopes maybe? And people wonder why the planning of this country is so bad.

recipio

Thanks people.
Funny how a late night rant looks worse in print !
I was trying to point out that the regs are simply unfair in that they cancel out the Council's own outline permission . They don't take into account that people can loose a lot of money having acted on the outline permission which is essentially a green light to proceed to full planning. ?

cheers.

Sponge Bob

but one county dev plan sort of cancels out another, was the outline permission given under the same or a previous county dev plan ??

if the same then its a high court maladministration case.

Hagar

I'd have a word with a good solicitor. I would expect the rules governing an application to be the rules as they stood at the time of the application. Any rule changes made later would surely not be retrospective. I think.

dermot_sheehan

An Blascaod Mor Case held that discriminating on grounds of heritage with regard to Compulsory Purchase Orders is unconstitutional http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IESC/1999/4.html

reg_anam

(OP) can't offer any advice unfortunately but you have my sympathies and I would make the following points

I lived once in Ballina (Tipp). its a lovely location despite rampant development. The planners are finally starting to do some planning but....

the end does not justify the means, these rules descrimate against non-locals and/or foreign nationals and have also been applied, accepting your story, in a manner not in line with natural justice

it is not acceptable to have one rule for one group of people and one for another. How would Tipp people feel if they were told they couldn't buy an apartment in Dublin because too many non-Dubs were causing over deveopment of the city !!! (same type of social engineering !)

I hope you can challenge them in some manner and if so, the very best of luck, I hope it works out for you

recipio

Thanks again.
The outline permission had run three years when I bought the site. I assumed I had two years more to apply for full planning .I paid an architect to design a house but it was a slow process. Essentially the council said it's ok to build two houses in 2000 but ( before outline had expired ) not o.k. in the new plan unless I meet the impossible criteria laid down.
I can see where they are coming from but I took time to try and design a modern building to blend into the landscape.
Meanwhile a mock Edwardian timber frame is going up in the field next to mine!
I just think planners have too much power and a limited sense of justice.
I'll fight this to the end--more anon !!.

cheers

Sponge Bob

planners in Ireland are as corrupt and useless as **** . they are mainly thick obnoxious third or fourth raters with pass geography degrees . Unless you can prove maladministration or a misinterpretation of some sort that is or they deliberately ignored something,

even then its often best to go to the county manager to get a "Managers Order " ( I think its called that ) . I did it a few years back when I had it in writing from a planner that NOBODY in my area could get full permission without an enurement attached ...and then someone got permission without an enurement from that very planner .

Andrew Duffy

I'm pretty sure you can claim compensation from the Council for the devaluation of your property as a result of the zoning decision. Talk to a lawyer about it. It's not even a basic litigation - the planning and development act legislates for it.

Victor

Moved from Accommodation & Property.

tba

Unfortunatly Outline planning is of little value and is used to sweeten the price of sites around the country.

My advice to to talk to a planning consultant. They are knee deep in planning issues day in day out and may know of a way out of this situation or can at least advise you on a legal route.

Gurgle

recipio wrote:

a " Development Plan " which states I need to be born within 5 kilometers of the site or show good reason to move

That is absolutely disgracefull and its about time someone dragged a council all the way through the courts for discrimination.

This rule is being brought in all over the place, and its being exploited left right and centre. This setup allows someone born in the area who lives miles away to buy & build houses at an artifically low price (due to the limited competition to buy the site) and sell at a massive profit. Its happening all over the place in meath for the last few years - almost every house privately built has a 'for sale' sign up within months of completion.

muffler

recipio wrote:

The outline permission had run three years when I bought the site. I assumed I had two years more to apply for full planning

Well, there you have it. The outline had expired and you and/or your architect would have been aware of this.

So in essence the Council did nothing wrong.

OP, I know the feeling:(

My SIL has just been refused on a site that had previously been granted.

Curcumstances are slightly different as it was inherited land and she was "developing" the site but because of delays in getting the land registered in her name the original outline expired.

She reapplied and was refused on the gounds that the future owner would be unable to prove local need.

Looking at options at the momend, but not optomistic.:(

This is Roscommon CC by the way.

Naux

muffler wrote:

Well, there you have it. The outline had expired and you and/or your architect would have been aware of this.

So in essence the Council did nothing wrong.

Dead right. I would be very p*ssed with my architect if he did not advise me that I'd have to have the house built to roof level within the 5 year period from the date of receiving OPP. I would assume that any professional in the planning area would know that and therefore should advise you accordingly especially if you had engaged him/her to draw up plans to obtain full planning permission.

The councils are a real pain in the neck to deal with but in this case they have done nothing wrong:(

Naux

Gurgle wrote:

This rule is being brought in all over the place, and its being exploited left right and centre. This setup allows someone born in the area who lives miles away to buy & build houses at an artifically low price (due to the limited competition to buy the site) and sell at a massive profit. Its happening all over the place in meath for the last few years - almost every house privately built has a 'for sale' sign up within months of completion.

I thought there was a clause in all planning permissions granted on a housing need basis that stipulated that you could not sell it within 7 years??? This applies in Galway anyway. It was a 10 year clause but they reduced it!!!

cast_iron

So you had outline PP (which entitles you to nothing) and you let it run out.

Meanwhile, the Council decided to enforce some planning rules through a Development.
(I think we have all seen the bad planning over recent years - here the council is trying to combat that.)

Point out where the Council acted incorrectly for legal action to start.

recipio

Yes, I now know I should have started to build a house and got it to roof level before 2005. I thought that I had simply to have full planning applied for before five years, silly me. The Architect said nothing to me about this but as the plan came out in March 05 I had no hope of starting a house as the design was not finished.Outline at least entitles you to apply for full permission as it means the Council has no objection in principle to submitting a plan for full permission.
As I applied before the outline had expired I would have expected them to honour the terms of the original permission.
I'll certainly look into the legal route but it seems to be an area where decisions are very ad hoc which undermines all faith in the planning process ?

cast_iron wrote:

So you had outline PP (which entitles you to nothing) and you let it run out.

Meanwhile, the Council decided to enforce some planning rules through a Development.
(I think we have all seen the bad planning over recent years - here the council is trying to combat that.)

Point out where the Council acted incorrectly for legal action to start.

Gurgle

Naux wrote:

I thought there was a clause in all planning permissions granted on a housing need basis that stipulated that you could not sell it within 7 years??? This applies in Galway anyway. It was a 10 year clause but they reduced it!!!

I don't know about that, there must be some way around it. Certainly in meath theres loads of private one-off houses up for sale as soon as they're finished.

Naux

recipio wrote:

As I applied before the outline had expired I would have expected them to honour the terms of the original permission.
I'll certainly look into the legal route but it seems to be an area where decisions are very ad hoc which undermines all faith in the planning process ?

They did honour the terms of the original permission(ie)OPP, house to be built to roof level within 5 years.

Save yourself the money on the legal route.

I know that councils are an absolute nightmare to deal with for planning permission but it's not their fault in this case: it's yours.

Naux

Gurgle wrote:

I don't know about that, there must be some way around it. Certainly in meath theres loads of private one-off houses up for sale as soon as they're finished.

The only thing that I can think of is that the houses you see for sale were built under a previous development plan (ie) builders got planning permission before these 7 year clauses were brought in. Someone else can probably set the record straight on this 'cos I'm not sure

Salmon

recipio wrote:

Yes, I now know I should have started to build a house and got it to roof level before 2005.

Does anyone know how much of a house you have to build to be exempt of the 5 year planning period? Is it ok just to get it to wall plate or does it need to be roofed?

muffler

Im not happy with this thread at all. The OP starts off on a rant about the planners and then drips feed more details of his problem which eventually clearly shows that the Council were right and he was wrong. We still dont have the full facts but IMO there appears to be an ulterior motive for starting this thread.

From what I can gather the OP has more money than sense. How could anyone buy a site that had outline permission for 2 houses but the said permission was either expired or about to expire. More to this than meets the eye I think.

A word of caution to anyone reading or posting in this thread - dont post anything in relation to ways/methods that can used to ILLEGALLY(and I use that word loosely) obtain planning permission. That would be a breach of the charter.

muffler

Salmon wrote:

Does anyone know how much of a house you have to build to be exempt of the 5 year planning period? Is it ok just to get it to wall plate or does it need to be roofed?

"Substantial" works need to have been carried out to the development before making an application to extend the duration of the permission. Most councils I think will consider work up to wallplate level as being substantial but a quick phone call to your local planning office will get you their exact requirement

pjbrady1

When I go home to the location where I was born, a common site I am confronted with is one off housing, high up on a hill above a trout lake. The hill has a slope of 40degrees+ in general, so builders have to dig a massive side of soil out to put in a house. All of these houses require a septic tank, and it is dubious how well they work, plus you have the issue of chemicals such as washing up liquid etc.
When completed these houses with stunning views of the countryside are sold on for 300,000 euro+, there is one going up now that dug into an incredibly steep hill and moved hundreds of tonnes of soil. House and site is huge. When finished it will be sold onto a rich outsider. The builder will pocket the cash, the community will be left with a house that will most likely see a person arrive ten times a year, who knows not one person in the village and has no social interaction.
Bear this in mind when complaining about your planning permission problems. The trout lake and hills have been there longer than civilization, now the community must suffer a serious visual impediment to the countryside. Thinking of getting onto An Teasca about a few sites that are for sale. Couple of more houses and we will have a mini Monaco high above our trout lake.

recipio

muffler wrote:

Im not happy with this thread at all. The OP starts off on a rant about the planners and then drips feed more details of his problem which eventually clearly shows that the Council were right and he was wrong. We still dont have the full facts but IMO there appears to be an ulterior motive for starting this thread.

From what I can gather the OP has more money than sense. How could anyone buy a site that had outline permission for 2 houses but the said permission was either expired or about to expire. More to this than meets the eye I think.

A word of caution to anyone reading or posting in this thread - dont post anything in relation to ways/methods that can used to ILLEGALLY(and I use that word loosely) obtain planning permission. That would be a breach of the charter.

What !!!!!!!!!!!!

I have absolutely no ulterior motive for posting. I simply want to share my experience and ascertain other members views.The outline had two years to expire which seemed adequate at the time.
I admit it's ( partly ) my fault but I feel I have been treated harshly by the Council.
I'm not a bit happy with my Architect either but I'm not going to discuss that in public.
I just find it strange that nobody seems to realize what draconian laws have been introduced in this country. Planning permission used to be about good architecture and planning . Now it seem to be about keeping the masses in their boxes. Its about justifying our need to move or build a house to unelected planners based on rules laid down by them.
Even worse, its on a county by county basis so there's no national set of standards or transparency in the process.
I am not in favour of a free for all building boom, but planning needs to fair and democratic and I don't think it is at present.

that's all.

muffler

recipio wrote:

The outline had two years to expire which seemed adequate at the time.

In a previous post you stated "The outline permission had run three years when I bought the site" Now it had 2 years to expire.

Im not nit picking here and Im assuming you have simply misstated the time scales. You surely went into all this with your eyes open and I assume that your solicitor and/or architect would have advised you if the outline permission was still valid at the time.

This is the point I was making in my last post. We are not being told the exact details and as I said before information is being drip fed in with every post and it appears to differ at times from what was posted earlier. There are people here who could offer good advice but only if we know the true facts. To say you were shafted by the council appears to be exaggerated based on what you stated so far.

Dont get me wrong Im not trying to put you down in any way but merely suggesting that if you want others to debate the issue then the facts must be stated. In fact I agree to an extent with your some of your comments about one off rural housing.

Out of curiosity why did you need a site that had permission for 2 houses and not 1

I believe this situation has been mainly brought about by that fact that the national government have signed up to the Kyoto treaty.

One off rural housing has been a major issue with local authorities for some time now, mainly because the local CC are required to provide a certain level of local services depending on the local environment, i.e if number of houses within a specified distance exceed "X" then the council are required to provide street lighting, etc

These issues along with the current policy of "encouriging" developers to construct "shoe boxes" on the outskirts of regional towns, really mean that IMHO, sites for one-off housing are almost a thing of the past.

It may be a case that those of us who are building now in "one-off" sites are the last of the species....

Soon to be replaced by the "bungalow gobbalars" , this is how things are now done in England, greefield sites no longer exist so people now buy old bungalows and redevelop these as new builds!

Gurgle

Deleted User wrote:

One off rural housing has been a major issue with local authorities for some time now, mainly because the local CC are required to provide a certain level of local services depending on the local environment, i.e if number of houses within a specified distance exceed "X" then the council are required to provide street lighting, etc

But how can this justify the policy of allowing locals to build but not 'outsiders' from 6 miles away?

Deleted User wrote:

These issues along with the current policy of "encouriging" developers to construct "shoe boxes" on the outskirts of regional towns, really mean that IMHO, sites for one-off housing are almost a thing of the past.

Making the regional towns look like a warehouse for workforce storage. Seriously, I hate the way the outskirts of every town are packed with rows and rows of identical houses.

Why can't it work here like it does on the continent, where a designated housing area is sold off as a batch of sites and people build their own houses on them?

Does anyone actually think its better to just dump a heap of identical houses all over the countryside?

Standard 2-bed flats for young singles.
Standard 2-bed terraced for retired people.
Standard 3-bed semi for worker drone and family.
Standard 4-bed semi for educated worker drone and family.
Standard 5-bed detached for management.

That pretty much covers 90% of the houses built in the country in the last 10 years.

recipio

muffler wrote:

In a previous post you stated "The outline permission had run three years when I bought the site" Now it had 2 years to expire.

Im not nit picking here and Im assuming you have simply misstated the time scales. You surely went into all this with your eyes open and I assume that your solicitor and/or architect would have advised you if the outline permission was still valid at the time.

This is the point I was making in my last post. We are not being told the exact details and as I said before information is being drip fed in with every post and it appears to differ at times from what was posted earlier. There are people here who could offer good advice but only if we know the true facts. To say you were shafted by the council appears to be exaggerated based on what you stated so far.

Dont get me wrong Im not trying to put you down in any way but merely suggesting that if you want others to debate the issue then the facts must be stated. In fact I agree to an extent with your some of your comments about one off rural housing.

Out of curiosity why did you need a site that had permission for 2 houses and not 1

O.K guys, I think everybody's getting tired of this so I'll make this the last post.
Thanks to all who offered advice, it is appreciated.
As I understand it Muffler, outline lasts 5 years. I bought two adjacent half acre sites in 2003 with 2 years left on the outline because I wanted a large site in the countryside.
In theory I had two years to build a house assuming full permission.
I foolishly left it to my Architect to advise me but the design dragged on and when I eventually applied for full permission in 2005 the council had brought out their plan.
It is a general principle in law that legislation cannot be retroactive e.g. you cannot be charged for a crime if it was not illegal when commited.
I assumed the council would consider my application on the terms of the original outline but of course they did'nt, they said the site now lies in an 'amenity area ' ( not that I can see any amenities ) and refused.
Of course I understand that one off housing in the countryside should be limited but in a fair way.
I have ony read the North Tipp plan but the rules are impossible to comply with.
Who is born within 5 kilometers of their site nowadays ? I thought home births went 'out' in the 1950's ! The plan effectively stops all new development except for the local landowners and those who want to put a business enterprise in the countryside.
This forces people like me on to the second hand house market if I want to move and I won't pay inflated prices for overvalued houses.
I could accept all this but being Ireland I know people who have got planning in the countryside on the basis of wanting to send their children to the local school etc -not a reason listed in the plan.
Its a little frustraing to say the least and I just wondered hhat other members experiences were.
Now that I've got that off my chest I'll retire from this post.

cheers.

Hagar

recipio wrote:

I have ony read the North Tipp plan but the rules are impossible to comply with.
Who is born within 5 kilometers of their site nowadays ? I thought home births went 'out' in the 1950's !

Genius. As far as I know the only Maternity Unit in Tipperary is in Clomel which is South Tipp so barring home births nobody can fulfil their condition. Get you solicitor on this. For further ammo find out the birthplace of every councillor and point out that none of them (probably) on the council is legally entitled to build a home in North Tipp.

muffler

I think whats meant in the context of that particular "birth" requirement is the address/townland of the parents full time residence at time of applicants birth.

If an applicant for planning permission can show "roots" in the area and/or demonstrate a need for housing in that particular area then they are deemed as satisfying the requirements of the rural housing policy of the local council's development plan.

I doubt if there is anything a solicitor could contest in this regard

smashey

recipio wrote:

O.K guys, I think everybody's getting tired of this so I'll make this the last post.
Thanks to all who offered advice, it is appreciated.
As I understand it Muffler, outline lasts 5 years. I bought two adjacent half acre sites in 2003 with 2 years left on the outline because I wanted a large site in the countryside.
In theory I had two years to build a house assuming full permission.
I foolishly left it to my Architect to advise me but the design dragged on and when I eventually applied for full permission in 2005 the council had brought out their plan.
It is a general principle in law that legislation cannot be retroactive e.g. you cannot be charged for a crime if it was not illegal when commited.
I assumed the council would consider my application on the terms of the original outline but of course they did'nt, they said the site now lies in an 'amenity area ' ( not that I can see any amenities ) and refused.
Of course I understand that one off housing in the countryside should be limited but in a fair way.
I have ony read the North Tipp plan but the rules are impossible to comply with.
Who is born within 5 kilometers of their site nowadays ? I thought home births went 'out' in the 1950's ! The plan effectively stops all new development except for the local landowners and those who want to put a business enterprise in the countryside.
This forces people like me on to the second hand house market if I want to move and I won't pay inflated prices for overvalued houses.
I could accept all this but being Ireland I know people who have got planning in the countryside on the basis of wanting to send their children to the local school etc -not a reason listed in the plan.
Its a little frustraing to say the least and I just wondered hhat other members experiences were.
Now that I've got that off my chest I'll retire from this post.

cheers.

Just a bit pedantic there. When you leave the hospital for the first time and the parents take you home, it is this home that is used. Now, if you were to find a site near there, you might have a chance.

Hagar

muffler wrote:

I think whats meant in the context of that particular "birth" requirement is the address/townland of the parents full time residence at time of applicants birth.

I agree that that is what they intended the regulations to mean but if they have made a mess of the wording it might invalidate the regulations and allow a clever solicitor to negotiate a permission.

muffler

recipio wrote:

As I understand it Muffler, outline lasts 5 years.

In a word - NO.

Outline permission is valid for 3 years with the option of applying for permission consequent on the grant of the outline within that 3 year period. In that event the permission will then have a total lifetime of 5 years from the date the outline was granted.

To put it very simply - if you don't apply for permission consequent within 3 years of getting outline permission then that outline permission expires.

Recipio, I think this is where the confusion lay with your previous posts. It would appear that you basically bought a site that had outline but it was about to expire or had expired. You didn't get good advice or any at all at the time

muffler

muffler wrote:

In a word - NO.

Outline permission is valid for 3 years with the option of applying for permission consequent on the grant of the outline within that 3 year period. In that event the permission will then have a total lifetime of 5 years from the date the outline was granted.

To put it very simply - if you don't apply for permission consequent within 3 years of getting outline permission then that outline permission expires.

Recipio, I think this is where the confusion lay with your previous posts. It would appear that you basically bought a site that had outline but it was about to expire or had expired. You didn't get good advice or any at all at the time

Oh Dear!

My other SIL was banking on selling her site soon, she had outline granted in 2002, glad I don't have to break the bad news to her.

Under the new rules, she has a snowflake in hell chance.

muffler

Deleted User wrote:

Oh Dear!

My other SIL was banking on selling her site soon, she had outline granted in 2002, glad I don't have to break the bad news to her.

Under the new rules, she has a snowflake in hell chance.

Sadly it would have expired by now if there was no application made for permission consequent.

Not all doom and gloom though. If the Council haven't changed their development plan since 2002 then there would be every chance of getting the outline again. Even if there is a new devp. plan it may still be possible to get the outline permission again. All depends on what has changed in the devp. plan

My advice is to get her to ring the planner for that area and quote the reference no. of the previous permission and just ask what are the chances of getting a favorable decision on another application

MercMad

My advice is to get her to ring the planner for that area and quote the reference no. of the previous permission and just ask what are the chances of getting a favorable decision on another application

.........this is the best advise. I would go the legal route as that will annoy them plus I really dont think you have much of a leg to stand on !

I was in the same position all last year and only got it resolved in the last month. I spoke with planning consultants/experts, solicitors anybody I could. In the end I managed to get a meeting with a local Councillor and pleaded my case with him. I had to give him all the evidence and give him a run down on the sequence of events but at the end of the day the Planners actually HAVE to do what the Councillors tell them, one of the few bits of real power the Councillors have left !

MercMad

MercMad wrote:

In the end I managed to get a meeting with a local Councillor and pleaded my case with him. I had to give him all the evidence and give him a run down on the sequence of events but at the end of the day the Planners actually HAVE to do what the Councillors tell them, one of the few bits of real power the Councillors have left !

Yes that's the path my SIL is taking at the moment.

Just to clarify things a bit:
I have two SIL's who are trying to develop their inherited sites, one has just had permission refused, this being a re-application after the previous outline had expired (she is in contact with a councillor), and the other has an expired outline permission (granted in 2002) she thought it was valid for five years.

Whe we had permission granted in 1998 it was stated on the form that it was valid for five years, so the rules must have changed.

muffler

The time limit on making an application for approval (now called permission consequent) based on an outline permission was reduced from 5 years to 3 years - I think it was the 2000 regs that changed it

squire1

MercMad wrote:

the Planners actually HAVE to do what the Councillors tell them, one of the few bits of real power the Councillors have left !

Wow, I didn't know this. I thought/assumed from past experience that Counciillors were practically powerless when it came to planners.

Is this the case in all councils? If so, I've been badly represented by my locally elected friendly councilman and badly informed by my planning advisor/technician. I know who I will not be voting for in the next locals.

Gurgle

squire1 wrote:

Wow, I didn't know this. I thought/assumed from past experience that Counciillors were practically powerless when it came to planners.

That seems to be the impression they want to give so you won't blame them when they do nothing for you.

squire1

So, that means that a councillor has the power to over-rule the county development plan in individual cases?

I have to say I'm astounded. I thought the days of back stratching were gone. I suppose its not corruption if they are allowed to do it but it does seem unfair to those of us who had no choice but to stick to the rules because we were not personal friends with a councillor.

Anyway, it explains a lot of the planning that has been granted in my area that obviously contravene the rules.

Anyone got a spare brown paper bag?

muffler

MercMad wrote:

at the end of the day the Planners actually HAVE to do what the Councillors tell them, one of the few bits of real power the Councillors have left !

That statement is generally wrong. There are only 2 occasions when councilors have the upper hand on the planners - when a section 140 motion is passed at a council meeting and when county/local area development plans are being adopted, again at a council meeting.

My wife has just been in contact with a councillor about her SIL's expired application (against my wishes), it seems to be the normal way to do things here. Any problems with a council department, go to a councillor and get him to "persuade" the errant officer to reconsider the situation.

This particular councillor has dealt with seven other planning issues this week.

Will be interesting to see what the outcome will be.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote:

My wife has just been in contact with a councillor about her SIL's expired application (against my wishes), it seems to be the normal way to do things here. Any problems with a council department, go to a councillor and get him to "persuade" the errant officer to reconsider the situation.

This particular councillor has dealt with seven other planning issues this week.

Will be interesting to see what the outcome will be.

Update:

My SIL has been advised to sell the site "subject to planning" and to direct any potential purchasers to contact the councellor to "help" with the planning application.

mmm.. a bit fishey

smashey

Deleted User wrote:

Update:

My SIL has been advised to sell the site "subject to planning" and to direct any potential purchasers to contact the councellor to "help" with the planning application.

mmm.. a bit fishey

A lot of councillors say they will "help". In reality, they might send a letter but usually they don't tell you anything you don't already know.

smashey

smashey wrote:

A lot of councillors say they will "help". In reality, they might send a letter but usually they don't tell you anything you don't already know.

Yes, that's the conclusion I have come to as well. But my SIL believes that the councillor will "sort it out" for her.