Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Planning and EU Law

  • 09-07-2008 11:58pm
    #1
    qed123
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9 ✭


    Has any one seen the Recent EU ruling as reported in the Irish times last Friday C-215/06 judgement 2008-07-03 the Commission v Ireland Enviornment and Consumers. What it means where it states that the practice of granting retention permission is against EU Law. !!!! and that the practice should stop as encourages unauthorized developments.


Comments

  • #2
    No6
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,489 ✭✭✭No6


    qed123 wrote: »
    Has any one seen the Recent EU ruling as reported in the Irish times last Friday C-215/06 judgement 2008-07-03 the Commission v Ireland Enviornment and Consumers. What it means where it states that the practice of granting retention permission is against EU Law. !!!! and that the practice should stop as encourages unauthorized developments.
    I wouldn't worry about it didn't the same EU find that the Occupancy clauses were also illegal......


  • #3
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 42,171 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    qed123 wrote: »
    Has any one seen the Recent EU ruling as reported in the Irish times last Friday C-215/06 judgement 2008-07-03 the Commission v Ireland Enviornment and Consumers. What it means where it states that the practice of granting retention permission is against EU Law. !!!! and that the practice should stop as encourages unauthorized developments.

    I wouldnt agree with the above supposition.

    The ruling has more to do with the procedure of works before an EIS was compiled and determined, on both public and private projects as required by Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985.

    The ruling is based around the protection of the environment rather than commenting on the spirit behind retention permission. Its interesting to note that the final determination was simply to fine Ireland the costs of the court case. Is that all the power the european court has?


  • #4
    muffler
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 46,553 ✭✭✭✭muffler


    Sorry lads but Im locking this for now and with a view to maybe moving it to the politics forum. I will see what mellor and smashey have to say first.


  • #5
    muffler
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 46,553 ✭✭✭✭muffler


    This is one of these strange threads where it has a relevance to the C & P forum in one way but it could also be debated in another forum. Anyhow I will open it again if anyone wishes to add anything else but if any other comments take it down the political route then I will move it to the politics forum.


  • #6
    qed123
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9 ✭qed123


    Muffler. Though you did not refer to it, I take it you got the mail I sent you with the text of the decision. Gosh! but you would need a week to figure out the various references. Never the less, though the subject issue of the case had to do with the EIS etc, it refers to the general practice of granting Planning Permission to retain unauthorized structures as against EU law.
    From a pragmatic point of view i am sure that this would not relate to minor alterations or for that matter minor breaches.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement