Retention of unauthorised development

Yorky

In a situation where a developer has flagrantly disregarded planning permission ,carried put unauthorised development for their own ends and susequently applied for retention permission, could anyone advise on the most effective way of ensuring the application is refused and completed in full conformity with the original approval?

Has the Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill, 2009 been enacted and would it be of use in this situation?

Thanks in advance.

sinnerboy

Nope . Pay your €20. Make your feelings known to LA within the 5 week period .

You may then take it to ABP if necessary .

Ddad

Agree with sinnerboy. Fight the good fight and try and organise anybody else affected. I had to go through two la applications and a pleanala appeal before I won against a developer, he was raging. Ah, the satisfaction.:)

It cost me a few euros but nothing compared to the loss of amenity and value of my home if it had gone ahead.

Ddad

Yorky wrote: »

In a situation where a developer has flagrantly disregarded planning permission ,carried put unauthorised development for their own ends and susequently applied for retention permission, could anyone advise on the most effective way of ensuring the application is refused and completed in full conformity with the original approval?

Has the Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill, 2009 been enacted and would it be of use in this situation?

Thanks in advance.

Sorry, should have addressed some of the issues more thoroughly. I downloaded the appropriate planning legislation and used every releveant point on planning guidelines in my observations/appeal.

Therer are loads of reasons to refuse a development as well as grant permission. Sightlines, proximity, privacy, light, amenity, public areas, parking and the list goes on. In my experience the local authorities will frequently overlook blatantly bad developments if there is insufficient opposition by those affected.

All of this is a pain in the backside, the taking photos, preparing documents (carefully) downloading maps and trips to the planners. It takes a lot of time and effort and some money. If you willing to put it in go ahead.

I would imagine that retention is the more appealing avenue for the LA as enforcement is expensive and time consuming and the incidenses of demolition orders are few and far between.

I hope it goes well for you.

Yorky

Thanks. This has been done by some of the residents. The planning authority then requested 'Further Information' to which the developer had six months to reply to which it did on the last day of that period.

All persons who made a submission or observation to the original retention application have now been invited to respond to the developer's reply.

There is concern amongst the residents that the retention application will be approved. Without going to An Bord Pleanala, is there any other method of appealing against such a decision? Would there be costs involved in appealing to ABP for members of the public?

sydthebeat

As the development requires retention then, according to planning law, it is substantially different from the original application, therefore it needs to be determined on its own merits. (if it was substantially the same, minor differences should be dealt with by other means). There may be some issues that will overlap with the original application, but essentially its a different applicantion and it would be improper to expect the original conditions to be imposed.

if the planners deem the retention permission application acceptable, then your only recourse is an appeal to the Bord. If certain vital aspects of the original application were asked for by the planners and not included in teh retention, then you have a strong case to either get the application refused, or get these vital aspects included in the retention.

sydthebeat

Yorky wrote: »

1. All persons who made a submission or observation to the original retention application have now been invited to respond to the developer's reply.

you generally have 2 weeks to get your response in...

Yorky wrote: »

2. Without going to An Bord Pleanala, is there any other method of appealing against such a decision?

no.

Yorky wrote: »

Would there be costs involved in appealing to ABP for members of the public?

i think the fee is currently €220

the best thing to do is make your planning submissions under an umberlla group name ie 'such-n-such residence group'... then appeal under that name as well.. keeps fees down...

Rowley Birkin QC

Yes, there is a small cost involved, can't think off the top of my head but it's nothing major.

Outside of ABP you can seek a judicial review of the procedures undertaken by the Local Authority in their assessment of the application. However, this will not consider planning issues, only the procedures and their implementation by the LA.

This page should answer a lot of your questions.

sydthebeat

bigkev49 wrote: »

Yes, there is a small cost involved, can't think off the top of my head but it's nothing major.

Outside of ABP you can seek a judicial review of the procedures undertaken by the Local Authority in their assessment of the application. However, this will not consider planning issues, only the procedures and their implementation by the LA.

This page should answer a lot of your questions.

as far as i know, a judicial review can only be taken AFTER an appeal.... not instead... but im open to correction on this....

Rowley Birkin QC

sydthebeat wrote: »

as far as i know, a judicial review can only be taken AFTER an appeal.... not instead... but im open to correction on this....

You are correct, the judicial review is undertaken by the High Court and the application for judicial review must be made within 8 weeks from the date the decision is given by the Board.

Ddad

+1 to the above. ABP are sticklers so I would suggest you visit their sight and familiarise yourself with the information they require; unlike me who had to turn up to their offices on the final day because I'd submitted the wrong receipt initially.

Rowley Birkin QC

Ddad wrote: »

+1 to the above. ABP are sticklers so I would suggest you visit their sight and familiarise yourself with the information they require; unlike me who had to turn up to their offices on the final day because I'd submitted the wrong receipt initially.

Totally, do not leave it to the final day. Their deadlines are absolute down to the fact that as far as I know they have computer controlled locking doors at 5pm.

This is all jumping the gun considering the LA haven't made a decision yet but if you are appealing to ABP check everything, check it again and then get someone else to check it a few more times.

Poor Uncle Tom

bigkev49 wrote: »

Totally, do not leave it to the final day. Their deadlines are absolute down to the fact that as far as I know they have computer controlled locking doors at 5pm.

This is all jumping the gun considering the LA haven't made a decision yet but if you are appealing to ABP check everything, check it again and then get someone else to check it a few more times.

They're worked on a buzzer, I was inside there at 4.59pm one evening when a bike currier came to the door, he thought he had missed the deadline, he was ragin. They let him in, he wasn't leavin without his receipt...:D

You can always get an agent to check and make your appeal for you.

onq

The An Bórd Pleanála offices close at 5:30pm

From the current guidelines on making an Appeal:

http://www.pleanala.ie/guide/appeal_guide.htm
==============================

4. How may I appeal?

Every appeal must be made in writing and must be:

• sent by post to: The Secretary,

An Bord Pleanála,

64 Marlborough Street,

Dublin 1,

or

• delivered by hand to an employee of the Board at the Board’s offices during office hours (9.15 a.m. to 5.30 p.m. on Monday to Friday except on public holidays and other days on which the offices are closed). Appeals placed in the Board’s letterbox are invalid.

The appeal must be fully complete from the start – you are not permitted to clarify, elaborate or submit any part of it at a different time, even within the time limit. (See also question 15).

onq

sydthebeat wrote: »

<snip>

the best thing to do is make your planning submissions under an umberlla group name ie 'such-n-such residence group'... then appeal under that name as well.. keeps fees down...

Properly constituted residents associations with a constitution or charter or groups set up as companies all may have a certain standing, in that they may be accepted as legal entities - ergo they may make an appeal.

Ad hoc associations or groups may not have the same legal standing - ergo there may be a difficulty with the standing of an appeal made by such a group.

You should check the status of your group and discuss it with ABP.

If in doubt you might consider selecting an individual to be the appellant and append a list of signatures of those who support the Appeal to the document itself.

If you're sending a cheque, make sure its drawn on an account that is in funds.
You don't get second chances with appeals and I have seen one potentially troublesome appeal simply go away because the would-be appellant's cheque bounced.

Oh, and each Appeal should be accompanied by the letter of acknowledgement received by the Observer from the local authority in response to their observation sent in during the five week period after the original application for permission was lodged.

That may help clarify the issue of who should - or can - appeal.

HTH

ONQ

onq

sydthebeat wrote: »

<snip> There may be some issues that will overlap with the original application, but essentially its a different applicantion and it would be improper to expect the original conditions to be imposed.

I'm not sure I'm understanding you correctly here sydthebeat.

Given the allegedly flagrant disregard of planning law by the developer, it seems entirely proper "to expect the original conditions to be imposed"

Any decision on an application for retention could be conditioned to restrict the development to that which was originally permitted, including the original conditions.

Normally an Observer might make a submission stating that "the developer originally and freely sought development for scheme A, but that he built scheme B in disregard of the permission granted."

The Observer would then make a case for preferring the original over the current development.
After all, just because a thing is built doesn't mean it can't be knocked down.

Given that the application defines the current development as essentially a different application - as you so rightly pointed out - it may be open to the Observers for them to take out a Section 160 against it.

This is a very interesting provision in the Act..

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2000/en/act/pub/0030/sec0160.html

I'm not sure if its been amended, but its one way to restore the balance when unauthorised development occurs.

ONQ.