Planning permission

bogwalrus

What legal action can I take after planning permission has been approved?

I need to save a national monument and heritage site from being built upon but I am uncertain what I can do.

The local heritage officer was not notified and plenty of other issues in relation to the planning process were overlooked.

Any help would be much appreciated as you will also be helping me with saving an important piece of land in Ireland.

thank you

coylemj

Appeal to An Bord Pleanala?

If it's already gone to them and they've approved it, you'd need a compelling case and you'd go to the High Court seeking to overturn their decision.

If it involves the issues you've outlined then you could do worse than talk to An Taisce and get them involved.

Pat Mustard

Look here.

1. What Is The Last Day To Make An Appeal?
Appeals against a planning decision must generally be made within 4 weeks (28 days) beginning on the date of the decision of the planning authority. Use the calendar facility on the Board’s home page to find out the last appeal date. See exceptions to the 4 week rule.

loremolis

bogwalrus wrote: »

What legal action can I take after planning permission has been approved?

I need to save a national monument and heritage site from being built upon but I am uncertain what I can do.

The local heritage officer was not notified and plenty of other issues in relation to the planning process were overlooked.

Any help would be much appreciated as you will also be helping me with saving an important piece of land in Ireland.

thank you

If you didn't make a valid submission/objection to the local authority it's pretty much impossible to make an appeal to An Bord Pleanala or to legally challenge the decision of the planning authority.

As far as I remember the only way to appeal a decision of a local authority is to seek leave to appeal under the planning acts but that is strictly confined to adjoining landowners if the permission affects them and/or if the development granted permission is materially different to the one for which permission was sought.

Best to ask a good planning consultant on those issues because they can be tricky.

Pat Mustard

Link.

2. Who may appeal?
• An applicant for planning permission (first party), and
• any other person, body or interested group etc. who made submissions or observations in writing to the planning authority in relation to the planning application in accordance with permission regulations (third party). There are three exceptions to the requirement to have made prior submissions or observations: -
(1) where a prescribed body was entitled to be notified of a planning application by the planning authority and was not notified in accordance with law, the body may appeal the decision of the planning authority without having made submissions or observations on the planning application,
(2) where an environmental impact statement (EIS) was required to be submitted with the application to the planning authority, a body whose aims or objectives relate to the promotion of environmental protection and which meets certain other requirements may appeal the decision of the planning authority without having made submissions or observations on the planning application,
(3) a person with an interest in land (e.g. a landowner/occupier)adjoining the application site may apply to the Board for leave to appeal the decision of the planning authority without having made submissions or observations to the planning authority (see question 33).

coylemj

bogwalrus wrote: »

The local heritage officer was not notified and plenty of other issues in relation to the planning process were overlooked.

In which case the probability is that An Taisce were not notified either and they may be able to lodge an appeal under clause (1) above as a 'prescribed body'.

Pat Mustard

coylemj wrote: »

In which case the probability is that An Taisce were not notified either and they may be able to lodge an appeal under clause (1) above as a 'prescribed body'.

Sounds about right.

Victor

bogwalrus wrote: »

I need to save a national monument and heritage site from being built upon but I am uncertain what I can do.

Talk to http://www.heritageireland.ie/en/ and the Department of environment Heritage Office.

www.environ.ie/en/Publications/DevelopmentandHousing/Planning/FileDownLoad,14979,en.pdf

MadsL

Certainly check if An Taisce were notified - Ian Lumley is your contact there, or Kevin Duff for Dublin. PM me if you have difficulty reaching them.

A national monument requires the consent of the minister to proceed with any works, check with Environment if any consents have been sought.

Could you link to the case on the LA planning system website. Or provide a case number.

bogwalrus

MadsL wrote: »

Certainly check if An Taisce were notified - Ian Lumley is your contact there, or Kevin Duff for Dublin. PM me if you have difficulty reaching them.

A national monument requires the consent of the minister to proceed with any works, check with Environment if any consents have been sought.

Could you link to the case on the LA planning system website. Or provide a case number.

Tomás Bradley was the contact I got for an Taisce and he replied with the following:

"All the application references you provided me with are decided. It is past the point to become involved or appeal. So unfortunately it is difficult for An Taisce to become involved at this point.

If you note any further planning applications on the site, please get back in contact with us and we will submit to the council."



I contacted the minister and his secretary responded saying he will look at the matter. This was around two weeks ago.

These are three relevant planning numbers:

1254010 Sports & Leisure Complex Mgt Co. Ltd

1154015 Cork County VEC

1054006 Cork VEC (school)

MadsL

Bogwalrus, we are three years into those permissions now. Can I ask why you are trying to get involved at this stage. What is the national monument concerned and what is the impact? The consent of the Minister is still required for works on a National Monument.

bogwalrus

It is three years for the extension on the school. I think this was withdrawn.

The others are more recent and no one in the town knew of them as there was very little advertising (almost none) so no one got to appeal. Not one appeal was handed in which shows how no one knew.

I only heard about the approved planning of the astro turf pitch one month ago which is to be built on the last bit of green land inside the castle gates. That land used to be the original gardens of the castle.

The other buildings should have never been built there either but because they have been built there is not much anyone can do.

in 2009 the area was designated an ACA (architectural conservation area)

The castle itself is protected under the monuments act 1930.

Brian Ború had a historic battle on the castle grounds where he defeated a Danish Chieftan Molloy. After this battle he became the king of Munster.


The earliest part of the castle is 12thc with many famous families including the Mccarthy's owning the castle. The castle was built around the same time as Blarney castle and by the same family.


The land itself is owned by a trust who are allowing all the building to go on even though they promised to preserve the land since 1925.

It was Lady Ardilaun, wife of Arthur Guinness who owned the castle and gave it in trust.


If I had known about the planning I would have appealed but I did not as there was no advertising. This goes for a large number of citizens in the town.

I really need some organisation like an Taisce to appeal the planning decision in some way considering how poorly the planning application was handled.

MadsL

Here's the issue however.

The Castle, not the land is the National Monument.
The requirements under the Planning and Development Acts are that there was a visible site notice at the site for the duration of the observation period on the application. I assume that this was in place and inspected at the time by the plnning officer. There is also a requirement that a notice be placed in the press.

There is no requirement for ministerial consent for development on an ACA.

I suggest you examine the planning file at the planning office to ensure all notices were in fact issued and verified. If they were not, you might be in a position to challenge the decision - but that is a long road.

What is your concern exactly about a school development in the gardens? Archaeological or visual impact?

Even An Taisce have to work within the Planning and Development Acts with regard to timescales.

bogwalrus

There are three main concerns:

1.The castle & its demesne are visited by many tourists each year. Most tour operators stop in Macroom for the castle. Building inside the grounds ruins the castle experience and takes away from the archaeology that is there. It will damage tourism to the town.

If part of the castle was not illegally knocked down & the school never built we would have been left with something similar to Muckross house and its Gardens.

http://www.oldirishimages.com/towns%20and%20villages/co%20cork/macroom/CK404.jpg

I still see an opportunity to restore the gardens that would keep with the castle surroundings.


2. The land has historical significance going back to 10thc with Brian Ború up until more recently when the castle was home to William Penn the founder of Pennsylvania. There are old maps showing exactly where on the land the battle occurred.

3.There is a fire station just inside the castle grounds with only one way in and one way out. The astro turf pitch will mean more congestion making it more likely for the fire engine to be stuck behind a number of cars entering and exiting the castle grounds. Below is a pic of the only entrance. I was on to the County Fire Department and they are looking into the matter with their operations manager. I think this might be another way to stop any further building.

http://westcorkholidayaccommodation.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/macroomcastlegates.jpg

charlemont

Scandalous carry on to be honest. An Taisce are quick to protest and object when something positive is planned eg High Rise's but here is our heritage being desecrated and none of them will do jack...Fair play to you OP for doing something..

bogwalrus

Thanks Charlemont for the kind words.

Just to summarise a few key points on the planning:

> The county heritage officer was not notified and should have been

> the people of the town were not made aware of the planning because none of the following local papers advertised the planning (I called and checked with both offices): Lee Valley Outlook, The Corkman and the independent.

> Other Heritage bodies were also not notified


As it is a very important site for the town in relation to tourism and heritage surely something can be done even if the planning has been approved.

MadsL

bogwalrus wrote: »

There are three main concerns:

1.The castle & its demesne are visited by many tourists each year. Most tour operators stop in Macroom for the castle. Building inside the grounds ruins the castle experience and takes away from the archaeology that is there. It will damage tourism to the town.

If part of the castle was not illegally knocked down & the school never built we would have been left with something similar to Muckross house and its Gardens.

http://www.oldirishimages.com/towns%20and%20villages/co%20cork/macroom/CK404.jpg

I still see an opportunity to restore the gardens that would keep with the castle surroundings.


2. The land has historical significance going back to 10thc with Brian Ború up until more recently when the castle was home to William Penn the founder of Pennsylvania. There are old maps showing exactly where on the land the battle occurred.

3.There is a fire station just inside the castle grounds with only one way in and one way out. The astro turf pitch will mean more congestion making it more likely for the fire engine to be stuck behind a number of cars entering and exiting the castle grounds. Below is a pic of the only entrance. I was on to the County Fire Department and they are looking into the matter with their operations manager. I think this might be another way to stop any further building.

http://westcorkholidayaccommodation.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/macroomcastlegates.jpg

Bogwalrus - I fully appreciate your concerns, unfortunately none of them have any standing under the planning and development acts.

Have you contacted local councillors with these concerns?

coylemj

This is turning into a discussion about 'heritage' with the application of the term being stretched to suit a particular viewpoint.

Using the fact that Brian Boru fought a battle on a field over 1,000 years ago as a reason why they shouldn't build an extension to a school there is quite frankly barmy.

This has parallels with the battle over the M3 where the self-appointed heritage police lost the run of themselves and tried to convert the area around the Hill of Tara into to the 'Skyrne Valley' in order to grant imaginary heritage status to a large swathe of Co. Meath.

As far as I can see the planning process has been followed in this case so I really can't see that there are any residual legal matters. An Taisce as a prescribed body has the ability to appeal this decision but have declined to do so, that's the end if it as far as I'm concerned.

bogwalrus

MadsL wrote: »

Bogwalrus - I fully appreciate your concerns, unfortunately none of them have any standing under the planning and development acts.

Have you contacted local councillors with these concerns?

One of the councillors is on the board of the people who are building the pitch. Its a complete conflict of interest.

There is a few councillors that would rather not see any building inside the castle grounds and yet they still gave it the go ahead. Maybe because one councillor is on the board that applied for the planing.

bogwalrus

coylemj wrote: »

This is turning into a discussion about 'heritage' with the application of the term being stretched to suit a particular viewpoint.

Using the fact that Brian Boru fought a battle on a field over 1,000 years ago as a reason why they shouldn't build an extension to a school there is quite frankly barmy.

This has parallels with the battle over the M3 where the self-appointed heritage police lost the run of themselves and tried to convert the area around the Hill of Tara into to the 'Skyrne Valley' in order to grant imaginary heritage status to a large swathe of Co. Meath.

As far as I can see the planning process has been followed in this case so I really can't see that there are any residual legal matters. An Taisce as a prescribed body has the ability to appeal this decision but have declined to do so, that's the end if it as far as I'm concerned.

I take your point. I don't want to be the heritage police but in this case the castle is important to the towns tourism. Preserving and promoting the castle and its history is good for the town. In this case they are choosing to just build more until there is nothing visible to even bother promoting.


My main point is that the planning process was not followed correctly with poor advertising and no contact with the local heritage officer who has to sign off on the planning.

This means people who would be against any planning were not given the opportunity to protest as they never knew. Do you think really think the planning process was followed correctly?


An Taisce did not decline anything. He said there was nothing they can do as the planning has been approved but as pointed out above in Clause 1 they can do something so I emailed him back pointing this out. He just might not have been aware.

coylemj

bogwalrus wrote: »

One of the councillors is on the board of the people who are building the pitch. Its a complete conflict of interest.

I assume you mean that he is on the board of the school. How is it a conflict of interest if he is not going to personally profit from the development?

bogwalrus

coylemj wrote: »

This is turning into a discussion about 'heritage'
Using the fact that Brian Boru fought a battle on a field over 1,000 years ago as a reason why they shouldn't build an extension to a school there is quite frankly barmy.

Building an astro turf pitch on an important battle site is more barmy in my opinion.

I think the point of view will always be divided here as a certain number of people would want historical pieces of land preserved especially if there is also a castle on the land while others just don't care.

bogwalrus

coylemj wrote: »

I assume you mean that he is on the board of the school. How is it a conflict of interest if he is not going to personally profit from the development?

He is on the board of the Leisure management company that want to build the pitch. I am unsure if he will benefit financially.

The conflict of interest is that he wants this built but is a councillor so should be doing what is best for the town. If I was to give him all the reasons why there should be no more building inside the castle gates including the congestion with the fire station, because he is on the board he will be bias so can't come to a fair conclusion as a councillor.

Its not the school extension we are talking about here. That's another planing application.

MadsL

coylemj wrote: »

This is turning into a discussion about 'heritage' with the application of the term being stretched to suit a particular viewpoint.

Using the fact that Brian Boru fought a battle on a field over 1,000 years ago as a reason why they shouldn't build an extension to a school there is quite frankly barmy.

This has parallels with the battle over the M3 where the self-appointed heritage police lost the run of themselves and tried to convert the area around the Hill of Tara into to the 'Skyrne Valley' in order to grant imaginary heritage status to a large swathe of Co. Meath.

As far as I can see the planning process has been followed in this case so I really can't see that there are any residual legal matters. An Taisce as a prescribed body has the ability to appeal this decision but have declined to do so, that's the end if it as far as I'm concerned.

I think there is the question if it was referred to An Taisce at all. I think it is worth bogwalrus having a look at the planning files (the online system is useless) in the planning office and try an find if it was referred to AT at all.

AT may have declined to take an appeal, but that is not proven at this stage.

I take your point about the heritage value of land, as opposed to retained heritage buildings historic fabric. However, this is not without some precedent. ABP some years ago determined that as most of Dublin was archaeologically sensitive An Taisce could bring an appeal pretty much anywhere in Dublin. The detirmination was a delivered really as a slap in the face to a developer who sought to block AT from appealing a planning decision.

bogwalrus

I think at the end of the day if the land in question is important to the town then they should be made aware quite clearly what is being done with the land.

If the site is significant and a heritage officer needs to be contacted with any proposed planning then that should also be done so all bodies responsible for Irish heritage can object if they feel they need to.


I would not normally object to planning unless I really felt that it would be doing great damage. Myself and many more citizens of the town feel that this will do great damage.


One thing I did not mention is the reason why it has to be on the castle grounds. It is owned by a trust of business men who are supposed to be preserving the castle and demesne but instead seem to be making deals for all sorts of building. It is not clear what they are getting for building on this plot of land and I don't think there is any way of finding out.

bogwalrus

MadsL wrote: »

I think it is worth bogwalrus having a look at the planning files (the online system is useless) in the planning office and try an find if it was referred to AT at all.

AT may have declined to take an appeal, but that is not proven at this stage.

I will ask the town clerk for another meeting to see the files. She is new to the town so is being quite helpful and was not here for most of the planning application although she was here for the approval.

Thanks for the help.

coylemj

bogwalrus wrote: »

He is on the board of the Leisure management company that want to build the pitch. I am unsure if he will benefit financially.

.....

Its not the school extension we are talking about here. That's another planing application.

Sorry, missed that distinction. If he is on the board of a commercial company which submitted the planning application then he should have declared this fact when the matter came up for discussion at the council and he should have absented himself from any debate and the actual vote.

If he didn't then you could take it up with the Minister for the Environment as I'm sure that there are guidelines if not actual regulations covering this type of situation.

MadsL

coylemj wrote: »

Sorry, missed that distinction. If he is on the board of a commercial company which submitted the planning application then he should have declared this fact when the matter came up for discussion at the council and he should have absented himself from any debate and the actual vote.

If he didn't then you could take it up with the Minister for the Environment as I'm sure that there are guidelines if not actual regulations covering this type of situation.

I'l add the rider that I would not expect too much from the Department. We are facing an absolute farce of a public consultation at the minute with 16 Moore St where the Dept want to consult on the EIS but will not release an architectural study as part of that consultation, despite stern complaints from AT. Transparency when it suits is the modus operandi there.

Local politics would be the way to go on this, TDs and councillors.