Bord Planeala...WTF?

dermabrasion

We recently bought a house with plans that had been through An Bord Planeala (ABP). Our neighbours had (via their architect) originally objected to the previous owners large scale renovation plans, and threw in an objection to a planned porch into the mix. The ruling was we could not build a porch when we bought the house.
Now, the house is a 1940 'Arts and Crafts' house. 40-50% of the houses on the road have porches. The (vociferous) local residents association and the Co. Council had no objection to the porch. So, to us it made no common sense why ABP refused the porch, particularly when it was small in scale an reflected the architectural style of the house and street.
We thought that this was a simple mistake by ABP. In fact, our neighbour who made the original objection also wants to build a porch (were a semi-d) to complement ours. So, we re-applied to ABP with a different design to build a porch, with letters of support from my neighbour, and proof that this was congruent with neighbouring houses. This has been rejected by ABP.
So, it leaves only a high court challenge to ABP.
This makes no sense to me. It seems like they (ABP) make a mistake and stick to it. I would love to challenge this on the grounds of natural justice, but would love to hear if people have some experience of this type of issue

Pro Hoc Vice

If you have a large sum yo risk on any challenge. Time limits for Planning Judicial Review are less than for order 84 review. Without seeing the reasons for refusal no one can agree or disagree with your view.

Bepolite

This could become a great thread on the difference between the legal and normal defination of 'reasonable'.

camphor

dermabrasion wrote: »

We recently bought a house with plans that had been through An Bord Planeala (ABP). Our neighbours had (via their architect) originally objected to the previous owners large scale renovation plans, and threw in an objection to a planned porch into the mix. The ruling was we could not build a porch when we bought the house.
Now, the house is a 1940 'Arts and Crafts' house. 40-50% of the houses on the road have porches. The (vociferous) local residents association and the Co. Council had no objection to the porch. So, to us it made no common sense why ABP refused the porch, particularly when it was small in scale an reflected the architectural style of the house and street.
We thought that this was a simple mistake by ABP. In fact, our neighbour who made the original objection also wants to build a porch (were a semi-d) to complement ours. So, we re-applied to ABP with a different design to build a porch, with letters of support from my neighbour, and proof that this was congruent with neighbouring houses. This has been rejected by ABP.
So, it leaves only a high court challenge to ABP.
This makes no sense to me. It seems like they (ABP) make a mistake and stick to it. I would love to challenge this on the grounds of natural justice, but would love to hear if people have some experience of this type of issue

I don't understand how you re-applied to ABP. If there was a fresh application it would be to the local authority.

You don't understand the concept of natural justice either. Natural justice has nothing to do with your complaint. You haven't demonstrated any breach of the principles "nemo judex in causa sua" or "audi alterem partem".

godtabh

Submit a new planning application.

Very common to submit a revised application and re inter the planning process

dermabrasion

Thanks Camphor. I am not legally trained, so I take your point about the meaning or natural justice. I used it a euphamism for common sense. I have no idea what those latin terms mean.
Regarding timeline was as follows:Previous owner
the initial application by the co.co was allowed
The neighbour objected to ABP
The ABP review favoured the porch
The full ABP board refused it: impacting on visual amenity not in keeping with streetscape

2nd design: Our design
Pre-submission advice fropm CoCo was that it was substantially different from 1st design to merit re-consderation as a new application.
This application was then turned down by the CoCo as there was an existing ABP ruling.
We appealed to ABP on the grounds that it was different, it was supported by our neighbour, it was in keeping with the style of the house and there was precedent up and down the street. They reviewed it and turned it down for exactly the same reasons.

So whats the point of bring al this up when options are limited? To me this makes no sense at all. I think I would have enough perspective to distance myself from personal bias resulting from an unfavourable result to our appeal, if I could see merit in the opinion. I don't see any reasonable way APB justifies that our plans or indeed the previous plan detracts from the visual amienity of the streetscape, especially when there are simiral structures up and down the street.
I suspect that there is a policy agenda

camphor

dermabrasion wrote: »

Thanks Camphor. I am not legally trained, so I take your point about the meaning or natural justice. I used it a euphamism for common sense. I have no idea what those latin terms mean.
Regarding timeline was as follows:Previous owner
the initial application by the co.co was allowed
The neighbour objected to ABP
The ABP review favoured the porch
The full ABP board refused it: impacting on visual amenity not in keeping with streetscape

2nd design: Our design
Pre-submission advice fropm CoCo was that it was substantially different from 1st design to merit re-consderation as a new application.
This application was then turned down by the CoCo as there was an existing ABP ruling.
We appealed to ABP on the grounds that it was different, it was supported by our neighbour, it was in keeping with the style of the house and there was precedent up and down the street. They reviewed it and turned it down for exactly the same reasons.

So whats the point of bring al this up when options are limited? To me this makes no sense at all. I think I would have enough perspective to distance myself from personal bias resulting from an unfavourable result to our appeal, if I could see merit in the opinion. I don't see any reasonable way APB justifies that our plans or indeed the previous plan detracts from the visual amienity of the streetscape, especially when there are simiral structures up and down the street.
I suspect that there is a policy agenda

You don't know what euphemism means either!
There is no way you would be justified in taking a Judicial review or even getting an opinion over a porch. It would make more financial sense to move house and get a house with a porch than go through all the hassle of a judicial review.

BornToKill

You bought a house knowing that you could not build a porch but now sometime later you consider you have a absolute right to build a porch? Is that about it?

dermabrasion

BornToKill wrote: »

You bought a house knowing that you could not build a porch but now sometime later you consider you have a absolute right to build a porch? Is that about it?

Not really. I bought a wreck of a house, with plans which we liked. I thought it would be nice to build a porch, in that it would add character and serve as a shelter immediately outside the front door. I assumed (or hoped) that the planners would agree based on reasons described above. I hoped the origional decision was an oversight. My architect also could not see why it was disallowed the first time.
I guess it's like a kid saying to 'everyone else has one why can't I have one too boo-hoo' with the mum saying 'because you just can't'. That's what bugs me. The reason (to me), is not believable.

iverjohnston

Incredible that your neighbour, having previously objected to a porch, and having gone to the trouble of employing an architect to give weight to his objection, now wants to build a porch himself!
Talk about two faced!
Probably easier to forget about the porch, given the circumstances, and don't forget to object to any other plans submitted by members of the residents committee, and by the neighbours original architect.

Or, being less childish, could both you and your neighbour submit new applications having agreed to identical porches?

dermabrasion

iverjohnston wrote: »

Incredible that your neighbour, having previously objected to a porch, and having gone to the trouble of employing an architect to give weight to his objection, now wants to build a porch himself!
Talk about two faced!
Probably easier to forget about the porch, given the circumstances, and don't forget to object to any other plans submitted by members of the residents committee, and by the neighbours original architect.

Or, being less childish, could both you and your neighbour submit new applications having agreed to identical porches?

I get on with my neighbour, he's a nice guy. I think had a problem with the previous owner's scale of planned renovation. I think when he commissioned an architect to objet to the original plan, the architect threw everything into the mix in the objection. Unfortunately, the porch stuck.
We had agreed to build complimentary porches. I think he had no idea that this would come back to bite him.

alyssum

camphor wrote: »

I don't understand how you re-applied to ABP. If there was a fresh application it would be to the local authority.

You don't understand the concept of natural justice either. Natural justice has nothing to do with your complaint. You haven't demonstrated any breach of the principles "nemo judex in causa sua" or "audi alterem partem".

excuse me jumping in . what is natural justice?

Pro Hoc Vice

alyssum wrote: »

excuse me jumping in . what is natural justice?

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/natural-justice.html