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

Local Need - Discrimination?

  • 11-09-2016 10:57pm
    #1
    cavez
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2 ✭


    Hi,
    I was wondering if the local need requirement for planning permission has ever been disputed on basis of discrimination based on origins. I believe this unjust "no no-local need apply" law should be revised, especially considering the current climate with lack of decent/affordable housing etc.
    Thanks,


Comments

  • #2
    covey09
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 215 ✭✭covey09


    Sorry i feel you frustration but they are country wide. We had to buy a site with a cottage on it to get planning and even then its a struggle (i'm from the area but lived in the town).


  • #3
    BryanF
    Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators Posts: 10,146 Mod ✭✭✭✭BryanF


    cavez wrote: »
    Hi,
    I was wondering if the local need requirement for planning permission has ever been disputed on basis of discrimination based on origins. I believe this unjust "no no-local need apply" law should be revised, especially considering the current climate with lack of decent/affordable housing etc.
    Thanks,
    affordable Housing supply in urban areas, has little to do with non locals building mac-mansions in areas where they will no doubt drive to the nearest urban area to work.

    I was wondering if an applicant effectively lies to the council stating 'local needs', builds a house, but then doesn't actually work/contribute to the area and in fact commutes to the local town/city - should the council sue and seek return of The house?
    ;):D:D


  • #4
    NiallBoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,504 ✭✭✭NiallBoo


    You're looking at this backwards, it's an exemption nor a preference.

    I.e. you wouldn't get planning anyway if that exemption didn't exist because no such planning would be allowed.


  • #5
    Santos L. Halper
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13 ✭Santos L. Halper


    cavez wrote: »
    Hi,
    I was wondering if the local need requirement for planning permission has ever been disputed on basis of discrimination based on origins. I believe this unjust "no no-local need apply" law should be revised, especially considering the current climate with lack of decent/affordable housing etc.
    Thanks,

    I agree. I really believe that if someone actually took the planning authorities to court on this rule it would be overturned. It really is a xenophobic, 'no-outsiders' rule that needs to change.


  • #6
    Angry bird
    Closed Accounts Posts: 808 ✭✭✭Angry bird


    Couldn't find it but from memory the law society brought this to the ECJ a few years back and seems it is compliant but wording of occupancy clause has to be careful.


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    Gumbo
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 40,351 Mod ✭✭✭✭Gumbo


    Santos L. Halper wrote: »
    I agree. I really believe that if someone actually took the planning authorities to court on this rule it would be overturned. It really is a xenophobic, 'no-outsiders' rule that needs to change.

    I don't think the LA would lose?


  • #8
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 42,171 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    Angry bird wrote: »
    Couldn't find it but from memory the law society brought this to the ECJ a few years back and seems it is compliant but wording of occupancy clause has to be careful.

    The policy was contested in the European court of justice.
    The government defended their position
    The ECJ requested clarification on the policy. They received this.
    They havent taken it any further.

    I am in agreement with the policy.

    Rural housing is a finite resource and a scarce resource.
    It should be restricted to those who have a genuine need to live in that locality, be that because its where they work, or its where their family reside and where they have roots with the community.

    It would be incredibly unfair if rural housing in any particular townland was completely saturated with a free-for-all which meant that a local person could not get planning permission because of over saturation.

    as a further point, local needs DOES NOT APPLY to many rural areas all over the country. Many counties have areas which are "structurally weak" (which means population is declining) and its the local authoritys policy to encourage sustainable rural development in these areas.

    so anyone looking to move to a rural area, there are options available if you do your homework.


  • #9
    cavez
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2 ✭cavez


    Thanks for the replies. Sorry I can't seem to get the quote or multi-quote function working. I'll just write my replies between

    BryanF
    affordable Housing supply in urban areas, has little to do with non locals building mac-mansions in areas where they will no doubt drive to the nearest urban area to work.
    yes, I agree. At the same time nobody stops developers to build low standards estates for profit that can be sold to non-locals who commute to urban areas to work. Also nothing stops locals to build a home to their own specs and then work in the nearest urban area. In Galway, where I live, there is a shortage of houses, which results into very expensive properties per sq footage and really low standards, and no land to build within the urban boundaries. Yet, I've seen planning permissions granted to people who have ancestors from the area that have less ties with the community than outsiders who lived there for a long time. The problem is that there are no clear criteria. As for the Mac Mansion if you have money you can do what you want. A couple of years ago they allowed a Scandinavian home with high energy efficiency, that blended in with the landscape to be knocked down and replaced with a spaceship. That was right on the coast, near Oranmore, Mweeloon to be exact. The guy who built it is a banker, not from the area, who, on top of it seems he did not pay the builders! (protests were going on in front of the property for quite a while)


    NiallBoo
    You're looking at this backwards, it's an exemption nor a preference.
    I.e. you wouldn't get planning anyway if that exemption didn't exist because no such planning would be allowed.
    You see this is my issue. Justice vs legality. I believe everyone has the right to decent living conditions, of course I also believe that regulations should be put in place so people don't take advantage. I believe that if your planned house fits within certain parameters you should have the right to decide to create a life for yourself in a community. Even if you have to go to work to the nearest urban area then your kids will go to the local school etc... But to the point of your reply, if you are a non-local you can't buy a site with FPP. The site has already the permission. The discriminant (or discriminated) is the person.

    sydthebeat
    The policy was contested in the European court of justice.
    The government defended their position
    The ECJ requested clarification on the policy. They received this.
    They havent taken it any further.
    Do you know were I could find the document?

    Rural housing is a finite resource and a scarce resource.
    It should be restricted to those who have a genuine need to live in that locality, be that because its where they work, or its where their family reside and where they have roots with the community.
    It is a finite resource and even more finite is urban housing. Many people are forced to move outside of urban areas anyhow and to commute to work. I don't see how, a properly standardised, well regulated land policy could be bad for a rural area. You get more people, which may lead to then need for more services, which may lead to decentralisation of work, which may lead to more people living a local community, build roots there and create the genuine need

    It would be incredibly unfair if rural housing in any particular townland was completely saturated with a free-for-all which meant that a local person could not get planning permission because of over saturation.
    I also believe that, I am NOT saying that it should be a free for all

    as a further point, local needs DOES NOT APPLY to many rural areas all over the country. Many counties have areas which are "structurally weak" (which means population is declining) and its the local authoritys policy to encourage sustainable rural development in these areas.
    so anyone looking to move to a rural area, there are options available if you do your homework.
    yes I checked. In our case one member of the family works in a rural area in West Galway, I'm in Galway but on the west side of the river and the kids go to school there (for the moment). We could get a site in East Galway and build there but then we would have to cross town to go to work, spend hours in traffic as there are no roads. We've seen sites with FPP but we won't qualify as we're not locals. Sorry but I fail to see any shred of sustainability in these policies. But perhaps I will have to do more research.

    Cheers,
    C


Advertisement