Appealing planning enforcement's - WINWIN

mammyod

Just wondering, is it usually the case that (in reality) all planning enforcement's can, one way or the other, eventually be overcome? :eek:

so, if a developer wants to build something that they know they wont get planning for, (maybe not a SkyScraper or the likes, but in the line of industrial sheds etc), then if they just build it anyway, and apologise after (retention, plant a few trees or whatever), they will eventually , one way or the other , get what they want, regardless of neighbours complaints etc. (provided they are willing to pay some legal costs along the way that is)
I know lots of cases locally where this has applied, but take these pair, for example. Still living in the house i believe!!:

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/supreme-court/couple-given-one-year-to-demolish-house-built-without-permission-1.3089521

Penn

mammyod wrote: »

Just wondering, is it usually the case that (in reality) all planning enforcement's can, one way or the other, eventually be overcome? :eek:

so, if a developer wants to build something that they know they wont get planning for, (maybe not a SkyScraper or the likes, but in the line of industrial sheds etc), then if they just build it anyway, and apologise after (retention, plant a few trees or whatever), they will eventually , one way or the other , get what they want, regardless of neighbours complaints etc. (provided they are willing to pay some legal costs along the way that is)
I know lots of cases locally where this has applied, but take these pair, for example. Still living in the house i believe!!:

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/supreme-court/couple-given-one-year-to-demolish-house-built-without-permission-1.3089521

They have to leave the house by September 2022, after which time it'll be demolished.

In most cases of retention permission, the council will impose conditions in a grant of retention permission to counter any issues the development causes to neighbouring properties etc (which they would have conditioned or sought further information or change of design in the case of planning being sought prior to construction). The developer then has to comply with those conditions. So in the vast majority of cases, what ends up being retained is what would have been granted permission had permission been sought at the time anyway, or near enough that it doesn't have a discernible adverse effect on other people's properties.

mammyod

Penn wrote: »

They have to leave the house by September 2022, after which time it'll be demolished.

In most cases of retention permission, the council will impose conditions in a grant of retention permission to counter any issues the development causes to neighbouring properties etc (which they would have conditioned or sought further information or change of design in the case of planning being sought prior to construction). The developer then has to comply with those conditions. So in the vast majority of cases, what ends up being retained is what would have been granted permission had permission been sought at the time anyway, or near enough that it doesn't have a discernible adverse effect on other people's properties.

well if that is the case, then great, and I hope so.

But I do know of massive house extensions done without planning, and put in for retention. resulted in a few minor alterations to be carried out , and a few trees to hide it. would not have got planning if applied in the first case.