Bloodline restrictions in planning

[davi9]

Could any one provide advice on the following, I will lay out the main points and my problem:


1. I have existing planning permission on a site I own for 10 years, which runs out next year.
2. I have applied for renewel of planning with no changes to house.
3. There have been no objections to the planning application.
4. The planner informed me that there are no issues with the design etc.
5. I work in a hospital close to site.

But.

I am not from the area, and the planner has told me that even after taking into account all of above, he is going to refuse permission only on the grounds of lack of famaily ties to area. This site is less than 1km from a large town and is a rural area under urban influence.

Can anyone advise me on this situation?

[henno]

what does your agent suggest??

[davi9]

Architect and solicitor advise me that it is madness on the part of the council to refuse my particular case on bloodline condition alone considering my right to reside there was already established in previous granting of permission, that i should wait for refusal and that it is perfect case to test legality of this clause in development plans. As the planning is going to be refused as it stands on bloodlines alone, it will leave spatial strategy guidelines and rural development plans with large areas of legal limbo if i am sucessful. i would prefer the simple life though if anyone could offer advice or experience on the matter.

[henno]

Architect and solicitor advise me that it is madness on the part of the council to refuse my particular case on bloodline condition alone considering my right to reside there was already established in previous granting of permission, that i should wait for refusal and that it is perfect case to test legality of this clause in development plans. As the planning is going to be refused as it stands on bloodlines alone, it will leave spatial strategy guidelines and rural development plans with large areas of legal limbo if i am sucessful. i would prefer the simple life though if anyone could offer advice or experience on the matter.

I personally wouldnt like to be the 'guinea pig' case in legally challanging this policy!!

If i was you, obviously depending on budget, this is what i would do.

1. I would withdraw the application.

2. I would start work immediately on site and get the foundations poured, rising walls built and hardcore in... i would also get the spetic tank / effluent treatment system installed straight away.

3. Depending on budget i would try to get the dwelling to a point where blockwork i scomplete. I would then apply to 'extend the period pf permission'. this needs to be applied for and be granted prior to expiry of permission.

4. If 3. above isnt possible i would apply for permission to retain and complete the dwelling (thus negating the requirement to show local need, as you were acting on the original permission).

[publicrealm]

[quote="henno"]I personally wouldnt like to be the 'guinea pig' case in legally challanging this policy!!

Henno is correct.

This really is your only option - you will need to complete 'substantial works' prior to the expiry of the current permission and the works must be pursuant to the permission. Your application for extension cannot be made earlier than one year before expiry of the current permission.

Nobody knows what comprises 'substantial works' but I would agree with Henno that tjhe closer to wall plate you can get the safer. Less might suffice but you don't want to test the matter in Court (I presume).

[tommyt]

Substantial works= getting the roof on and the structure weatherproofed in 2 cases I have dealt with previously with one particular local authority.

Your solicitor is playing fast and loose with that advice. The planner will of course take a 'non compensatable reason for refusal' from the ready reckoner inthe Fourth Schedule of the Planning Act to cover their arse in addition to any 'Local Need' argument.

[nuac]

Agree that Henno's advice is the way to go, if your pp still has some time to run.

Hard to get judicial authority for what is "substantial" in this context, but one HC judge has stated that "substantial" has to be interpreted as the opposite of "insubstantial".

No legal basis for stating that house must be to wall plate level or whatever, but obviously the more done before your apply for extension the better.

taking a judicial review to establish the law etc is not for the fainthearted or for the less than rich.

[lostexpectation]

no houses for sale?

[corkblow-in]

I agree with the others......get building.

The substantial works is the works you will have completed at the expiry of your permission, not at the date of the application for extension. You can also claim substantial expenditure eg, the roof may not be on yet, but all the materials have been purchased and are on site.

You should also apply for your extension about 14 weeks before the expiry. This gives the council 8 weeks to decide, but if they come back with an FI it gives you 2 weeks to respond, and then the decision will issue 4 weeks later. You do not want a situation where you have to stop works while you await a decision.