retention – help!

:confused: Any chance of a bit more context, Deaglan?

Where is the quotation taken from? Looks more like a letter than a piece of legislation.

From the fragment you posted, it sounds like someone applied for retention permission while separate proceedings for enforcement (154) and prosecution of offences (157) were underway, and this sentence is there to confirm that the retention application will not interfere with them.

Am I getting warm?

Yes.You’re spot on. However, what has transpired since I received the letter is that the proceedings have been struck out and the Enforcement Notice is no longer applicable, even though the proceedings were being brought against an unauthorised development partially constructed some 18 months ago.

The applicants applied for retention and although a decision to grant conditional permission was returned the LA’s decision was appealed and subsequently a decision to amend the conditional permission resulted from An Bord pleanala.

What is more confusing is that the application that the proceedings were issued against has no bearing on the retention application as it was a completely different planning reference number.

I am really wondering if the LA got it completelly wrong here?

Can anyone add to this by way of explanation please?

Thanks again.

Hi again all. Just wondering if anyone could offer any insight on the query I osed concerning the retention proceedings. I’m struggling with this one and I’d really appreciate any advice. Thanks.

hi, that seems fairly normal. I don’t understand why the enforcement was struck out, but that’s totally irrelevant to the retention application in any case. An enforcment case has a seperate file number, because it’s a seperate process to a planning application. These are two seperate issues, even though they apply to the same development. From what you say, the LA have done nothing wrong, and a grant can finally be issued as the appeal resulted in one… I don’t know what would happen if the final grant was issued and the subsequent enforcement procedure recommended demolition…

I’ve just read the article ‘Court summons for breach of enforcement notice’ in Irish Planning Matters https://archiseek.com/content/showthread.php?t=5827

This quote has me confused.

I don’t understand why the enforcement was struck out, but that’s totally irrelevant to the retention application in any case.

I am astonished that one local authority can enforce even after retention permission was granted, whilst in another case an enforcement notice becomes inapplicable, even though proceedings were seemingly ongoing, and again after retention was granted.

Where’s the consistency and moreover, where’s the logic? Has anyone any input on what makes an enforcement notice inapplicable?

My understanding is that enforcement notices are a precursor to the local authority taking the offending party to court. As legal proceedings are quite different to planning applications it could presumably be possible for enforcement proceedings to be thrown out by a Judge becuase of proceduaral deficencies etc. (I have seen an SC’s opionon on an enforcement notice in which he tore holes in it. )
Most people who are served with enforcement notices will lodge an application for retention. The application does not technically stop the proceeding but it is ulikely that a LA will go before judge with a decision on the defendant’s application pending. Frequently enforcement proceedings will stem from a complaint from a member of the public and in order to cover their arses the LA will issue a warning letter even though the unauthorised development could well be something that would secure permission if an application had been lodged.

I can see your point of view Barry. However, in this particular case there was a series of adjourments then when it finally was before a Judge and the defendants legal counsel said that they were awaiting the decision of Bord Pleanala the Judge remarked that ‘that was irrelevant’ and that ‘the unauthorised structure should have been removed within two weeks.’

Having said that she did grant the defendants another adjournement. I’m just curious if all what she said is true then how can a decision to retain a development, supercede enforcement proceedings?

Here’s the local authority’s response in relation to why enforcement proceedings were deemed to be inapplicable.

It was established that works were now proceeding with An Bord pleanala permission, which had superseded planning permission reference (number) and that no further action was required under the Enforcement Notice

This is the bit that I don’t quite understand. If proceedings were presumably ongoing against the construction of an unauthorised development, partially built before the retention application, how can they then be withdrawn when the retention application has nothing whatsoever to do with Enforcement?

Can anyone please tell me under what piece of planning legislation this is in reference to?

Might just be a case whereby they decided that the development was not worthy of being dragged through the enforcement procedure, and having considered the outcome of the retention application, it was deemed counter-productive to pursue the matter…

Part 8

http://www.environ.ie/DOEI/DOEIPol.nsf/0/80a66fb80c634fd480256f4a00393a70/$FILE/pa_part_8.pdf

(11) (a) A planning authority may for stated reasons by notice in
writing to any person served with the notice, and, where
appropriate, any person who made a representation
under section 152(1)(a), withdraw an enforcement notice
served under this section.
(b) Where an enforcement notice is withdrawn pursuant to
this subsection by a planning authority or where a planning
authority finds that an enforcement notice has been
complied with, the fact that the enforcement notice was
withdrawn and the reason for the withdrawal or that it
was complied with, as appropriate, shall be recorded by
the authority in the register.

Might just be a case whereby they decided that the development was not worthy of being dragged through the enforcement procedure, and having considered the outcome of the retention application, it was deemed counter-productive to pursue the matter…

Now that’s interesting alonso. As far as I am aware though at no stage did the local authority make this aspect clear. All they said was that they had every intention of proceeding with the enforcement. How could this be deemed to be counter-productive?
One final thing, the reason that I obtained the information I did from the local authority is because I sent a letter of complaint regarding numerous administration inaccuricies in the planning file and now upon reading the planning legislation you posted I discover as I made a submission I may have been entitled to receive notification of their decision to withdraw the enforcement notice, that is something I never received. Should I have?

(11) (a) A planning authority may for stated reasons by notice in
writing to any person served with the notice, and, where
appropriate, any person who made a representation
under section 152(1)(a), withdraw an enforcement notice
served under this section.