a little help from my friends

I’m uncertain as to whether anyone has ever experienced this type of dilemma but if you have any input at all concerning the duties of a public representative in relation to enforcement proceedings against a ud and the retention thereof that would be most appreciated.

Enforcement matters are private unless brought to court so either court proceedings or an application for retention are the most typical public manefestations of enforcement.

It is not uncommon for politicians of all parties to support retention applications although some politicians are cleverer or cuter than others in which retention applications that they support. An example may be an illegal garage conversion into residential where a councillor may argue that on health grounds it would have constituted proper planning and that the failure to make an application was an oversight as opposed to an attempt to get away with something that would have been clearly refused if applied for in advance.

I posted this article elsewhere and the response I got to it was this

Public representatives an make whatever representation they like. This is not something that is governed by law.

So is it fair to say that public represntatives can indeed involve themselves with unauthorised developments even if legal proceedings are issued against these?

Theoretically a public representative is not prevented from making representations for the defendents in an enforcement case. It is however unusual that a public representative would make representations in a legal matter other than possibly appearing as a character witness.

What is not uncommon is for a public representative to write a letter in support of retention applications in domestic cases such as a driveway or converting an adjoining domestic garage into a granny flat.

What is the application / enforecment concerning?

illegal dump?

Unauthorised Quarry?

Commercial development?

House?

Extension to front of house.

Not uncommon unfortunately you should just ask a rival canidate to support your case if you feel hard done by. My advise in such submissions is always suggest what yuo consider to be a better option that will if possible give the applicant they want whilst preserving your residential amenity which from the sounds of things they have yet to consider.

I actually mentioned in my observation that because the applicants property is a corner development with a large garden that they might consider constructing a side extension. Didn’t matter though as I was informed that it defeats the purpose of extending the front lounge.

@PVC King wrote:

Theoretically a public representative is not prevented from making representations for the defendents in an enforcement case. It is however unusual that a public representative would make representations in a legal matter other than possibly appearing as a character witness.

Politicians get involved in all sorts of planning issues.

This example may raise a few eyebrows]denis.odonovan@oireachtas.ie[/email] 11 September 2006

Mr. John Deasy, Assistant County Manager,
Cork County Council
County Hall
Cork
Co. Cork

Re: Peter & Ivy M***y, 2 *** *** *****, Kinsale, Co. Cork

Dear John,

I would like to make representations on behalf of the above named couple who, in January 2005, were refurbishing and restoring a derelict school they had purchased when they stopped due to receiving a notice from Kinsale UDC that the were carrying out an illegal development. This was because the law had been changed in December 2004.

I would be grateful if you could look into this matter and see if it can be resolved.

Yours sincerely,
Denis O’Donovan TD

Cork County Council pointed out to Mr. O’Donovan TD that Peter and Ivy M***y had not applied for permission for the development under construction and had only ceased when enforcement notices were served.
The couple applied for retention which was refused by CCC. The appeal by the couple to ABP also failed.