‘Administrative Error’ by County Council

Home Forums Ireland ‘Administrative Error’ by County Council

Viewing 3 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
    • #709581
      jsmyth1
      Participant

      I thought I had seen it all with my local County Council until this ‘administrative error’.

      Housing estate application to which I put in a comprehensive objection (with significant content related to recent rezoning and the Council’s previous decisions on the same site). Application was refused and the applicant appealed to An Bord Pleanala which is where it gets interesting.

      The County Council sends a letter informing me of the appeal made on the 10th of July. The date is stated twice in the letter. I submitted my observation to the appeal and this was received on the 7th of August, just within what I believed was the statutory four weeks.

      Unpleasant surprise yesterday when I receive a letter from the Bord refusing my observation because the appeal had been lodged on the 6th of July making the 3rd of August the last day for observations!

      An Bord Pleanala can’t do anything which I respect and the County Council (in fact the individual who signed the letter with the 10/07 date) sheepishly claimed it was an administrative error, all the while admitting it was the first time he had heard of one of this nature. I also note the Council’s computer system has the correct appeal date.

      Any suggestions where I might go from here?

    • #792469
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      This was Cobh Town Councils effort on a similar vain
      From Irish Times 28/10/06
      “Refusal of development objection overturned

      The High Court has overturned An Bord Pleanála’s refusal to accept that a local group of objectors had lodged a valid appeal against a proposed development of 150 apartments, a marina and car park in Cobh, Co Cork.

      Mr Justice John MacMenamim said the board’s objection to accepting the appeal as valid was “essentially technical”.

      The board had said the appeal dated January 19th, 2005, and lodged on behalf of the Holy Ground and Environs Action Group, was invalid because it had not been accompanied, as required by the Planning and Development Act 2000, by “an appropriate acknowledgment”.

      The board argued the only appropriate acknowledgment was a letter to the group from Cobh Town Council dated November 30th, 2004, the first of three letters to the group from the council.

      The appeal was in fact accompanied by the third letter from the council to the group, dated January 11th 2005, in which the council, which had granted permission for the proposed development on December 16th 2004, acknowledged receipt of the group’s communications relating to the application for planning permission.

      Cobh Town Council’s second letter was sent on December 17th, 2004.

      The planning board’s refusal of January 26th, 2005, to accept that the group had lodged a valid appeal, was challenged in judicial review proceedings by Margaret Murphy, described as a member of the action group.

      In his reserved judgment granting Ms Murphy’s challenge, Mr Justice MacMenamin noted a “curious procedure” by Cobh Town Council in using “minuscule font size or typeface” only for the purpose of dating its letters. This unusual date procedure had not been explained, he said.

      The dating procedure of the letters from the council to the group was “unwittingly” a “trap to the unwary”, especially in view of the general similarity of the letters in layout and in substance, although there were some distinctions.

      The letter of January 11th, 2005, sent by the group to the board was given within time and included the relevant information necessary for the board to proceed.

      There was no prejudice to the board, he held.

      Earlier, Mr Justice MacMenamin said the proposed development at Connolly Street, Cobh, was in the area well known as “the Holy Ground”.

      It was an extensive development, consisting of a marina, 150 apartments in blocks of two and three storeys, a six-storey apartment building, commercial units and a car park.

      He said the members of the action group objected to the development on grounds of its impact on the local environment, a risk of landslides, ecological aspects and alleged destruction of views of Cobh Harbour from a number of different vantage points.

      Ms Murphy lived with her parents in close proximity to the location of the intended development.

      © The Irish Times”

    • #792470
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      This was Cobh Town Councils effort on a similar vain
      From Irish Times 28/10/06
      “Refusal of development objection overturned

      The High Court has overturned An Bord Pleanála’s refusal to accept that a local group of objectors had lodged a valid appeal against a proposed development of 150 apartments, a marina and car park in Cobh, Co Cork.

      Mr Justice John MacMenamim said the board’s objection to accepting the appeal as valid was “essentially technical”.

      The board had said the appeal dated January 19th, 2005, and lodged on behalf of the Holy Ground and Environs Action Group, was invalid because it had not been accompanied, as required by the Planning and Development Act 2000, by “an appropriate acknowledgment”.

      The board argued the only appropriate acknowledgment was a letter to the group from Cobh Town Council dated November 30th, 2004, the first of three letters to the group from the council.

      The appeal was in fact accompanied by the third letter from the council to the group, dated January 11th 2005, in which the council, which had granted permission for the proposed development on December 16th 2004, acknowledged receipt of the group’s communications relating to the application for planning permission.

      Cobh Town Council’s second letter was sent on December 17th, 2004.

      The planning board’s refusal of January 26th, 2005, to accept that the group had lodged a valid appeal, was challenged in judicial review proceedings by Margaret Murphy, described as a member of the action group.

      In his reserved judgment granting Ms Murphy’s challenge, Mr Justice MacMenamin noted a “curious procedure” by Cobh Town Council in using “minuscule font size or typeface” only for the purpose of dating its letters. This unusual date procedure had not been explained, he said.

      The dating procedure of the letters from the council to the group was “unwittingly” a “trap to the unwary”, especially in view of the general similarity of the letters in layout and in substance, although there were some distinctions.

      The letter of January 11th, 2005, sent by the group to the board was given within time and included the relevant information necessary for the board to proceed.

      There was no prejudice to the board, he held.

      Earlier, Mr Justice MacMenamin said the proposed development at Connolly Street, Cobh, was in the area well known as “the Holy Ground”.

      It was an extensive development, consisting of a marina, 150 apartments in blocks of two and three storeys, a six-storey apartment building, commercial units and a car park.

      He said the members of the action group objected to the development on grounds of its impact on the local environment, a risk of landslides, ecological aspects and alleged destruction of views of Cobh Harbour from a number of different vantage points.

      Ms Murphy lived with her parents in close proximity to the location of the intended development.

      © The Irish Times”

    • #792471
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      Thanks for your reply.
      Somewhat similar story indeed.

Viewing 3 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Latest News