Can anyone explain in layman’s terms the meaning of Section 162 (3) as written below.
Pursuant to Section 162 (3) of the planning and Development Act, 2000 – No enforcement
action under this Part (including an application under section 160) shall be stayed or
withdrawn by reason of an application for retention of permission under section 34(12) or
the grant of that permission.
i think it means that an application for retention of an unauthorised development does not in itself mean that enforcement proceedings cannot continue. IN other words you can’t stop the LA in their tracks by simply throwing in an application for retention.
And if the decision of the local authority on the application for retention is subsequently appealed to An Bord Pleanala, what then happens regarding the Enforcement Notice that was issued against the unauthorised development? :confused:
If one part of the LA grants retention permission then I’m sure that the courts would take a poor view of the same LA subsequently pursuing enforcement proceedings against the owner of that property. It seems that the easy way out for the LA is to grant retention permission and let any objectors take the matter up with an Bord Pleanala – that way the LA is off the hook by abdicating its responsibilities.
I appreciate what everyone has said but I’m still baffled as to how a planning authority can dismiss an Enforcement Notice that was issued 17 months ago and after 4 adjournments against the unauthorised development inform me that the Enforcement Notice is no longer applicable, even though proceedings were ongoing.
This is the question, how can they dismiss it when according to the Section 154 and Section 157 of the P & D Act 2000 they have a duty to implement the legislation against developments that breach planning permission?