local council xenophobia finally tackled
- This topic has 41 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated 19 years, 2 months ago by
.
- Posts
whilst this is a planning issue I think it goes deeper – right to the heart of local politics. Finally someone took this ridiculous system to court and perhaps this shouldn’t wallow in the stagnated waters of the planning matters section
From the business post
EU to decide that one-off house rules are illegal
Planning guidelines in 22 counties which favour people connected to the locality are likely to be scrapped following a complaint to the European Commission.
The commission has completed an examination of the development plans of the counties following a complaint from an Irish citizen who was refused planning permission to build a house in Wicklow.
Planning guidelines inWicklow restrict non-locals from being granted permission for one-off rural houses.
The commission is expected to announce within the coming month that many of the restrictions in the county development plans are illegal under European law.
It finds that many of the provisions concerned are discriminatory, disproportionate and constitute restrictions on the free movement of capital and the freedom of establishment guaranteed by the European treaties.
The Irish government is likely to be notified shortly by Ireland’s EU Commissioner Charlie McCreevy once the commission formally approves the results of the investigation.
The findings mean that the development plans of the counties concerned will have to be re-written to remove the offending provisions. One planning source who spoke to The Sunday Business Post speculated this was likely to make permission for one-off rural housing more difficult to obtain.
The areas concerned are Carlow, Clare, Cork, Donegal, Fingal, Galway, Kerry, Kildare, Kilkenny, Mayo, Meath, Monaghan, Laois, Longford, Limerick, Louth, Offaly, Sligo, Tipperary North and South, Wexford, Westmeath and Wicklow.
All of these counties restrict building permission to people who have connections with the locality – whether as natives of the area, through long-time ownership of land there, or by direct family relationship to it.
Some western counties restrict permission to Irish speakers, which the commission has also found is discriminatory. Rural planning has been a controversial political issue in recent years.
There has been a proliferation of one-off housing in Ireland in recent years. It is estimated that about 32,000 such houses are built in the Republic every year, about ten times the output of the whole of Britain.
Environmentalists and many planners have warned that such development is unsustainable.
Local and central government has responded by trying to limit the housing, though not in such a way that prevents local residents from building on their land for their families – hence the current guidelines.
here comes the scary bit….
Planners and government – where the relevant authority is the Department of the Environment, now headed by Green TD John Gormley – will have to find a new way around these obstacles.
the mind boggles at what they’ll come up with
moved to the planning matters section – that’s the end of that debate then
If I felt some kind of right to build a one off in the GDA I wouldn’t be rejoicing at this decision. The only way planning policy can go now is to tighten up restrictions to people actively working the land the same as elsewhere in the EU. If the IRDA are happy with this decision I would say they should think twice.
The whole idea that there is an uber-restrictive policy on building one-offs is consistently disproven by statistics.
@tommyt wrote:
If I felt some kind of right to build a one off in the GDA I wouldn’t be rejoicing at this decision. The only way planning policy can go now is to tighten up restrictions to people actively working the land the same as elsewhere in the EU. If the IRDA are happy with this decision I would say they should think twice.
The whole idea that there is an uber-restrictive policy on building one-offs is consistently disproven by statistics.
the point of the article is that it will become illegal to stop a person from trying to build a house simply because they “aren’t from around here”. The issue of one-off housing / holiday homes etc is still relevant but now it can be fought in a fair arena free from apartheid
Fair arena indeed I agree, but the repercussions policy wise will not create a more liberal environment in which someone may apply to build a one-off, I feel in all likelihood this judgement will cause more controversy than it clears up.
“Aren’t from round here” restrictions will change to “you have no demonstrable need to live here”, and that won’t wash with the electorate here‘arent from around here’ restrictions do not exist..
‘having a demonstratable housing need to live in an area’ does….this is a red herring issue as the EU cannot berate ireland on one hand for water source pollution caused by proliferation of septic tanks, while on the other hand ease the guidelines restricting rural planning….
i believe the rural housing guidelines as stated and as being enforced are absoultely fine….
the whole premise has to be taken as, in areas under high pressure fron urban generated rural development, the LA shall restrict rural planning to persons who:
1. are a son or daughter of a farm owner.
2. work in the county and have a long standing family affilation with the area.
3. persons whose primary employment is in the industries of agriculture, horticulture or forestry and have a need to live in an area for work purposes….
allowance are also made to returning emigrants and persons who can demonstrate a medical reason to live rurally…before these guidelines came in it was impossible for us to advise clients on the likelihood of obtaining permission, now we can give a fairly accurate reading of how the application will go… as someone stated above, the perception that there is no permissions granted in rural areas is erroneous…..
however i feel the biggest problem is the discrepencies at which different LA’s enact the guidelines (same story as usual, innit)……. they are all supposed to enforce the same requirements but as usual, they all get it completely skew-ways (must be something to do with the Irish understanding of the english language… we all seem to get a different meaning from written words)….
dont get me wrong, i completely agree that the guidleines are part-discriminatory… they have to be….
but remember that each county is supposed to be reviewed from an “area under pressure” focus…. for example, here in co laois about 1/3 of the county (the western side) is considered structurally weak, that means ANYONE, AND I MEAN ANYONE will be granted permission, once the regular planning issues are met ie ribbon development, percolation, proliferation os septic tanks, sightlines and access etc…….as usual the newspaper are issuing only half the facts…..
and really, do you think the EU are going to change Irish Planning Laws because of 1 complaint from a disgruntled citizen…..
I think if the Eu wanted to play hard ball on this then applicants of type 1 and 2 listed above must be restricted also -with only applicants from point 3 being allowed to build-How else could on estop every field in wicklow for example having a house built in it
henno wrote:1. are a son or daughter of a farm owner.
2. work in the county and have a long standing family affilation with the area.
3. persons whose primary employment is in the industries of agriculture, horticulture or forestry and have a need to live in an area for work purposes….
allowance are also made to returning emigrants and persons who can demonstrate a medical reason to live rurally…
QUOTE]what restrictions exist for these people selling on a house after they have obtained permission?
theres generally a seven year occupancy condition incorporated into the conditions of planning, …..with allowances for a foreclosure situation….
the initial occupancy is restricted to the applicant or members of the applicants immediate family….
in some cases a condition will only restrict the applicant to ‘first occupancy’… whatever that means legally..??
In Wicklow’s case as just mentioned, all grants for planning permission to build rural dwellings have Section 47 occupancy restrictions attached. In brief, the dwelling cannot be sold until after a minimum period of at least 10years of occupancy by the applicant.
Similar restrictions are attached for other counties.in laois Section 47’s are generally reserved for ‘sterilisation agreements’…..ie sterilising road frontage against speculative development…..
do they really refer occupancy conditions in wicklow to section 47’s???…… and if so why?? that would stretch the planning application time period unnecessary longer than it already is….
In Wicklow all applicants for rural dwellings have to enter into a Section 47 (of the 2000 Planning Act) agreement restricting occupancy of the dwelling for 10 years to the applicant (s) and his/her/their heirs, or to persons employed or engaged in agriculture or forestry in the vicinity, or to such other classes of persons as the Planning Authority may agree to in writing.
It does not extend the planning process however as the applicants need only confirm on paper that they agree to do this and then except it as a condition of planning therafter.If planners are under resourced as it is what type of probability do you think there is that breaches would be actioned unless reported repeatidly by a vexatious neighbour?
I know of a case in another county under a similar rule where the applicant has been in New York since the time of the grant, came back to pay the builder and instruct a letting agent and has been home for a couple of weddings and one christmas.
Dick’s regs were always unsustainable in the face of scrutiny; I think I’ll brand Marlboro a health treatment and see if I get away with it as long!
If the greens have any metal now is the time to show it.
PVC King wrote:Dick’s regs were always unsustainable in the face of scrutiny]can you expand on why you hold that opinion………
i think ‘sustainability’ was the foremost reinforcement behind the implementing of these guidleines… again, i would argue that the governments guidelines are adequate and meet the need for them in the first place… its the LAs who have messed up by not implementing them properly……
there seems to be an innate characterism in some councils that they have to alter and augment the simplest guideline to suit their own penurious self-serving policies……
as long as we have a local planning system we will always have this problem….
PVC King wrote:If planners are under resourced as it is what type of probability do you think there is that breaches would be actioned unless reported repeatidly by a vexatious neighbour?I know of a case in another county under a similar rule where the applicant has been in New York since the time of the grant, came back to pay the builder and instruct a letting agent and has been home for a couple of weddings and one christmas.
Dick’s regs were always unsustainable in the face of scrutiny]
I know of several applications for houses from people who live in dublin but who’s family have farmland in the country. Houses were built and rented out within weeks. Wait the 10 years, sell on. In the meantime borrow money on the strength of your capital and buy in the city. alledgedly.
you cant legislate against what people will do with their own property…
im sure what you have stated above goes on, alledgedly 😉 ….. but there are downsides to that practise….
1. you have to wait the required amount of time before you can sell, this applies to all time restrictions
2. if they sell on its highly unlikely that they will get permission again in that area……this could be a case of cutting off your nose to spite your face….
You can legislate its called the planning system.
I’ve seen seriel applicants who have pushed local need through into double figures; some counties are a complete farce!!!!
Dick’s guide was just a further excuse for narrow interests to walk all over planners who had previously made an effort to plan in accordance with the development plans.
How many times was Dick turned over by the commission on environmental issues?
PVC King wrote:1. You can legislate its called the planning system.2. I’ve seen seriel applicants who have pushed local need through into double figures]
1. The planning system can only legislate with the instruments available in the planning acts, they cannot legislate against the financial issues of a persons property ie the sale or rent…….
i had a situation where a client was granted permission for a new dwelling and the council tried to enforce a condition that his existing dwelling would not be sold or rented but given to a member of his immediate family… this was actually worded as a condition of planning….needless to say, under the slighest political pressure they were forced to remove this condition….2. That just shows that the problem lies with the local authorities, not the Guidelines…
3. ‘narrow interests’..??…… the reason the guidelines came about was because of blanket refusals by some LAs to people who wanted to live on their own land in areas they had a family affiliation for….. if you can remember, after the guidelines were announce, you had groups like an taisce getting on the air waves saying it opened the door to everyone living in rural areas…… those ‘narrow interests’ were shown to be widely off the mark…
4. sorry, i dont see the significance of that question to this thread ? environmental issues were one of the main factors in the formation of the guidleines…..
1. I totally disagree with your point on local authorities not being able to enforce conditions; what happened if the revenue commissioners were not allowed to enforce the finance acts? Other than tribunals that is!!!
2. The problem are the guidelines as they override the development plan and clearly say that all classes of people with a link to the land can build anywhere. I.e. someone who left a farm in the Naul in 1950 can build a house on the ring of Kerry 50 years later.
3. Land has a use and if the use is ag it should stay ag unless it is zoned otherwise; many of my clients own industrial land some of it contaminated but due process must be observed prior to it becoming residential land. Why should it be any difference just because some crackpots like the IRDA scream loudly enough? I’d also look at the An Taisce appeal rate of 95% before you through insults around.
4 It has everything to do with it; look at the Galway water thread. FF have sacrificed the environment for short term votes and that is unforgivable.
wow, slow down… nobody is throwing insults around…. i don’t know how you can say that..??
I’m simply debating the point with you thats all…… i hope your not mistaking ‘disagreement’ with ‘insult’…….
now, again ill deal with your points..
1. wearnicehats made the point of situations he knows where people have gotten permission under the rural guideline, built the house, rented it out and sold 10 years on… i said that those people were within their rights to do that, the planning system has no way to legisalate against that.. i even gave you an example of where they tried and failed……. the council were not able to enforce the condition in the example i gave you… have you an example of a situation where the council enforced a condition stoping a person from renting a rural dwelling?????2. what is wrong with someone returning home after 50 years to live in the locality they grew up in??? ive just had a caes where an elderly woman is returning home from england after leaving ireland in 1962….. the rural housing guidelines make allowanace for these situations, and rightly so IMHO……
3. i assume ‘ag’ means agriculture?… well, under the guidelines every piece of land in the country i ssupposed to be zoned in terms of ‘pressure from urban generated rural housing’…. so yes, zoning has changed.. .im familar with counties offaly, laois and kilkenny and i can guarantee you that every sq inch of those counties are ‘zoned’…. and none of it is ‘agricultural use’….
4. again, the rural housing guidelines were brought in with environmental factors to the forefront….read section 3.3, 3.3.1 and 3.3.2 of the guidleines………. plus, its the remit of the LAs to provide for protection of environmental issues in their respective development plans,.. the guidlines do not supercede these environmental protections….
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
