local council xenophobia finally tackled

Home Forums Ireland local council xenophobia finally tackled

Viewing 41 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
    • #709460
      wearnicehats
      Participant

      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

    • #789847
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      moved to the planning matters section – that’s the end of that debate then

    • #789848
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      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.

    • #789849
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      @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

    • #789850
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      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

    • #789851
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      ‘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…..

    • #789852
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      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

    • #789853
      Anonymous
      Inactive
      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?

    • #789854
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      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..??

    • #789855
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      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.

    • #789856
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      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….

    • #789857
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      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.

    • #789858
      admin
      Keymaster

      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.

    • #789859
      Anonymous
      Inactive
      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….

    • #789860
      Anonymous
      Inactive
      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.

    • #789861
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      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….

    • #789862
      admin
      Keymaster

      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?

    • #789863
      Anonymous
      Inactive
      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…..

    • #789864
      admin
      Keymaster

      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.

    • #789865
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      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….

    • #789866
      admin
      Keymaster

      1. The wording of most conditions has been not to sell or otherwise dispose of; the renting of a property is to otherwise dispose of as it prevents the owner having exclusive possession. The only justificastion for local need is exclusive possession or at least exclusive possession subject to say renting a room to help with the mortgage. The site farming industry is in full swing and Dick’s guidelines faciltated it greatly.

      2. When in England or wherever these people provided a roof for themselves what is wrong with them providing a house for themselves in the same way as all other urban dwellers. If they are taking on a farm that is different and in any event they could apply under the agricultural worker provisions of the development plan should that be the case. I have been based in London for most of the year for the past 18 months; does that give me a right to ignore the fact that I grew up in Galway and Dublin cities unlike those who stayed around and become assume a London rural background?

      3. That is not true

      4. The guidelines reversed almost all the environmental provisions of the previous guidelines and for the first time made it acceptable to build in SACs they were regressive in the extreme from an environmental viewpoint and not one environmental, nature or planning organisation or body was anything other than scathing on them.

      3.

    • #789867
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      1. the councils do not have the man power to enforce conditions of planning pertaining to the occupancy of dwellings… they dont even have the man-power to enforce that buildings are build in compliance with planning……. that condition, like the landscaping condition usually included, are soley reliant on the client to enact,……

      2. the guidelines make provisions for returning immigrants….. thats fine IMHO so we will agree to disagree here

      3. it is true …..

      http://kilkennycoco.kilkenny.ie/resources/Rural%20Settlement%20Area%20Map%20-%20Var.%20No.%208.pdf
      thats the kilkenny map

      http://www.laois.ie/media/Media,618,en.pdf
      thats the laois map

      http://ww2.offaly.ie/yourcouncil/offalycountycouncil/services/planning/Co%20Dev%20Plan%202003-09/Maps%20Vol%201/Maps%20Volume%201.pdf
      and if you willing to check this….. map 11 is the offaly one…

      4. it only made it acceptable to build in SAC with draconian restrictions… i know, ive been involved in planning applications in those areas….. at the end of the day, if the environmental factors are considered acceptable under EPA guidelines and requirements, then whats the problem from an environmental point of view???? its up to thecouncils to enforce these EPA guidleines to the highest degree…….. again, its not the guidleines that are at fault, its the councils enactment of them…..

    • #789868
      admin
      Keymaster

      So if the councils don’t have the power to enforce them why refer to them; it is clear that a carte blanche has been implemented by Dick and that an immediate ban on all one off dwellings needs to be effected pending proper regulation.

      2. Or put another way anyone with a bit of Oirish in them can build anywhere once it isn’t in an urban area!!

      3. I don’t accept that point; all the maps say is that certain areas face more pressure than others; it is not zoned resi as residential development land can accommodate planned schemes.

      4. What level of regulation would you expect less than 1% of the country has a SAC designation much of it being under water. I regard anyone who applies to develop in SACs to have no scrupples. I have had client requests over the years that I have refused and even lost clients. To blame the councils for not implementing EPA guidelines is a cop out. No Dick guidelines no problem!!

    • #789869
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      @PVC King wrote:

      . No Dick guidelines no problem!!

      so you are a ‘blanket ban’ merchant then???

      1. some councils have good building control systems set up, but they do not have the man power to check every condition of every planning application… they never will, and your suggested reaction to ban all one off houses clears up for me exactly what corner you are in……

      2. that statement shows you have a marked mis-understanding of the guidelines

      3.i never claimed these lands were zoned for residential developments… they are zoned in accordance with the suggested guidelines on rural housing…. persons wanting to apply in the ‘high pressure ‘ areas have to meet very stringent requirements on housing need, even before any planning issues are deliberated…..
      to be honest, if you didn’t know of the existence of this provision of the guidelines, you really are debating without full knowledge of what you are arguing……… perhaps you should read the full document to understand all the different aspects of it…

      4.so you do not consider that sensitive, well designed dwellings can improve the aesthetic qualities of a SAC??? some of the best houses in the world are build in areas of extreme natural beauty, do you not think they add to the landscape… thats the basis of good architecture….. challanging…..

    • #789870
      admin
      Keymaster

      1. I have not suggested a total blanket ban as people working the land need to be accommodated; no other person has a prima facia need and should therefore have the same rules as their fellow citizens.

      2. How exactly?

      3. Until the county manager over-rules the planners; it happens every day. The sham that is the system is entirely illustrated by the 95% success rate in An Taisce appeals. The land is unzoned and unsuitable for development 95% of the time according to An Bord Pleananla

      4. That is nonsense; the crap that is thrown up with PVC windows, Spanish tiled roofs and pastel renders together with disjointed garage blocks is the typical product.

    • #789871
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      i grew up in a rural part of laois… i live in a rented house in a town, i am not an agricultural or forestry worker… so you are saying if i wanted to build a house for myself and my family beside my home place i should not be accomodated…..??? ….. i would strongly argu ethat i should, and the guidleines make provisions for persons like myself to be able to… if you disagree, fine, again on this issue we will agree to disagree..

      2. “anyone with a bit of Oirish in them can build anywhere”…. you know as well as i do, that that does not happen….. the guidleines were brought in to solve the discrepencies between planning authorities on who built in th ecountryside…… kerry mayo etc were blanket banning every application in some areas (no allowance for local need was met)… kildare / meath etc were giving permission to people moving from their 2 bed flat in dalkey to build their Dallas style mansion in rathangan (no allowance for local need was met)… see a theme appearing here……. the guidelines were brought in to create a level playing pitch….. again i will state, its the different enactment by different LAs thats causing the problems… not the guidelines themselves…… as long as we have local governance this is what will happen……

      3. to me that statement shows 3 things:
      a. an taisce choose their appeals carefully
      b. an Bord Pleanal enforce the regulation sdifferent to the planning authorities.
      c. if the ‘land’ is unsuitable then it has nothing to do with rural guidelines or local need…. they should be refused regardless……….

      4. you refused clients who wanted to apply in SACs, where you could design and advise,….. yet you complain about houses that you have no control over…… …….. ……. ……. that makes no sense.. its like a vote.. use it or loose it….

    • #789872
      admin
      Keymaster

      1. Yes if you work the land and make your living from it you get a house if you work in an urban area you are urban pressure on a rural area. I do not know how the issue could be in any way complicated.

      2. Someone born in rural Co Dublin can build a house in Kerry; the only criterion is that you once came from a rural area. Again if you produce food you have a right if you don’t regardless of where you come from you are suburbanising a rural area.

      3. I agree Bord Pleanala regularly reverse local authority decisions; if district courts were ignoring High Court judgements on a regular basis there would be uproar yet particular local authorities seem to be able to produce shoddy work all the time. This needs changing.

      4. No that is not what I said; Noel O’Gara rings up Mark Fitzgerald of DTZ and says Mark I’ve got a prime resi site in Dublin 6; Mark hangs up as does Pat Gunne of CBRE. Noel gets allied auctioneers of Terenure and guess what the market knows that the title is shot. By doing an application in an SAC you are saying its ok to do it; I wouldn’t use any architect who designed a house in an SAC period. You build a clientbase on reputation and having the balls to refuse work on principle pays in the long run.

    • #789873
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      1. on this we have diffrent opinions, so i see your point, but i disgree with it.

      PVC King wrote:
      2. Someone born in rural Co Dublin can build a house in Kerry]

      that is not correct… you have to have a long-standing family affiliation with THAT rural arera,.. not just any…. and again the different zonings of the counties come into issue here….

      3. i agree with this point.

      4.

      PVC King wrote:
      By doing an application in an SAC you are saying its ok to do it]

      my apologies here, i got ‘special areas of conservation’ mixed up with ‘special areas of development control’.. its the latter in which i have had experience with… not the former… and i agree that development in a SAC should be restricted to a maximum… however i do not see how the ‘rural housing guidleines’ makes it acceptable for people to develop in SACs… if anything it lists the strict guidleines the planners have to take into account when deliberating on an application
      “Planning authorities should have full regard to biodiversityconsiderations in determining individual applications for ruralhousing. Planning authorities must ensure that a proposal whichis likely to have a significant effect on an SAC or other designatedarea, is authorised only to the extent that the planning authorityis satisfied will not adversely affect the integrity of the area. Sucha proposal must be subjected to an appropriate assessment of itsimplications for the area, if it is clear, on the basis of a preliminaryexamination, that the project could have a significant effect on thearea. All aspects of the proposal which could, in themselves, or incombination with other proposals, affect the area’s conservationobjectives should be identified”

      “The location and siting of rural housing should beinformed by landscape character, quality and distinctiveness9.Proposals for housing in rural areas should be assessed havingregard to the extent to which they:•Complement the landscape and avoid unacceptable visualintrusion, •Introduce incongruous landscape elements, and•Help to maintain important landscape elements and featuresthat contribute to local landscape character, quality anddistinctiveness (e.g. topographical features, geological features,cultural features, or ecological resources which arecharacteristic of that landscape type)”

      “The Planning Regulations require that planning applications thatmay affect the natural or built heritage be referred to certainprescribed bodies including the Department of the Environment,Heritage and Local Government. Planning authorities must ensurethat all planning applications for rural housing that involve siteslocated in or that might affect an SAC, SPA, NHA, Nature Reserve,National Park, refuge for fauna or flora or other areas of wildlifeimportance are referred to the relevant regional office of the NationalParks and Wildlife Service for comment.Likewise it is vital that any development proposal with potentialimpact on a known or suspected archaeological site or the settingof such a site or on the built heritage be notified to the DevelopmentApplications Unit of the Department of the Environment, Heritageand Local Government. Planning authorities should ensure thatprocedures are in place so that all referrals occur within five workingdays of the receipt of the individual planning application. Planningauthorities must have regard to any submissions or observationsmade in response to such referrals”.

      as you can see above, applications in SACs have to go through stringent hoops to discover their merit….

    • #789874
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      http://www.independent.ie/national-news/locals-only-planning-rule-illegal-and-discriminatory-says-eu-798149.html

      looks like either blanket refusals or blanket grants are on the way…….

      time for the Green party to express themselves….. i for one am glad they are in government to tackle this…..

    • #789875
      admin
      Keymaster

      Nothing like the rule of law to bring populists to book.

      This is 5 years late and an immediate ban save for farmers cannot come quickly enough.

    • #789876
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      but again, any ban save for farmers would be challanged as positive discrimination……..
      no difference to the spirit of the guidelines, youd simply be moving the goalposts….

    • #789877
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      @PVC King wrote:

      Nothing like the rule of law to bring populists to book.

      This is 5 years late and an immediate ban save for farmers cannot come quickly enough.

      what if I grew a few carrots in me back garrrrden and sold them at the local farmers market?

    • #789878
      admin
      Keymaster

      @henno wrote:

      but again, any ban save for farmers would be challanged as positive discrimination……..
      no difference to the spirit of the guidelines, youd simply be moving the goalposts….

      That is common practice on most European countries as it does not discriminate on the basis of race etc etc.

      Hats

      I’ll get you a slot at Mahon Point!!

    • #789879
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      @henno wrote:

      but again, any ban save for farmers would be challanged as positive discrimination……..
      no difference to the spirit of the guidelines, youd simply be moving the goalposts….

      Discrimination was what this thread started being all about

    • #789880
      admin
      Keymaster

      Now we’re into inclusion

      I’ll throw in free rates, service charge and insurance!!!!

    • #789881
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      @wearnicehats wrote:

      Discrimination was what this thread started being all about

      yes….. part-discriminatory…. my first post reflected that…..
      if the EU find these guidelines to be discriminatory, then its conceivable that any permission granted in a rural area will be considered discriminatory….

      I’m blue in the face stating this but the guidelines work… when enforced well…. its the lack of consistency at which LAs have enforced the guidelines thats the problem….. i personally do not know what the situation is in wicklow, but the more i hear the more ive come to the conclusion that people are mis-informed..

      in ‘structurally weak’ areas that the population is declining in, LAs will granted permission to ANYONE once the other planning requirements are met….. thats what is recommended to reinforce the population in those areas….
      reversely, in areas under ‘high pressure’ from urban generated rural housing, permissions will be reserved for persons who describe a defined ‘housing need’ to live in the area…..
      thats makes complete sense to me…. i cannot see where the confusion lies….

      that article in PVCkings first post is filled with innaccurcies….
      that article in todays independent is also filled with inaccurcies….
      its easy to see how peoples opinions can be wrongly shaped when given so much mis-information….

      but i fear all PVCkings option would do is swap one discrimination for another….. I’m not discounting it, at least you are offering constructive criticism of the guidelines…

      at the moment the guidelines discriminate on basis of ‘need’, i see no difference in PVCkings option….

      the statement that ‘its common practice in most European countries’ doesn’t wash with me… the guidelines were enforced to protect Irish regions… none other….

    • #789882
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      @PVC King wrote:

      That is common practice on most European countries as it does not discriminate on the basis of race etc etc.
      !!

      there is no racial discrimination in the guidelines……
      as i stated above, anyone can be granted permission in ‘structurall weak’ areas….

      if you check the link to the laois map above, anyone can be granted permission in the light green areas….so to argue that a non-national or even a non-provincial or even a non-county applicant cannot get a rural house is totally untrue and incorrect… and i challange anyone to prove otherwise….

      obviously rural development is a finite resource, but some argue that people are packed into serviced urban areas to capacity and beyond…….
      there was 8.5 million persons living in Ireland in 1840 in conditions much less technically sanitary, are we saying in 2007 that 4.5 million is too much???

    • #789883
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      To me it’s pretty obvious that a ‘locals only’ rule will be replaced by a no ‘free rider’ rule – so if little JohhnyThomastown wants to build a McMansion next to his folks gaff while he commmutes to the IFSC he will be rightly told to feck off or-how about this one- shock horror -people might start to buy fixer upper eyesores near enough to where they think they should have a right to build (and if you are willing to commute for hours you should be flexible with yuor housing location)and may just possibly redevelop in a more sensitive manner.

      when there was 8 million people living in the open countryside in this country they mostly lived in earthen hovels and were semi-nomadic-I don’t think the 5 bed, 3 bath, 2 car household of today can honestly be accommodated in the countryside-it’s my main reason for rejecting any of the reasoning put forward by O’Cuiv and that gaelgoir professor who’s name escapes me at the minute…

    • #789884
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government (Deputy John Gormley): Information Zoom

      The European Commission wrote to the Irish authorities last Autumn, seeking views on a complaint received by them regarding the application of local needs policies in relation to the granting of planning permission for a one-off rural house in County Wicklow. A reply to the Commission issued on 27 November, stating that the settlement strategy within Wicklow’s County Development Plan was in line with the National Spatial Strategy, Regional Planning Guidelines and the Sustainable Rural Housing Guidelines. It was pointed out that the county settlement strategy had a specific criterion which facilitates those who need to be located in a rural area for economic activity.

      My Department has received no further communication from the Commission on this matter. It is, however, understood from recent media reports that the European Commission will be considering the matter at a meeting on 27 June. If my Department receives any further correspondence from the Commission on this issue, it will be given due consideration.

      http://debates.oireachtas.ie/DDebate.aspx?F=DAL20070627.XML&Dail=30&Ex=All&Page=40

      a bit late with this info, but just keeping the debate informed…..

      Ive read the minutes of the commisions meeting on June 27 2007 and there was no mention of this, nor could i find any specific mention of it in the agenda for the meeting on july 18 2007…..

    • #789885
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      @Davids wrote:

      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.

      For you info, according to the DoEHLG annual stats Wicklow accounted for just 3% of S.47 agreements in 2006. That is 80 agreements, Taking what you are saying as gospel then one could assume that only 80 rural dwellings were granted permission in Wicklow last year. Yet the CSO stats tell us there were 81 grants one off houses in the first quarter of 2007. In short I would be extremely sceptical about your assertion that all permissions to build rural dwellings in Wicklow have S.47 agreements attached.

      By the way Cork Co. accounted for 57% or 1,234 of S.47 agreements for 2006

    • #789886
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      Interesting, however, if an applicant for a once off rural dwelling in Wicklow does not tick the little box (on the application form) that says they are willing to enter into a S.47 with the planning authority then they will most likely get refused or have it imposed via condition anyway.
      I would also be extremely sceptical about those figures and what they strictly call a S.47 agreement. All that happens in Wicklow is that, upon granting permission for a rural dwelling a condition is included regarding an occupancy restriction. This restiction (10 yrs) must be registered on the title deeds within a timeframe specified. Im not against the occupancy restrictions (by the way) I am just stating the situation in Wicklow.

      Those figures have my attention tho and I will check it out when I get the time.

    • #789887
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      Section 47s have only been used in the sterilisation of road frontage against speculative development, in my experience. Again, as far as i know, the occupancy condition is not required to be in accordance with section 47, it is simply a condition of planning.

      In all of the applications i prepare, under the old regs, i alway answered that question with ‘unknown’. the main reason being that if its a case of an applicant purchasing a site then he doesnt have the authority to answer ‘yes’… its the landowner who is required to answer it. In the case of the applicant being the landowner, i always advised not to answer ‘yes’ unless that council requested section 47 agreement. This answer never caused an problems.

      its interesting that this question has been removed from the current generic application form.

Viewing 41 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Latest News