Validated Application re: Unauthorised Development with Enforcement Notice
October 29, 2005 at 3:34 pm #708200
Re:New retention Application
Hi all. I desperately need some advice in relation to a development that is classified as a UD. This development was constructed without permission and consists of an extension to the front of the house, which adjoins mine. At present my local council have issued an enforcement notice against this structure but since then the applicants have made three attempts at retention, the first two were returned to them as incompleted but the latest one has been validated and this is what causes me most concern.
In the original application the ruling by the Planning Authority stated that ‘The proposed extension to the living room is not permitted’ but they did provide condtional permission whereby the applicants could construct a porch and bay window.
This case has been ongoing for the past three months and I have made my intentions known that I’m not going to view the new application that’s just validated on the grounds that it ought never have been as what the applicants are seeking is to retain and complete porch to front of house and retain and complete extension to front of house.
This application should have been invalidated as the applicants have made no effort to compromise or avail of what was granted to them to construct by the planning authority.
Surely this is making a mockery of the planning process and if it is legitimate what measures should I take, I’d like to know the reason why this new retention application was validated and also what becomes of the link between this new application and the original one, that clearly states ‘The proposed extension to the living room is not permitted’.
This is a very stressful matter and I would appreciate any advice anyone can give me on ‘Retention’ and especially what laws are there to protect me in a case like this, where the UD in question carries an Enforecement Notice.
Thanks you for reading this and any advice at all would be most appreciated.
You can email me if you prefer at email@example.com
October 29, 2005 at 5:16 pm #762787AnonymousParticipant
Welcome to the farce that is the Irish planning system.
October 30, 2005 at 2:51 pm #762788
Is this really acceptable? Is there any way whereby I can question the decision the planning authority made in validating this new application, especially after rejecting the first two.
Please, could anyone tell me where I may obtain information on all aspects of Retention and how an application that consists of an unauthorised development carrying an enforcement notice could be validated.
I am deeply worried over this, and I feel that I shouldn’t have to return to view this application as I already did that and the council gave their ruling, which was fair.
I really need help. Anyone?
October 30, 2005 at 3:29 pm #762789AnonymousParticipant
Go to the planning office; view the file; read the development plan and find what sections of the sections on residential development and general development standards the application is in breach of. The facts that it is a retention application or that it is under an enforcement are not considered relevent. The application must be considered de novo or a new.
Keep it simple by citing the sections of the development plan it is in breach of both the section number and the content. Make no reference to the terms unauthorised or illegal simply state that it is for retention and that it is in breach of the sections of the plan. Do not forget to sign the letter or put your address; remember two things
1> Planners are overworked; it suits them to grant permission becuase they don’t have to see the file again.
2> Most new planners are on 6-12 month contracts; if they rock the boat too much the contracts aren’t renewed.
If you write a polite factual letter highlighting the development plan sections they could simply cut and paste your submission in to the grounds for refusal. If you do not include the sections of the plan and write a speech from the dock they will grant permission.
I would not consider legal advice but if you want professional help get an architect or private sector planner to do a submission on your behalf.
October 30, 2005 at 10:13 pm #762790sw101Participant
do you mean they invalidated the first two applications or they refused to grant permission?
if they were invalid and returned as incomplete, they don’t count as applications, and as such have no bearing on future applications. the third application being validated just means a proper application was submitted.
if you mean the first two applications were refused permission, and the third one was granted, then i’m afraid you have very little recourse unless you make an appeal to an bord pleanala, which can be expensive, time consuming, and very damaging to neighbourly relations/
October 31, 2005 at 1:04 pm #762791
The first two applications were invalidated because the applicants basically fabricated what they were looking to retain, in the second application, they looked for permission to remove the extension and replace with the bay window. What is confusing is that before they even consider going back to the original conditions they were requested to submit revised plans for the porch and bay window. they never did, simply because thiis is not what they want. The extension is what they are after and even in their new application which was recently validated the wording contained in it is extremely dubious. The extension consists of one entire unit but they’ve made it out to be a two part plan – retain the porch and retain and complete the front extension, which basically is a contrived play on words. I can’t believe the person that ruled on this was not familiar with the original file number and the conditions therein, and because of this it’s fair to say that those that have commited an illegal act are being rewarded. The fact that their application is now validated opens all manner of recourse for them.
Is it possible that I may ask the planner to verify how he or she made their decision, considering what is involved?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.