Third-Party Appeals-For or Against

pseudo-tech

What is people opinion on Third-Party Appeals? Is the current system fair and how would you change it for the better?

RKQ

Its a democratic right. We need an indepenent and fair authority to give decisions at a national level.

IMO ABP is a safe guard to unjust planning decisions or undue influence from Councillors and Politians. Decisions must be based on national planning law and not local interests. We must avoid crooked deals etc.
The appeal fee should not be increased as this will alienate genuine people with genuine appeals.

However, it can be used at times for financial gain. As certain people have lodged objections to ABP only to withdraw same if offered a "deal" by the developer. To prevent this, I believe that once a person objects to ABP they must not be allowed to withdraw the objection. The Bord must be allowed to make its decision.

I also think ABP should be able to make decisions within the three month peroid.:)

pseudo-tech

How about a third-party being restricted to appealing the points that they raise at Local Authority level and not allowed to introduce additional points at a later date. saving the best for the Board and undermining the process at a local level?

Poor Uncle Tom

The idea behind the setting up and operation of ABP is a sound one. Where it flounders imo, is:
1) Identifying, exposing and discarding vexatious appeals,
2) The board, very regularly, overturns the recommendations of their officers, not having the benefit of seeing the site, surrounds, etc., themselves, thus making it a bookwork exercise or deskstudy.
3) Who really polices the police, so to speak, I have seen some really dodgy decisions by the board with very weak reasoning.

So to answer your queary on third party appeals, yes, imo, we should have them but they should rarely be taken on face value. Perhapse all appeals should be put through a screening process, not to eliminate them, but to weed out the drivel, non appropriate remarks or the sometimes reams of unconnected information submitted. It might cut down on the time ABP take to wade through all this.

sydthebeat

Poor Uncle Tom wrote: »

1) Identifying, exposing and discarding vexatious appeals,

completely agree....

and i would go further to include appeals that have no relevance to planning law, policy or guidelines.
Thus appeals based on the appealant claiming, without documentary evidence, that "my property has been devalued" or "the applicant doesn own the land" type should be dismissed immediately upon receipt by the bord......

There should be greater reponsibility on appealants to have a proper appeal prepared. There should be a validation process, better than the current one, which should insist on suitable and sufficient documentary evidence to back up any claims made in the appeal.

I have often see appeals along the lines of "this will have devastating effect on road safety in the area".... when the applicant has gone to much expense to engage professionals to prepare reports to show that there wouldnt be an effect on road safety.

Basically, its too easy for a vexatious appeal to hold up a development for 6-8 months....

RKQ

Poor Uncle Tom wrote: »

1) Identifying, exposing and discarding vexatious appeals,
.

This is worth considering but how would you implement it?
Who can decide what is vexatious or mischief as opposed to a genuine concern?

A democratic right must be maintained while vexatious appeals are quickly weeded out and decided. Maybe a way could be developed to decide vexatious appeals quickly - ABP are no doubt very experienced in identifying them.

I don't believe that a professional must be retained to do the appeal, I feel it is wise to retain a professional. Tax returns can still be done by the individual but who'd be foolish enough not to retain a professional! I'd pay my Accountant anything just to do my books - I hate accounting!

We have all seen the one page appeal letter that makes very vague references to way an application should be granted. I find it hard to understand why people think they can write a letter to the Bord when they have no knowledge of Planning.

So, given time, I feel all appeal appliciants will retain a professional, leading to professional applications based solely on planning law and avoiding detramental references to silly points - tit for tat mentality.

Fear of being treated as a vexatious appeal, might help the public to retain a professional!

sinnerboy

sydthebeat wrote: »

Basically, its too easy for a vexatious appeal to hold up a development for 6-8 months....

Sad , true and inevitable . System is not perfect but I can't think of a better one . Even a vexatious appeal which triggers a review MIGHT result in a better permission being granted . Or a bad decision being reversed .

Crap when your on the wrong side of events of course - I have often been there . But I believe for the greater good - the system (mostly) works

Poor Uncle Tom

I think a body should be set up within ABP, dedicated to trawling through each appeal application, (much like a validation section) checking the content, and discarding any section or aspect of the appeal which does not have reagrd to CBP, NDP, planning legislation, etc.

I think this body should be made up of professionals (AT's only) from each county with an indepth working knowledge of their CDP, the NDP and policies of each and all planning legislation. Each job should be for one year only and each person then replaced by someone new. (guaranteeing some amount of work for the profession, possibly 10 persons per county on an ongoing basis)

This should get rid of vexatious appeals and leave the actual decision making to the board as it should be, imo.

Poor Uncle Tom

sinnerboy wrote: »

Even a vexatious appeal which triggers a review MIGHT result in a better permission being granted.

Just means the LA's are making bad decisions. It shouldn't be the boards job to review an application IN CASE the planners made a bad decision.

I think there has to be an element of black and white here, if the content of an appeal is within the perameters of challenging the validity of a decision by a LA under the provisions of the content of a CDP and to a lesser extent the NDP then it should be accepted, if it doesn't it shouldn't be accepted, imo.

RKQ

I agree with Sinnerboy.
Its not a black and white process - design is subjective. Each case must be judged on its own merits.
Also Uncle Tom your idea assumes two things:-

1 County Development Plan are "perfect documents" complying with national guidelines. Fair and just. (not rushed revised copies of previous plan with large chunks revised by Councillors on an ad hoc basis!)

2 The validation process - editing of appeals would not make sense - i.e if you removed a remark from a document, could that document be read as the author intended, by the board, after it was "edited". Edited could be seen as censored!

Personal comments, slurs, jealous comments etc are read by educated people in ABP, they are quite able to ignore such comments and decide on the authors reasons for appealing.

I believe any comments that can be read as being vexatious are detrimental to an appeal. People would be wise to avoid such comments as it deminishes the grounds of their appeal.

Its not a perfect system but "local" staff from the same county as the appeal just wouldn't work. It would be a recipe for bribes and corruption. Especially if appointed for a year - "who cares I'm gone in a few months" attitude.

How many genuine and valid appeals have been dismissed because of personal unfounded comments? How many have shot themselves in the foot?

The same independent group making the same decisions in every county is the real success of ABP - national consistancy.

Poor Uncle Tom

RKQ wrote: »

I agree with Sinnerboy.
Its not a black and white process - design is subjective. Each case must be judged on its own merits.

I agree, but I see this as a job for LA not ABP.

RKQ wrote: »

1 County Development Plan are "perfect documents" complying with national guidelines. Fair and just. (not rushed revised copies of previous plan with large chunks revised by Councillors on an ad hoc basis!)

CBP's are not perfect, but they are all we have, WE also have the opportunity of helping to reform our own CDP when they are due for renewal.

RKQ wrote: »

2 The validation process - editing of appeals would not make sense - i.e if you removed a remark from a document, could that document be read as the author intended, by the board, after it was "edited". Edited could be seen as censored!

I'm not talking about censoring, no, just removing potentially slanderous and unassociated material. I'm sure we have all seen it, I certainly have.

RKQ wrote: »

Personal comments, slurs, jealous comments etc are read by educated people in ABP, they are quite able to ignore such comments and decide on the authors reasons for appealing.

Why should anyone have to go through that if it isn't necessary?

RKQ wrote: »

I believe any comments that can be read as being vexatious are detrimental to an appeal. People would be wise to avoid such comments as it deminishes the grounds of their appeal.

I agree in principal, all are human, it is only natural to assume any comments, especially vexatious ones will have some effect or impact on the decision maker, however minor, if it is your first time seeing such a process. The average person will only deal with ABP once and if they are left with the impression that the decision maker was unduly influenced, then nothing will convince them otherwise.

RKQ wrote: »

Its not a perfect system but "local" staff from the same county as the appeal just wouldn't work. It would be a recipe for bribes and corruption. Especially if appointed for a year - "who cares I'm gone in a few months" attitude.

Only a suggestion, I assumed people from each county would have a far better knowledge of the intended spirit of their own CDP.

RKQ wrote: »

How many genuine and valid appeals have been dismissed because of personal unfounded comments? How many have shot themselves in the foot?

How many proposed developments have been shot down because of vexatious appeals?

RKQ wrote: »

The same independent group making the same decisions in every county is the real success of ABP - national consistancy.

I don't agree that taking between 24 and 32 weeks to judge an appeal can be considered a success.

RKQ

I don't think we are too far apart on this issue Uncle Tom, I can't answer each point just the important ones:-:)

Poor Uncle Tom wrote: »

How many proposed developments have been shot down because of vexatious appeals?

None - ABP is not swayed or influenced by hearsay, slurs or pettiness.
All ABP judjements are decided by very qualified and experienced people, based purely on Planning Law. They are highly qualified and maybe the best in Ireland, they can not afford to be seen as not being totally impartial. They can't be brided or bullied by TD's. (Who can bride or blackmail an Inspector if they don't know who the Inspector is?)

Poor Uncle Tom wrote: »

I don't agree that taking between 24 and 32 weeks to judge an appeal can be considered a success.

It not a perfect process, but it is working - time is an issue but what price justice and democracy?
National consistancy is VERY important.

Poor Uncle Tom

RKQ wrote: »

None - ABP is not swayed or influenced by hearsay, slurs or pettiness. All ABP judjements are decided by very qualified and experienced people, based purely on Planning Law. They are highly qualified and maybe the best in Ireland, they can not afford to be seen as not being totally impartial. They can't be brided or bullied by TD's. (Who can bride or blackmail an Inspector if they don't know who the Inspector is?)

It not a perfect process, but it is working - time is an issue but what price justice and democracy?
National consistancy is VERY important.

Now, you see, I do have a major problem with the above because I KNOW it not to be the case.
I have no problem with the statement that 'ABP judgements are decided by very qualified and experienced people, based purely on planning law.....I would say 99%

The other 1%, call it misplaced pity, but I believe it does influence decisions.

Why is an inspectors recommendation turned on its head and his/her report seemingly ignored by the board (who have not seen the site) This has happened very, very often, check out their site.

ABP is not infallable.

Poor Uncle Tom

Hey, RKQ, we're hogging this thread, lets agree to disagree.

RKQ

Poor Uncle Tom I can't get into hearsay. Maybe you should contact Joe Duffy or the Times, with any proof you have regarding the 1%..... nobody said ABP were perfect!

Lets agree to disagree...

No6

Jesus Lads I just tell my clients they're all as mad as hatters in ABP even worse that the Co Council planners, avoid like the plague

Seriously though I find where third parties make appeals even on vaguely valid planning grounds there is usually some personal issues between the parties in the background or occasionally they want to make some easy money!!

RKQ

"Easy money" is a problem - thats why I suggested that once an appeal is made it can't be withdrawn.

Therefore no money or payments or free houses can be blackmailed out of the granted party / developer by nasty appellants, trying to abuse the system for financial gain.:)
"Give me this or that and I'll withdraw my appeal - can you risk losing at ABP?"

sydthebeat

RKQ wrote: »

"Easy money" is a problem - thats why I suggested that once an appeal is made it can't be withdrawn.

Therefore no money or payments or free houses can be blackmailed out of the granted party / developer by nasty appellants, trying to abuse the system for financial gain.:)
"Give me this or that and I'll withdraw my appeal - can you risk losing at ABP?"

wouldnt agree.....

an appeal can serve useful purposes, even if its not intended to run its course...

pseudo-tech

Should appeals of a minor nature be decided by a local democratically elected board consisting of 3 members (one planner, a member of the public and maybe someone from the legal profession)? This would free up valuable time in the Board.

Should the Local Authority be more accountable, say if a Planner is consistently making bad decisions, he/she should be fired (like everyone in the private sector). If a decision is so bad should it be subject to legal proceeding.

Why do we need someone to police (the Board) the police (Local Authority)?

Employ professional Planners to make professional decisions and fire them if they don't perform.

Poor Uncle Tom

pseudo-tech wrote: »

Should appeals of a minor nature be decided by a local democratically elected board consisting of 3 members (one planner, a member of the public and maybe someone from the legal profession)? This would free up valuable time in the Board.

Should the Local Authority be more accountable, say if a Planner is consistently making bad decisions, he/she should be fired.

Employ professional Planners to make professional decisions and fire them if they don't perform.

All sounds good to me, accountability in the public sector is very much lacking, imo.

Does 'policeing the police' work? We have all seen what is happening with the banks and the financial regulator.

Again accountability is sadly lacking.

No6

Poor Uncle Tom wrote: »

accountability in the public sector

You're not tommy terinan in your spare time Tom, that was a real good one!!!

pseudo-tech

Why should clients that purchase a expensive properties, pay fees for consultants etc etc be subject to time delays (possibly a year or two) because of incompetence’s in the Public Service.

Employ qualified planners, make long-term strategic and professional decisions and abandon An Bord Pleanala. Is this not achievable or do we continue to accept the inconsistent, possibly corrupt (on occasions) decisions by Public Servant's who make subjective decisions based on reasoning that fly in the face of rational thought?

We have become so PC that we need an independent body to inspect decisions made by people who are employed to have the best interests of the public in the first instance.

RKQ

pseudo-tech wrote: »

We have become so PC that we need an independent body to inspect decisions made by people who are employed to have the best interests of the public in the first instance.

Does 'policeing the police' work? - yes most of the time. ABP is just an oppertunity to balance the "back-room" deals than might be done by Councillors or T.D's. It also allows for National standards to be applied nationally.

Before ABP there was great fun- a free for all (the rich) which resulted in the Tribunals. So we do need police to police!

If you are refused planning you can appeal to ABP, if you lose in the District Court you can appeal to the Circuit Court - It just democratic checks & balances. Keep it legal and honest, (if such a thing is possible!)

pseudo-tech

RKQ,

I understand exactly what you are saying and i agree with you in principle. However, why can the public servants that we employ be subject to the same rules, regulations and standards that people in the private sector are subject to?

It's time that we stop accepting the rogue element in public life and demand better standards. Could you imagine approaching a politician in England and asking them to help you with your back kitchen extension. Wouldn't happen. In Ireland however, we accept inefficient, corrupt politicians because they done a relative a favour. Where are we at?

sydthebeat

pseudo-tech wrote: »

RKQ,

I understand exactly what you are saying and i agree with you in principle. However, why can the public servants that we employ be subject to the same rules, regulations and standards that people in the private sector are subject to?

It's time that we stop accepting the rogue element in public life and demand better standards. Could you imagine approaching a politician in England and asking them to help you with your back kitchen extension. Wouldn't happen. In Ireland however, we accept inefficient, corrupt politicians because they done a relative a favour. Where are we at?

Every permission comes down to opinion. We do not have an automated planning system, thank god.

Therefore Opinions will differ. Because of these we certainly do need 'secondary' basis of opinion, An Bord.

pseudo-tech

God has nothing to do with planning decisions. However, if decisions are subjective who is to say the subjective decision of the Board member is acceptable. Have they not had to employ overseas consultants because of workload? Come on, set the standards high at a local level, remove inefficiencies in Local Authorities and employ people with qualities. If you do so, they would hopefully make better, stronger decisions and not be influenced by inadequate politicians.

sydthebeat

pseudo-tech wrote: »

God has nothing to do with planning decisions. However, if decisions are subjective who is to say the subjective decision of the Board member is acceptable. Have they not had to employ overseas consultants because of workload? Come on, set the standards high at a local level, remove inefficiencies in Local Authorities and employ people with qualities. If you do so, they would hopefully make better, stronger decisions and not be influenced by inadequate politicians.

i would completely agree...

but how many top quality planners went out to work in the private sector over the lst 10 years?? quite a few in my experience. Mainly because the public sector pays better... same thing happens with teachers, doctors etc.....



My biggest gripe is with planners who take issue with design, yet they themselves come from a non-design background.... Its my opinion that every county should have a county architect on their books.

RKQ

sydthebeat wrote: »

My biggest gripe is with planners who take issue with design, yet they themselves come from a non-design background.... Its my opinion that every county should have a county architect on their books.

I agree Syd.. I hate "designer" Planners whoes whole education has come from the back pages of the Sunday Times! A little knowledge...

I do agree with you pseudo-tech, especially "Come on, set the standards high at a local level, remove inefficiencies in Local Authorities and employ people with qualities. If you do so, they would hopefully make better, stronger decisions and not be influenced by inadequate politicians."
I don't see ABP as a factor that prevents higher standards in LA Dept. I'm sure that even ABP would agree with your comment above.

No6

sydthebeat wrote: »

Its my opinion that every county should have a county architect on their books.

We have them around here and bad and all as the planners are the co architects can be so much worse, its usually junior planners that refer stuff to them and they have no concept of a clients budget, scary people!!:eek:

Poor Uncle Tom

No6 wrote: »

You're not tommy terinan in your spare time Tom, that was a real good one!!!

I see we have a sceptic in our midst!

No6, don't you think the boys 'n' girls in the public sector earn all of OUR hard earned tax euros that they get in wages and expenses? tut, tut, shame on you..:D:D

No6

Uncle Tom I suppose this time next year the ones that are left may proportionally earn more of our rapidly falling taxes, they may even become a little more pro development!!! ( I wouldn't hold my breath though!!):rolleyes:

Poor Uncle Tom

Good point. The public sector is very much top heavy anyway, 600 odd quangos, 200 more virtual ghost departments. If HALF of these people had to go out and earn a crust in the private sector, they would starve.

Back on topic.
Overall ABP does what it says on the tin, but I believe begrudgery/revenge/gold digging is responsible for at least 30% of all appeals. If this element could be weeded out.....(dream on)

RKQ

Poor Uncle Tom wrote: »

Overall ABP does what it says on the tin, but I believe begrudgery/revenge/gold digging is responsible for at least 30% of all appeals. If this element could be weeded out.....(dream on)

I'd agree with that but there must also be a huge number of genuine appeals that just don't happen, simply because people don't want to fall out with their neighbour!

Sometimes an Appeal can have long lasting ill feelings that people are not prepared to have, so they "let it go" rather than have bad feeling.

Getting rid of revenge/gold digging would be nice but would be so difficult to do. Of course preventing the withdrawl of an Appeal would rid us of Gold digging / blackmail for financial gain.

pseudo-tech

Poor Uncle Tom, it could be weeded out if a number of things were introduced from:

Only allowing points of appeal to contain the points that were raised at a local level;

Not allow appeals to be withdrawn once lodged;

Penalise vexatious appeals.