General Q about Enforcement

Trotter

In general, if a person is served with an enforcement notice giving them X weeks to remove a structure, can they wait until just before it expires and then apply for retention?

A friend of mine has been doing some research for a college course he's doing and told me that usually a retention application would be taken on board by a local authority up to and including a court case between a local authority and a person putting up a construction without permission.

I know that enforcement Q's here are usually a little hot to handle, but in this case Im not referring to a specific case. I just found it unusual and frustrating giving the problems with planning in Ireland in the past that this would still be allowed to happen in 2009. It would mean that an unsanctioned structure could be left standing for months or years to the detriment of others before its taken down, if at all.

If mods would prefer not to allow this discussion, feel free to lock.

Thanks!

DOCARCH

Not as simple! Two sort of seperate areas of a planning legislation/the planning department.

You can have an unauthorised development - be issued with enforcement proceedings by the Council unauthorised development - subsequently obtain retention for the unauthorised development - and still be prosecuted for the unauthorised development.

I know of one example of this in Dublin City Council area! In this particular case there was a fine imposed and AFAIK breach of planning is a criminal offence so I assume you would also get some sort of criminal record?

I know this sounds mad, but really it was a case of proving a point and warning others not to build what they feel like.

muffler

Im going to lock this for now anyhow until I talk to smashey and sydthebeat about it.. Its bordering on the legal side as enforcement proceedings involve the employment of legal professionals and hence is not in our remit (or charter) to debate these issues.

I'll be back

muffler

We can reopen this but only to allow general debate on the whole issue of enforcement. We dont want to see specific cases being referenced.

So you have the floor

Trotter

Thanks a lot Muffler! My existing curiosity stands so.. enforcement that isn't all it says on the tin etc.

sinnerboy

Each case must be decided on its merits / demerits . This is only a principle of natural justice .

I have seen enforcement action being taken against a shopfront sign change for instance . Innocuous enough really imo . Retention permission application followed - granted . Rules are rules for sure bit a little discretion- please .

I have also seen enforcement action taken for a change of use - newsagent to coffee shop . Why ? Because a competitor complained . In this case the LA were actually a little embarrassed taking action only because they HAD to , rules being rules . Again retention permission application followed - granted .

I have seen enforcement action NOT being taken against a take away shop for remaining open until HOURS after a condition of it's grant of planning permission . ( i.e. condition stated - do not open past 1am - shop traded untill 4am every Fri/Sat ) In that case rules weren't really rules after all .

I have seen enforcement action taken against the widening of a vehicular access . Despite the fact that this widening was a condition of a grant of planning permission. Embarresing LA climb down in that case .

It's not all about structures erected without permission

.