planning and "locals" only

SILVAMAN

Interesting story where Donal Og Cusack appears to have been denied planning permission because he supposedly falls foul of a locals-only rule.
http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/outsider-donal-og-cusack-denied-planning-permission-413746.html
I thought that this rule had been successfully challenged some years ago in the courts, and that it was held that it was a violation of the freedom of movement of persons under EU law.
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/locals-only-planning-rule-illegal-and-discriminatory-says-eu-26300271.html

I'm in Clare and I thought that a similar rule had been discarded in the light of this court ruling.

Spanish Eyes

The EU ruling was obviously never transposed into Irish law.

Anyway, one off housing in the countryside is not a good thing in general IMV whether you are local or not.

He should hunt around for a "project" and do it up for himself.

Good to see anyway that being well known and "famous" doesn't guarantee planning permission.

sydthebeat

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

The EU ruling was obviously never transposed into Irish law.

Anyway, one off housing in the countryside is not a good thing in general IMV whether you are local or not.

He should hunt around for a "project" and do it up for himself.

Good to see anyway that being well known and "famous" doesn't guarantee planning permission.

there was never an EU "ruling" and neither was it ever found to be illegal.

http://www.housing.gov.ie/en/Publications/DevelopmentandHousing/Planning/FileDownLoad,18600,en.pdf

The commission simply requested to show how the policy conformed to the requirements of Articles 43 and 56 (Freedom of Establishment and
Free Movement of Capital) of the European Community Treaty.

its my understanding that the EU Commission never responded to the governments defense of the policy and therefore is still a 'live' case.
i may be wrong on that.

But essentially, it was never a ruling that the policy was illegal.

SILVAMAN

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

The EU ruling was obviously never transposed into Irish law.

Anyway, one off housing in the countryside is not a good thing in general IMV whether you are local or not.

He should hunt around for a "project" and do it up for himself.

Good to see anyway that being well known and "famous" doesn't guarantee planning permission.

I'm sure there are other ways for dealing with one-off housing and any associated problems.
As for Cusack not being local......and by all accounts he's very strongly associated with the local GAA, not to mention the tremendous role model he's been for gay youth.

martinn123

sydthebeat wrote: »

there was never an EU "ruling" and neither was it ever found to be illegal.

http://www.housing.gov.ie/en/Publications/DevelopmentandHousing/Planning/FileDownLoad,18600,en.pdf

The commission simply requested to show how the policy conformed to the requirements of Articles 43 and 56 (Freedom of Establishment and
Free Movement of Capital) of the European Community Treaty.

its my understanding that the EU Commission never responded to the governments defense of the policy and therefore is still a 'live' case.
i may be wrong on that.

But essentially, it was never a ruling that the policy was illegal.

Hi Guy's

I researched this topic a few years ago, after I came across the article, from the Independent.
I contacted Dept of Environment, who refused to provide me with any information regarding the Official reply to the EU ''Query''

I then contacted the office of the European Parliament in Dublin who were extremely helpful

Basically as Syd has posted the ''Official Reply'' was that the Dept. contended that the practice did not contravene EU treaties

The Letter quoted above was to ensure that all Local Authorities had the same wording in their Local Dev Plans, and this info was transmitted to Europe

The Official from the Parliament Office explained that the EU could accept Ireland's position and the matter would fade away, or it could be rejected in which case referred to the European Court

As at the time of my conversation, 2 yrs ago, the matter seemed to have faded away, but any update would be available from the Parliament Office rather than Dept of Environment who were unwilling to assist in any way.

DOCARCH

SILVAMAN wrote: »

...and by all accounts he's very strongly associated with the local GAA...

Living/applying for planning permission in rural Cork...coaching/training the Clare hurling team.

SILVAMAN

DOCARCH wrote: »

Living/applying for planning permission in rural Cork...coaching/training the Clare hurling team.

Doesn't he have a full time job in Cork?
I live in Clare and my work takes me all over the country....perhaps if some people changed their attitude to where they were prepared to work our little country would function better.

BryanF

SILVAMAN wrote: »

Doesn't he have a full time job in Cork?
I live in Clare and my work takes me all over the country....perhaps if some people changed their attitude to where they were prepared to work our little country would function better.

Like the governments decentralisation plans? That was a great idea.

Are we advocating commuting? spending half our life in a car?

The idea of Sustainable development (what the planning system is supposed to be based on) suggests people live close to where their work, walk to school/shop/pub. If unmanaged, will our 'green belt' Ireland just be a massive patch work quilt of houses plonked in the middle of fields? With two cars constany on the go.. Ribbon development is already messing up large sections of our country side.
if you want to build in 'rural' Ireland, purchase a site within the development boundary of a village.

mickdw

BryanF wrote: »

Like the governments decentralisation plans? That was a great idea.

Are we advocating commuting? spending half our life in a car?

The idea of Sustainable development (what the planning system is supposed to be based on) suggests people live close to where their work, walk to school/shop/pub. If unmanaged, will our 'green belt' Ireland just be a massive patch work quilt of houses plonked in the middle of fields? With two cars constany on the go.. Ribbon development is already messing up large sections of our country side.
if you want to build in 'rural' Ireland, purchase a site within the development boundary of a village.

The problem with building within the development boundary of a village is that there are large areas where villages are in fact not villages at all.
A 'village' here in rural mayo basically means a rural townland. There will be a scattering of houses but no obvious cluster or grouped services. The church could be one end of the village, the school at the other end with the nearest shop 10 miles away. All this doesn't change the fact that rural people need new housing in these areas.
I don't see why they can not be catered for.
I also believe the planning guidelines are further enforcing this roadside linear development by requiring sight lines that make development in some more suitable and hidden location impossible.

SILVAMAN

BryanF wrote: »

if you want to build in 'rural' Ireland, purchase a site within the development boundary of a village.

Fair point.
Look at Cusack's site-right next to another house which joining many more. This wasn't something on its own in the middle of farmland.
With some planners, it's a question of some animals being more equal than others. Check out the personal planning applications of certain planning officers.
As for commuting, I work for myself and my work is all over the country-with a wonderful system of motorways, it's not too bad. I have friends in the US who commute 2-3 hours to work each way each day. No problems.

Water John

I know a case where an old farmhouse exists but is not restorable and the 'local' rule has been invoked.

sydthebeat

Water John wrote: »

I know a case where an old farmhouse exists but is not restorable and the 'local' rule has been invoked.

well if its derelict and 'not restorable' then in effect no house exists... so the local authority are quite correct to restrict any new dwelling to those who have a local need.

Water John

Syd, diff LA's use diff approaches as to what is derelict or a ruin. They have said to do it up, that would be allowable, WTF!!!

sydthebeat

Water John wrote: »

Syd, diff LA's use diff approaches as to what is derelict or a ruin. They have said to do it up, that would be allowable, WTF!!!

as i dont know the specifics i cant comment, but the general policy of restoration over demolition and new construction makes complete sense to me.

Water John

So, if you apply for planning to restore and alter an existing building of any description you don't invoke the 'local' rule but if you want to knock and rebuild you do.
I like logic, am I missing something here?

sydthebeat

Water John wrote: »

So, if you apply for planning to restore and alter an existing building of any description you don't invoke the 'local' rule but if you want to knock and rebuild you do.
I like logic, am I missing something here?

if you restore and alter in a sympathetic way to the original you dont invoke the local rule...

but if you demolish and construct a new dwelling you do... yes thats the logic.

SILVAMAN

sydthebeat wrote: »

as i dont know the specifics i cant comment, but the general policy of restoration over demolition and new construction makes complete sense to me.

A well heeled couple-she on Charlie's tax exempt list of artists-restored an old style cottage. She then lambasted the local building of a housing estate in the middle of a rush infested field in the village, spouting nonsense about "old stone homes lovingly crafted by hand" as opposed to "breeze block monstrosities". One of her neighbors told her that she and her own new husband had the option of spending €x on restoring the husband's old cottage, with no guarantee that it would be damp proof, or spending an extra €5k on a new build, to their own specs, confident that it would be dry and warm.
Old cottages are quaint, but of another era and mostly unsuited for modern living.

SILVAMAN

SILVAMAN wrote: »

Doesn't he have a full time job in Cork?.........

In Ringaskiddy area iirc.

Calahonda52

This follows Mr Cusack confirming to An Bord Pleanála he wishes to withdraw his appeal against the decision of Cork County Council to refuse him planning permission for build a four bedroomed home around 1km to the north of the East Cork town of Cloyne.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/donal-og-cusack-scraps-cork-dream-home-plans-417856.html

Stovepipe

@silvaman, I love the line "in the middle of a rush infested field". can't wait to see the condition of the estate in winter; damp, cold houses and the builder nowhere to be seen.........

Stovepipe

There are differing interpretations of the alleged locals only rule and Wicklow is notorious for it, especially when you consider what happens on the coastal side of Wicklow and the South and West sides. I know people who were refused permission to build in West Wicklow, despite the wife being a local and working in the village so they simply moved a few yards up the road into Kildare and built there, with no issues.

SILVAMAN

Stovepipe wrote: »

@silvaman, I love the line "in the middle of a rush infested field". can't wait to see the condition of the estate in winter; damp, cold houses and the builder nowhere to be seen.........

Almost 20 years on, estate fullly occupied and thriving.
I'd sooner see marginal agricultural land built upon than the finest brown earth soils.
This is 2016.....drainage and adding top soil not exactly difficult.;)

Stovepipe

given the many flooding scandals, I'd take that with a pinch of salt. I agree with you about using less than wonderful agri-land but I've seen enough marginal sites offered as being fit for planning permission, that you wouldn't put a shed on.....In the estate I live in, there's an extra house, built completely off the books. The builder, a local man, tried to pull a fast one, as if the Council wouldn't notice. A family bought it off plans and only found out later, that it shouldn't have been there but the Council allowed the build of that house to continue so they got their house. So we have a 22 and a 22A and of course, the builder folded his company as soon as the estate was finished. It took ten years for the council to accept the estate later, because of the builder's behaviour.

SILVAMAN

Stovepipe wrote: »

given the many flooding scandals, I'd take that with a pinch of salt. I agree with you about using less than wonderful agri-land but I've seen enough marginal sites offered as being fit for planning permission, that you wouldn't put a shed on.....In the estate I live in, there's an extra house, built completely off the books. The builder, a local man, tried to pull a fast one, as if the Council wouldn't notice. A family bought it off plans and only found out later, that it shouldn't have been there but the Council allowed the build of that house to continue so they got their house. So we have a 22 and a 22A and of course, the builder folded his company as soon as the estate was finished. It took ten years for the council to accept the estate later, because of the builder's behaviour.

Just a tic-forget the salt.
This site was neither a flood plain nor near a river. Wet marginal rushy land in the centre of the village. The entire parish is a drumlin landscape. Many of the houses have underfloor heating and wood burning stoves. Been into some and no problems.

westcoast66

The problem with the "locals only" rule is that it does not take into account the individuals circumstances. For example, the 'local' could be working in a non-ag related field 30 miles away in the city. The non local (and I mean, could have been born 5 miles away) could be farming locally but could be refused on this rule. Near where I live, there is a whole road of 'locals' with none of them working locally!

Water John

The local rule is a joke. As you say, we now have clusters of closely related families all living in the one townland. Almost all driving off every morning to a radius of 50 miles.
Some of these clusters are now 2nd generation.

mcneil

Like every rule, they all change from time to time. Once our country gets its hands on some money again,itll be build build build again!