E
the county council have told me that i need to prove my ties to the area to get planning permission to build.
Ties to the area is that you are working etc. in the area & the work you do has a positive impact on the area and it is necessary for you to live near your work. It is not about being originally from the area or having relatives in the area.
E.g. A German born doctor who is opening a much needed doctors surgery in the area will get P.P., but someone who is born in the area, but works in a different town will not.
"
Do you have a different solution/plan to deal with "free for all" development?
mf
"Does anyone else think that this "rule", as it surely cannot be a legal requirement, is discrimanatory? I'm amazed that someone hasn't challenged it to date as it blatantly bludgeons people's rights."
Do you have a different solution/plan to deal with "free for all" development?
mf
I agree the local needs issue is open to corruption. A local councellor levied very hard on our behalf. There were no brown envelopes but we really should not have gotten planning. The main drift of our arguement was that dad has a heart condition (true - I drove him to hospital while he had his first heart attack) and we wanted to be nearer in case of emergency and thats why the councellor worked so hard on our behalf.
The local needs issue has been deemed illegal and has gone to Europe for review but its quiet possibly years before any substantial change will be made.
Planners can prevent someone from selling on a house immediatley after building it. It can often be included as a condition of the grant of permission that a house must be occupied for a set period of time (eg 5 years) by the person receiving permission as there primary family residence. A legal contract between the planning authority and the applicant is usually signed. The only reason why the house can be sold on sooner is if the mortgage provider takes the house because of outstanding payments and sells it (there is a clause in the contract to allow this, should the need arise).
mf1 - "free for all" development will not be encouraged or dissuaded by this particular rule. If there is a good reason for not granting PP then that's fine but it shouldn't discriminate between a local and a non-local person in my opinion.
I'm all in favour of making the rules more stringent in relation to ad-hoc building in the countryside, but the rules should apply to everyone.
All the best.
it simply is governmental policy to refuse rural housing, unless a genuine need is shown, because our water sources are becoming polluted, our rural landscape is becoming pillaged, necessary infrastructure is stretched to capacity, infrastructure costs rocket in rural situations, socio-economical costs rocket in rural situations etc. Therefore it should be kept to a minimum.
Thanks for the link Syd, it's an interesting article.
The whole process is artificially controlled and being abused on a regular basis because of this, not least (as the article suggests) because of the differing opinions over national policy, l;ocal policy and even between different councillors in the same area. That's why we have lobbying of councillors, decisions based on personal opinions rather than rules,non-local people beating the system (I know of a doctor who was allowed build near me based on his intention to open a local practice; he is still working in his old practice in the city nearby but living near the coastline), local people not availing of the recent surge in land values because there are no local people to buy the site (2 sites near me have been on the market at reasonable prices for 2+ years, no locals are interested and repeated offers by non-locals have been turned down because of this undemocratic "rule".
I'm all for controlling rural new-build (we have really made a mess of this in this country) but this is not the way to do it.
You could make the same argument above (in bold) for urban housing but rural purchasers are not restricted from entering that market.
Amazingly we also have strategies in this country that run in parallel with this "rule" to encourage urban dwellers to settle in rural communities in order to sustain local communities that are dwindling away. So non-locals may be discriminated against in some rural areas but grant-aided to settle in other rural areas (such as Leitrim or other west of Ireland counties).
I'm in favour of a lot of the objectives (rural sustainment, affordable local housing, protection of rural assets, infrastructure planning etc) and would fully support stricter overall planning policies; however discriminating between locals and non-locals (and the tenuous conditions attached) is not the way forward in my opinion.
All the best.
we seem to have the same opinions galwegian...... we support the principles of the guidelines, but the practise of them is vastly flawed. I had an application refused yesterday where the son of the landowner applied on family land beside his parents house and was refused because of 'ribbon development' and proliferation of septic tanks...... of course the planner didnt comment that at least 50% of the adjoining dwellings were granted to applicants who had a very tenuious affilation with the area...
I had experience of the system before the guidelines, and i can say for certainty that the system is better now with them. At least as agents we can give a prospective applicant a fairly accurate opinion on how the application will be viewed by a planner... previously it was pot-luck....
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?