Planning laws preventing development

B

Bronte

Registered User
Messages
14,850
In the middle of a massive housing crisis, why is it that planning laws allow continuous objections to any development. Here's today's example ...

www.independent.ie

Retired judge fails to block ‘outrageous’ five-storey apartment scheme

An Bord Pleanála has given the green light to contentious plans for a five-storey 38-unit build-to-rent scheme for Blackrock in south Dublin which one appellant predicted “will create chaos” in the area.
www.independent.ie www.independent.ie

AAM is littered with points about how impossible it is to get planning for greater density, or to do a conversion of a house no longer suitable to a family into two units, any 'high' rise, of moderate height is considered as anathema to the continuous sprawl of Dublin, with all the resultant traffic management chaos and lack of affordable housing.
 
I objected to a neighbours developement once before as they were building a Celtic Tiger monstrosity which was going to completely overshadow our back garden and end any privacy we had. County council agreed with us and refused permission. ABP overruled that without ever speaking to us or our solicitor and never visiting our house. To this day, we have no idea how that decision was made but we ended up selling as a result.

As a result, I have no respect or time for ABP and no respect for any of their decisions. No argument that objections for the sake of an objection or to try and get "compensation" should be stopped but sometimes objections are valid.
 
thedaddyman said:
I objected to a neighbours developement once before as they were building a Celtic Tiger monstrosity which was going to completely overshadow our back garden and end any privacy we had. County council agreed with us and refused permission. ABP overruled that without ever speaking to us or our solicitor and never visiting our house. To this day, we have no idea how that decision was made but we ended up selling as a result.

As a result, I have no respect or time for ABP and no respect for any of their decisions. No argument that objections for the sake of an objection or to try and get "compensation" should be stopped but sometimes objections are valid.
Click to expand...
We have no right to light and we have no right not to be overlooked. Unless there is a really good reason for an objection no development should be stopped.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Leo
Purple said:
We have no right to light and we have no right not to be overlooked. Unless there is a really good reason for an objection no development should be stopped.
Click to expand...
That is sadly correct, anyone can build a monstrosity next to your house, kill off all natural light in your back garden etc and you can do little or nothing about it. There is a limited right to it in the UK.

I would argue that destroying the quality of life in the adjoining properties is pretty much a good reason to oppose. I'm not against developement in principle, but it needs to be appropriate. We should be building communities, not rabbit hutches for people to live in.
 
thedaddyman said:
That is sadly correct, anyone can build a monstrosity next to your house, kill off all natural light in your back garden etc and you can do little or nothing about it. There is a limited right to it in the UK.

I would argue that destroying the quality of life in the adjoining properties is pretty much a good reason to oppose.
Click to expand...
Being overlooked is not commensurate with having your quality of life destroyed. If you live in a city or town there's a good chance you'll be overlooked. We just have to suck it up. Whatever about light, people who complain about their view being obstructed are just the pits.
thedaddyman said:
I'm not against developement in principle, but it needs to be appropriate.
Click to expand...
I agree. I've had an apartment block built behind a former home. I didn't object; the people who lived there are just as entitled to a place to live as I am.
thedaddyman said:
We should be building communities, not rabbit hutches for people to live in.
Click to expand...
That's a great slogan but what exactly does that mean?
 
Actually on the "right to light"... if someone wants to bury themselves in this PDF to figure out the nuances, but this stood out:

The Irish courts have in the past applied the so called “45 degree rule” as a guide in determining whether there is a case to answer on a claim for interference with a right to light. This rule of thumb suggests that there is no substantial interference if the angle of unobstructed light is greater than 45 degrees. However, it is not a rule of law and other relevant factors have to be taken into account. The “45 degree rule” is not considered in modern practice to be as reliable as“sky factor” analysis.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top