That sounds like planner speak to me! So let me give you real life example of why your first point is inaccurate.
A relation of mine succeeded in getting planning for a house on his land. All went through hunky dorey. The planning officer for the area in question was moved to a new area and a new planning officer took over. The new planner took issue with the planning permission already given to my relation. My relation won his case, on the basis that the planning departments own documents cited the house he was planning to build as a fine example of the buildings they wished to encourage.
What I find when dealing with various arms of government is that they state their policies as if those policies were gospel, when in fact all the are is hot air. What is written, and what ACTUALLY happens is always a lot different. Every government department has fine sounding rhetoric on every aspect which comes under their remit. After all, writing this rhetoric and then reciting it to the rest of us is probably 70% of their job. But when you dig a little deeper you find out how things are REALLY run.
Now, of course I would win no court case on this without getting x,y and z witnesses to stand up and speak on it - but seeing as how x, y and z know how the system works and use that knowledge to their advantage, well - it isn't in their interests to make that public.
As for part 2 - I agree with your point, but not with the absolute lack of sympathy for the OP. I like to refer to the Irish government as the Dublin government - they run things for the benefit of Dublin and the rest of the country tends to be of secondary concern. The economy of course requires this, as does democracy - where the majority vote is paramount. I would still like to see a better balance myself, where people like the OP get decent rights for their own land.