DEAR SIR: I wish to alert your readers to the dangerously-unbalanced nature of how planning is administered in this country. My name is Pat Cleary, and with my sons, Darragh and Gavin, I run an arable family farm in Kildare.

In 2006, we set up a composting operation to maintain and improve soil organic matter and structure, spurred in part by the loss of sugar beet. In 2012, we were subject to an inspection by An Bord Pleanála, on foot of a Section 5 referral, which is an appeal by a third party costing €80.

No issue was found with odour, with run-off or pollution, or with traffic – which is no more than four trucks a day at peak. Bi-monthly inspections by the county council have never found any such issues.

They found that a small 10,000 litre tank, an associated manhole and a retaining wall less than 1.2m high on the boundary of the farmyard should have sought planning permission. These structures were built in compliance with the county council’s own recommendations when the permit was being renewed in 2011. We did not believe planning was required, nor did the local authority.

I am a chartered surveying consultant with membership of the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors, and have worked in planning and civil engineering for over 30 years, sometimes with local authorities, so the idea that I would drop the ball on a planning requirement is frankly laughable.

Thus began a procedural nightmare that still continues. An application for an extension to the plant is in limbo, an enforcement order, equivalent if enforced to a criminal conviction, hangs over us. A 2013 application to extend the business is also trapped – paralysing our business. An application for an oral hearing with An Bord Pleanála was dismissed.

Retention permission for the structures is not possible in our situation. Substitute consent can only be granted by An Bord Pleanála, which brings me right back to the source of all our grief. The only logical step was a judicial review in the High Court.

Frustrating

This proved extremely frustrating, as many of the key issues were ruled inadmissible. Last week, the Judicial Review upheld the status quo. The existing operation continues with the consent of the local authority, but the expansion is tied up in the judicial system.

My options have now narrowed further to either the Court of Appeal or the European Court of Justice. The legal costs, which already run to six figures, will be considerable, but I am convinced that essential rights are at stake.

The public must have a voice, but a system that permits repeated objections at little cost is open to misuse and abuse and can destroy a small business.