Planning contributions??

wexie

Hi everybody,

We're currently looking into buying a house in the big ol' schmoke. If all goes well you'll be seeing me around here a lot as the house needs a lot of work (1930's in mostly original condition) and i'll be doing a lot of it myself.

At the moment I'm getting a rough idea of what's possible given our limited means. A lot of the houses along the road have already been extended so I've been having a look at the plans for some of the ones along the road.

One of the things that jumped out at me are some of the exorbitant (seemingly to me) planning contributions the council has been demanding.
For example one of the neighbours was asked for :

2000 towards water and drainage public infrastructure
2500 towards parks & community public infrastructure
3000 towards public roads infrastructure

Now, while I could see how adding an extension might conceivably have an impact on water and drainage etc. I can't quite comprehend how adding an extension to the back of a house might have any impact on the need for any more parks in the neighbourhood.

Maybe I'm overlooking something and if so please do enlighten me, but this seems like a (very poorly) disguised shakedown in order to get planning permission. (these charges are in addition to all regular planning charges).

Please don't get me wrong as I'm not looking to fall out with anybody (lots and lots more questions if and when sale goes through, central heating, original 1930's windows, insulation, plumbing etc etc) but I must say I'm a bit freaked out at the thought of paying the guts of 10K for the priviledge of paying another 80/90/100K for an extension?

Are these just the last remnants of the Celtic tiger? (planning for this example was granted in 2009). Does anybody know if these things are still happening? Is there anything that can be done about it? 7500K would unfortunately take a fair chunk out of our budget for renovations.

thanks

P.S. (if I've missed any threads on this subject my most humble apologies, I did look)

Poor Uncle Tom

The 2000 planning and development act brought into effect a once off contribution payment to be made to each Local Authority based on the floor area of the development.

Each year the councillors vote on the contributions as part of the LA's budget. In most cases the contributions are now payable on extensions, etc.

Unfortunately as it is part of the planning and development act we cannot discuss ways around paying the contributions here as it would breach the forum charter. However you can discuss the differences in charges between LA's, etc.

muffler

You may also want to have a read at this thread on the various charges around the country

wexie

Thanks folks,

that's most enlightening. I guess this is where I'd normally embark on a rant about rip off republic, civil servants, value for money etc etc.

But it seems there's really no point. I'll just pour another drink and start weighing up the pro's and con's of emigration versus moving back to the big schmoke.

archtech

It maybe worth establishing if you could extend the house within the limits of exempted development and then be exempted from applying for planning hence avoiding any development contributions . Engage the services of an architectural technologist /technician or architect to visit the property to advise you .

DOCARCH

Just to give the OP some optimisim, in most local authority areas, especially in Dublin, usually the first 40 m.sq. of extension is free from levies/contributions. So, if you build a 50 m.sq. extension, the levies/contributions only apply to 10 m.sq. of the developmnet.

Typically levies/contributions are roughly E 150 / m.sq. (this is a rough average for the Dublin councils).

ShiverinEskimo

We've just been granted FPP in Louth and are in the process of appealing our 4 grand fee for water and drainage.

We are replacing an existing house so the council pro-rata'd the fees in line with the increase in floor area only. We're replacing a 50sq mt house with a 200sq mt house so all the fees are 75% of their total values.

However the water charge is what we are disputing because as it is the site is fully serviced by water and the occupancy is actually dropping (Family of 8 grew up in the original cottage :eek: ). We're also installing a soakpit for surface water and will not be connecting to sewers - we will have a treatment system installed (another stipulation despite the existing septic tank being present on-site).

We're at the very early stages of our appeal but we have time. It's just another way the County Council came up with to earn money and they seem to have taken the urban/town planning regulations and just cut them to fit the county/rural planning cases as much of the county document still deals with drains and sewerage which are non-existent outside of the major towns in Louth.

I'll let ye know how we get on, we don't hold much hope after 2 years of banging our heads off a brick wall to get FPP but 4 grand is 4 grand.

DOCARCH

Just be careful ShiverinEskimo. I've seen instances in the past, where on appeal, levies/contributions have been increased by An Bord Pleanala.

I understand your frustration (I know I'd be pretty annoyed) but the levies for drainage and water are generally for the 'common good' not necessarily specifically for your site.

Specifically with regard to water, your personal circumstances will not be considered on appeal (i.e. that 8 people lived in a 50 m.sq. cottage and now less people will live in a 200 m.sq. house). If you sold the proposed house in 5 years, who is to say that 16 people will not be living in the house?

If your planning was hard won, I'd suggest thinking carefully appealing the decision for the sake of E4k - I know it's a lot but maybe not so much in the overall scheme of things.

ShiverinEskimo

Yes I know. We're not appealing to An Bord Pleanala however (not yet) we've begun dialogue with the coucil themselves. I disagree slightly with the occupancy point you made as our septic tank and actual plans were judged and granted permission based on an occupancy level we had to specify so their own regulations have taken into consideration the expected occupancy of the house so it has to be relevant.

In the first instance we were advised in a planning meeting that our existing septic tank meant as long as we replaced it with a more modern unit it would be fine. They then asked us to include a treatment system which is likely to cost around 4000 euro. For them to then hit us with a water connection charge which the site already has (fully functional too) is a bit much and we’re basically putting it to them to justify it.

Like I said, we’re not exactly certain we’ll have much success but out of the 5 odd reasons for the charge – connection, provision, waste-water, surface water, maintenance – only maintenance of the pipes in our area can be justified for our site and the introduction of water charges in a year or two will take plenty care of that so in principle the council are charging us for nothing but a year or so of maintenance of existing pipes which are likely to be untouched as our site will be fully self sufficient in dealing with all waste and run-off water.

I’ve got nothing to lose by opening dialogue and seeing if they will budge somewhat.

sydthebeat

ShiverinEskimo wrote: »

We've just been granted FPP in Louth and are in the process of appealing our 4 grand fee for water and drainage.

We are replacing an existing house so the council pro-rata'd the fees in line with the increase in floor area only. We're replacing a 50sq mt house with a 200sq mt house so all the fees are 75% of their total values.

However the water charge is what we are disputing because as it is the site is fully serviced by water and the occupancy is actually dropping (Family of 8 grew up in the original cottage :eek: ). We're also installing a soakpit for surface water and will not be connecting to sewers - we will have a treatment system installed (another stipulation despite the existing septic tank being present on-site).

We're at the very early stages of our appeal but we have time. It's just another way the County Council came up with to earn money and they seem to have taken the urban/town planning regulations and just cut them to fit the county/rural planning cases as much of the county document still deals with drains and sewerage which are non-existent outside of the major towns in Louth.

I'll let ye know how we get on, we don't hold much hope after 2 years of banging our heads off a brick wall to get FPP but 4 grand is 4 grand.

occupancy is based on floor area / bedrooms.... a house with 4 double bedrooms can have an occupancy of 8 persons. Regardless of what your specific occupancy will be. This is probably the view the council are taking on it if you challange this.

If you are connecting to your own on site storm and foul water, and you have permission for this, then you should not be charged a contribution towards public sewers unless there are actually sewers available to connect to and you are making a concious decision not to connect (which would be a very strange decision)

Evry county should should its own development contributions matrix / schedule with a full explanation for same. A quick google shows up this for louth.

ShiverinEskimo

There are no public sewers to connect to. The occupancy of the house is 7 (3 doubles, 1 single) so is actually reducing by 1.

I've read and printed that document. Not saying they haven't explained it. Just saying we feel we have grounds to appeal it based on the fact that we're replacing an existing house and despite the fees being pro-rata'd for the existing house it is unjustifiable to charge 4 thousand euro when so many of their listed reasons for the site are being met by the site and are not required to be provided by the coucil.

Again - I have to reiterate - we're just going to talk to them and see if they will budge and factor in what I've discussed here and negotiate the fee. I'm not on a war-path and I fully understand we may well be met with a solid brick wall. Our Architect is due to speak to the planner on our behalf today and explain our position.

I'm of the opinion that too many people in this country just take these charges on the chin. I may not have anything to gain by seeking to negotiate but neither do I have anything to lose. People shouldn't be discouraged to ask questions of their council planners when they've effectively added about 8 or 9 grand to our building costs through insisting on a treatment system and charging us fees where an existing, habitable house exists on a site and has paid its fees in the past to service the site.

DOCARCH

You mentioned that the E4k was for water and drainage. What about the water? Is it a public water supply?

In addition, how many bedrooms were in the original house - as Syd outlined - this is the way Coucils define occupancy, i.e. by the no. of bedspaces (rather than actual stated occupancy).

As you say, no harm in asking - nothing ventured nothing gained.

sydthebeat

ive just done a quick calculation....

assuming 75% reduced fee...

you can be charged for:

roads 2442
water and surface water 4286
recreation 433

total 7161 x 0.75 = 5370.75


even assume that half the water charge is removed for storm services, then:
total = 5018 x 0.75 = 3763.50


i dont see much wiggle room here unfortunately.
there could also be supplementary contributions charged?

ShiverinEskimo

Yes Public water supply for which there is already a fully functioning (and previously paid-for) connection to the existing house that will be used for the new dwelling. We could all pop round for a refreshing glass of water right now if we wanted - there is no work to be done on the councils behalf at all to service the site.

The existing cottage has 3 bedrooms and a kitchen. So they may look at it as a 6 occupant cottage as it stands.

EDIT - @ Syd - The charges may be 70%. Think the existing house was 58/59 sq mts.

DOCARCH

ShiverinEskimo wrote: »

Yes Public water supply for which there is already a fully functioning (and previously paid-for) connection to the existing house that will be used for the new dwelling. We could all pop round for a refreshing glass of water right now if we wanted - there is no work to be done on the councils behalf at all to service the site....

Except for the fact the Council have to 'produce' the water.

If the existing cottage is approx. 60 m.sq. I somehow doubt there are 3 double bedrooms (to give an occupancy of 6)??? I'd suggest, at most one double and two single bedrooms (at a push)? If this was the case occupancy would be 4 - just a guess/playing devils advocate!

What you are being charged for is the cost of supplying additional water to the house as you are (probably) almost doubling the occupancy.

ShiverinEskimo

In reality we are actually reducing the occupancy.

I'm not making a figure of 8 up here. There were the parents and 6 kids who grew up in the existing house. Not saying it wasn't cramped but the house DID serve 8 people.

I know this may or may not be relevant from the coucil's POV but the cottage does have 3 bedrooms and a kitchen and all three rooms contained double beds (still do).

As for the council producing the water the water charges are likely to be in by the time we are moving in and this is another point we'll be making to them.

sydthebeat

shiverinEskimo, i can understand where you are coming for on this, but alas this is the result of previous governments stopping central funding for local authorities. They now have to find their funding elsewhere.

as docarch says, you are actually paying for the service of the provision of the water... which includes upgrades, maintenance etc. its actually not the connection to the mains thats being charged for, thats actually a separate connection fee, which you do not have to pay for in this case.

ShiverinEskimo

I know I'm a broken record - but I've nothing to lose by asking. I'll never been one to just blankly accept a bill of almost 4 grand for something the site already has.

If I moved into the existing house I wouldn't have to pay more to them to produce the water. The providing of water to the site will not change by the development. The amount of water it uses will decrease compared to when the existing house was full. It's not going to cost the council a penny to supply the new house over the old house so why should it cost me?

I can see where you're all coming from. I just think we have genuine cause to at least push the planners a little on this given the impending water charges, the existing connection and the fact that our plans include measures to process all sewerage and drainage on-site.

DOCARCH

ShiverinEskimo wrote: »

As for the council producing the water the water charges are likely to be in by the time we are moving in and this is another point we'll be making to them.

Thought you might say that! The key word is likely - this is something that may happen - it has not happened yet. Council policy will not change until it does happen.

Honestly I think you can forget about getting a reduction on the charges/levies for water supply (whatever the history of the occupancy is) - the fact is the house you have planning permission for now is almost 4 times the size of the existing and therefore is likely to have an increased water demand.

You (probably) have an argument with regard to drainage and it is worth teasing that out with the Council but I would suggest if the drainage element is only half of the E4K levied for 'water supply and drainage' that it would be pointless/risky appealing the decision to An Bord Pleanala.

Another consideration is that if the levies/contributions are stated on your planning permission, the Council are unlikely to move on the matter/reduce the levies as the planning permission is a legal document/on the record and the Council cannot simply change conditions of the planning permission.

Again, just to say I am not having a go, just playing devils advocate.

rayjdav

DOCARCH wrote: »

You (probably) have an argument with regard to drainage and it is worth teasing that out with the Council but I would suggest if the drainage element is only half of the E4K levied for 'water supply and drainage' that it would be pointless/risky appealing the decision to An Bord Pleanala.

Just on this point, if in this circumstance the Council have applied their scale of contributions according to their stated schedule of fees, and do not voluntarily reduce their bill:D:rolleyes:, you cannot then appeal same to ABP.
If by chance they were additional Supplementary Contributions then you may but standard Development Contributions cannot be appealed to ABP.

ShiverinEskimo

Yea I really can't stress enough how much I'm not on a war path about this. While I'm not resigned to defeat, nor am I resigned to just handing over the money blindly without being provided with clear information as to why the existing and future capacity of the site to handle water isn't being considered beyond the increase of the square footage of the dwelling itself.

If they come back and staunchly say that it's to cover the production of drinking water then fair enough but I'll be asking why hasn't it been adjusted to that regard. I want to know why I'm paying a fee that covers 5 aspects of water and drainage when my site covers 4 already. That's it really. If we hit a dead end, we hit a dead end and we push on with the build a few grand worse off.

DOCARCH

Do let us know how you get on with your discussions with the Council ShiverinEskimo. Always good to hear the outcome of these type of issues.