St Annes Park Planning Application

roddney

Marcusm wrote: »

It is an interesting one as there are very significant institutional lands which are being used for housing including the Central Mental Hospital site in Dundrum. Z15 is institutional and community use; whether the Raheny land was institutional or community I do not know as it was attached to an institution (school). This judgement will likely have ramifications far beyond this particular site where private development is being undertaken on such lands. This might point to errors at local authority and ABP level.

In this case the land was community football pitches used by the school and and local soccer, Gaelic and rugby clubs at junior and senior level and they were evicted rather than voluntarily gave up use. This case specifically deals with this type of case. Basically where an institution decides to sell off lands for housing that currently have community use. Housing is still fine on institutional lands where there wasn’t established community use such as general grounds of a religious order who have vacated. This was the original intent of the zoning

Strumms

hamburgham wrote: »

Big mistake taking on the residents of Clontarf.

Errr, what are you on about ? I don’t think ‘taking on’ anybody was in the minds of those building the facilities. It’s a sporting amenity FOR people.

As I said a few years ago in this thread... giving people, young people the ability to engage in a sport they love and remain active and healthy by being able to play it all throughout the year when the main grass pitches are in a state and light would be an issue.....is an overwhelmingly positive thing. It would have been an absolutely class and valued amenity, on a social, health and fitness as well as sporting level.

The individuals who failed to approve this should be ashamed of themselves. And as for the people objecting....:rolleyes:

roddney

Strumms wrote: »

Errr, what are you on about ? I don’t think ‘taking on’ anybody was in the minds of those building the facilities. It’s a sporting amenity FOR people.

As I said a few years ago in this thread... giving people, young people the ability to engage in a sport they love and remain active and healthy by being able to play it all throughout the year when the main grass pitches are in a state and light would be an issue.....is an overwhelmingly positive thing. It would have been an absolutely class and valued amenity, on a social, health and fitness as well as sporting level.

The individuals who failed to approve this should be ashamed of themselves. And as for the people objecting....:rolleyes:

Unfortunately the remaining pitch it an important feeding ground for migratory Brent geese, which is protected. Those who objected did so due to loss of other 5 pitches rather than this specifically.

The problem was this was used as carrot to justify not needing the other 5 pitches.

Nothing to stop the school going back for permission for a grass all weather pitch with underground drainage if they mitigated affect on birds by say doing works exclusively in summer months.

John_Rambo

John_Rambo wrote: »

We have every right to. If I was doing something to my house and was refused planning I'd accept it. As you would.

Marcusm wrote: »

By that logic, the Guildford 4 would still be in jail. Anyone refused planning permission by a local authority has a right of appeal to ABP and thence to the High Court and so on if necessary. To suggest otherwise would be a perversion of natural justice. It seems in this case ABP has made significant procedural errors which undermine the validity of its decision. That is not to say that once the appeal is properly considered that the same conclusion will not be reached.

Very interesting.

The point remains, you can't "do what you want with your land" and people have the right to object.

Marcusm

John_Rambo wrote: »

Very interesting.

The point remains, you can't "do what you want with your land" and people have the right to object.

Your statement was that any person (right minded, I suspect you meant) should give up at the first challenge. I am simply stating that this is not a fair assertion. It's not. ado what you want approach, it's a seek vindication of your rights approach. Neither the land owner/developer nor the objectors have been well served by the local authority/ABP. To suggest that they should give up a falsely grounded refusal is facile on the part of either group.

Gloomtastic!

So, is that it? Or can the developer go back to court to try and overrule the judgment?

Marcusm

Gloomtastic! wrote: »

So, is that it? Or can the developer go back to court to try and overrule the judgment?

It will not be over until something is constructed on it. The decision is that ABP did not follow correct procedures in determining whether it was appropriate to override the Z15 zoning. That will now have to be considered. Something will be built upon it eventually.

downtheroad

Marcusm wrote: »

It will not be over until something is constructed on it. The decision is that ABP did not follow correct procedures in determining whether it was appropriate to override the Z15 zoning. That will now have to be considered. Something will be built upon it eventually.

Hopefully a playground, a coffee shop, a duck pond, basketball courts, or something else befitting a park. Dublin city council should do a land swap with the developer.

Seth Brundle

downtheroad wrote: »

Hopefully a playground, a coffee shop, a duck pond, basketball courts, or something else befitting a park. Dublin city council should do a land swap with the developer.

Well the developer won't build the aformentioned items.
As for a land swap, given that the developers stand to make millions from this, what parcels of land can the council swap that would offer the a similar return as the 16 or so acres in Raheny?

Gloomtastic!

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Well the developer won't build the aformentioned items.
As for a land swap, given that the developers stand to make millions from this, what parcels of land can the council swap that would offer the a similar return as the 16 or so acres in Raheny?

There’s a couple of playing fields next to this site that are maybe used one day a week and have access to the Howth Road as opposed to Sybil Hill. They’d be away from the park avenue that everyone mentions. They would have been a much better site but that would have required joined-up thinking. :rolleyes:

Thelonious Monk

Gloomtastic! wrote: »

There’s a couple of playing fields next to this site that are maybe used one day a week and have access to the Howth Road as opposed to Sybil Hill. They’d be away from the park avenue that everyone mentions. They would have been a much better site but that would have required joined-up thinking. :rolleyes:

That would ruin that side of the park though, regardless of whether sports are played on them or not.
I'm not up to scratch with all the legalities here, but is this just a delay as opposed to a final ruling on the site?

odyssey06

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

That would ruin that side of the park though, regardless of whether sports are played on them or not.
I'm not up to scratch with all the legalities here, but is this just a delay as opposed to a final ruling on the site?

It's more than a delay. Possibly I've misinterpreted it, but while something could still be built the High Court ruling seems to constrain what that could be in terms of maintaining community use, and em, geese flight path heights.
High Court seems to suggest the same level of community use i.e. multiple pitches. It's not enough to say well there will be some community use e.g. 1 pitch.

Also the High court ruled this wasn't a strategic development so couldn't be progressed under those criteria. Not sure if that gives DCC more powers?

bren2001

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Well the developer won't build the aformentioned items.
As for a land swap, given that the developers stand to make millions from this, what parcels of land can the council swap that would offer the a similar return as the 16 or so acres in Raheny?

Stand to make nothing without planning permission.

roddney

Marcusm wrote: »

It will not be over until something is constructed on it. The decision is that ABP did not follow correct procedures in determining whether it was appropriate to override the Z15 zoning. That will now have to be considered. Something will be built upon it eventually.

The ruling is more than just not following correct procedures. It would appear to be substantial and it sets a precedent.

It is stating that community use cannot just be extinguished, when land is sold on. ABP or any council must consider the community use as existing. In this case they must consider as if there are 5 football pitches being played on day to day and a developer wants to build on them.

Also, they also cannot consider general apartment blocks as strategic development as they are just standard housing.

I think this is very significant and will make it hard to ever get planning permission here, considering the demand from local sports clubs to get use of these pitches back again. All of them submitted objections stating difficulty getting alternative facilities.

I would guess it will be appealed though, as it is a very significant ruling.

Marcusm

roddney wrote: »

The ruling is more than just not following correct procedures. It would appear to be substantial and it sets a precedent.

It is stating that community use cannot just be extinguished, when land is sold on. ABP or any council must consider the community use as existing. In this case they must consider as if there are 5 football pitches being played on day to day and a developer wants to build on them.

Also, they also cannot consider general apartment blocks as strategic development as they are just standard housing.

I think this is very significant and will make it hard to ever get planning permission here, considering the demand from local sports clubs to get use of these pitches back again. All of them submitted objections stating difficulty getting alternative facilities.

I would guess it will be appealed though, as it is a very significant ruling.

What it is stating is that the change from a Z15 zoning needs to be justified. In the circumstances, the apartment building should be allowed to proceed in its current physical form but retained for the sole use of own-door accommodation for those awaiting an asylum decision. That would satisfy community or ibstitutional use and meet an objective of the government to phase out direct provision. Market might be happy to do it as a build to rent for the DoJ.

roddney

Marcusm wrote: »

What it is stating is that the change from a Z15 zoning needs to be justified. In the circumstances, the apartment building should be allowed to proceed in its current physical form but retained for the sole use of own-door accommodation for those awaiting an asylum decision. That would satisfy community or ibstitutional use and meet an objective of the government to phase out direct provision. Market might be happy to do it as a build to rent for the DoJ.

Replacing kids football pitches with flats for direct provision. That would certainly be an interesting one to try to get by the local residents. From a vested interest perspective, I think it would be difficult to make a profit, so hard to see a developer wanting to do that. In terms of a public build with elected representatives it's hard to see what benefit any would get from pushing this, given local people vote for them.

Best outcome for all would be for the developer to do a deal to sell land to council and for it to be run as rented pitches, to cover cost.

ozmo

I believe the SHD scheme will expire February 2022.
Hopefully (and I hear unlikely) it won't be renewed and we will see an end to this very undemocratic pushing of unsuitable developments on communities.

odyssey06

ozmo wrote: »

I believe the SHD scheme will expire February 2022.
Hopefully (and I hear unlikely) it won't be renewed and we will see an end to this very undemocratic pushing of unsuitable developments on communities.

The High Court said something to the effect this wasn't a strategic development ... is there an impact of that?
"there was no material on foot of which the board could have held the proposed development to be of strategic or national importance."

markpb

roddney wrote: »

Best outcome for all would be for the developer to do a deal to sell land to council and for it to be run as rented pitches, to cover cost.

I can't see any developer doing that. It crystallises a huge loss for them. The alternative, if they can afford it, is to sit on the land for another few years and see what happens with the planning requirements and political situation. They would be likely to keep the site unused during that time which could make it easier to avoid any existing-use problems it might have.

We've seen developers sit on empty land and half-completed buildings (I'm looking at you, Sandyford Sentinel!) for many years so this isn't an unlikely scenario.

dubrov

roddney wrote:

Best outcome for all would be for the developer to do a deal to sell land to council and for it to be run as rented pitches, to cover cost.

What's the land worth?
I'd say the pitch rental fees would have to be astronomical to cover the cost

Pete_Cavan

ozmo wrote: »

I believe the SHD scheme will expire February 2022.
Hopefully (and I hear unlikely) it won't be renewed and we will see an end to this very undemocratic pushing of unsuitable developments on communities.

SHD just involves going straight to ABP, who made the final decision on appeal under the standard process anyway? The decision is still based on the same planning policies and the same legal routes remain open. SHD is no more or less democratic than the standard planning process, it just gets to the ultimate decisions quicker.

Pete_Cavan

markpb wrote: »

I can't see any developer doing that. It crystallises a huge loss for them. The alternative, if they can afford it, is to sit on the land for another few years and see what happens with the planning requirements and political situation. They would be likely to keep the site unused during that time which could make it easier to avoid any existing-use problems it might have.

It's likely it was bought subject to planning, if they don't get permission the developer can probably walk away without closing the sale.

Gloomtastic!

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

It's likely it was bought subject to planning, if they don't get permission the developer can probably walk away without closing the sale.

I believe Vincentians have already been paid. The money was meant to be spent on the school but doesn't look like they've spent a cent.

Marcusm

roddney wrote: »

Replacing kids football pitches with flats for direct provision. That would certainly be an interesting one to try to get by the local residents. From a vested interest perspective, I think it would be difficult to make a profit, so hard to see a developer wanting to do that. In terms of a public build with elected representatives it's hard to see what benefit any would get from pushing this, given local people vote for them.

Best outcome for all would be for the developer to do a deal to sell land to council and for it to be run as rented pitches, to cover cost.

1. It’s not up to local residents to decide. It’s a question of whether it is lawful development and the restriction so far relates to zoning. A mistake some residents make is to challenge all development and thereby fail to get better development.
2. There’s plenty of money in developing social housing or institutional facilities provided there is a need for them. Plenty of profit for developers as they will only do it if profitable.
3. Local council representatives don’t get the final say. If they reject on no better grounds than the resident s don’t want them then that will be overturned on appeal to ABP. There need to be solid grounds - such as the application is not in accordance with the zoning.
4. There is no prospect of the developer selling to the council without realising a profit. 650 units at average of (say) €400k = €260m capital value. Developer will want a 15-25% profit margin on sales so let’s say a round €50m on top of its site cost. That could be put to better value by DCC and it would be shameful for it to be spent in this manner. Looks like the initial site cost was €25m.
5. A CPO would never work as DCC could never establish a need for the land. Are there 20 pitches there already? Possibly too high a concentration on one site in the first place which causes adverse traffic problems for locals when people are being dropped etc.

forgottenhills

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

SHD just involves going straight to ABP, who made the final decision on appeal under the standard process anyway? The decision is still based on the same planning policies and the same legal routes remain open. SHD is no more or less democratic than the standard planning process, it just gets to the ultimate decisions quicker.

Really? First of all SHD decision seems to routinely set aside County Development Plans that have been approved by democratically elected representatives. Indeed SHD approvals seem to routinely ignore the recommendations of their own inspectors.

As I understand it the only effective way of contesting a SHD approval is to launch a judicial review in the High Court. Do you know that any sort of a case in the High Court can run up a bill of hundreds of thousands of euro in legal bills? How is it then democratic for the average person or group to contest a SHD decision?

Indeed it is fair to say that the SHD process was designed by developers for developers as a method for them to railroad through contentious schemes.

markpb

forgottenhills wrote: »

Really? First of all SHD decision seems to routinely set aside County Development Plans that have been approved by democratically elected representatives. Indeed SHD approvals seem to routinely ignore the recommendations of their own inspectors.

I could be wrong but I think any developer can ignore the LAP/CDPs by citing the instruction from the previous minister for housing about increasing build density and removing fixed limits for heights. That’s nothing to do with SHD, you can do the same with regular planning permission request to the local council.

Those plans IMHO pandered to local requirements to keep new builds to a minimum, favoured lower density semi-detached routinely blocked or limited any sensible height. They were a sop to home owners who hate apartments. They did nothing to ease the housing shortage and provide homes to young people. They were democratic in name only.

As I understand it the only effective way of contesting a SHD approval is to launch a judicial review in the High Court. Do you know that any sort of a case in the High Court can run up a bill of hundreds of thousands of euro in legal bills? How is it then democratic for the average person or group to contest a SHD decision?

The same is true of regular planning permission once granted by ABP. I find it hard to understand this line of thinking. If a developer followers the non-SHD row and is denied, they will appeal to ABP. If ABP grant it, it’s hard to challenge. If the developer uses SHD, it’s the same outcome. What has changed?

ozmo

Marcusm wrote: »

1. It’s not up to local residents to decide. It’s a question of whether it is lawful development and the restriction so far relates to zoning.

Which is exactly the opposite to what the Judge said in the summation of this case. Even if it was lawful (which it wasn't due to zoning issues) - it doesn't make it right for them to profit at the expense of the people who used that park (see below). And also added you cannot change its existing use (as football pitches) just by selling the land.


“Without taking from the principles of land law, we are all, at best, leaseholders on Planet Earth. All property must be held with some view to the benefit of society as a whole and of future generations, and is not to be dealt with as one sees fit. Even the most self-made Ayn-Randian entrepreneur draws enormous benefits from her membership of society – whether directly, or through the benefits provided by the State to her workers, contractors, tenants and purchasers, that ultimately facilitate the entrepreneur’s economic well-being. What society asks in return is, among other things, that there should be no development other than that which is proper, sustainable and lawful. To argue that society’s endeavours to ensure that outcome (through development plans, for example) have to be read narrowly and restrictively, while the individual property owner can take the full advantage of societal provision both direct and indirect, is to entirely distort the social contract. Insofar as law in general and development plans in particular are part of the People’s benefit under that contract, they are terms for the welfare of all, not penal clauses to be read contra proferentem. “

ozmo

A section of the HIGH COURT RULING I mentioned above:

"In relation to the arguments that the Board misinterpreted the zoning of the land, the Court held that the Board made 3 fundamental errors in its approach in relation to the Z15 zoning and the requirement to protect the existing institutional and community use.
**First, it had regard to an irrelevant consideration, namely change of ownership. Change of ownership does not alter the use of land.
**Second, it failed to have regard to a relevant consideration, namely that the Development Plan aimed to secure the future use of the land, and was not merely continuing an existing use. The objective was to secure the use indicated on the plan map, as playing pitches, into the future.
**Third, it misinterpreted the term “use”. That term has the meaning it has in the Planning Acts. A “use” does not cease just because the lands are sold, or because the new owner closes them down.
"

The Court held that the Planning Acts should not be interpreted strictly, in order to favour landowners. There is no right to develop, and no right to a particular zoning. “We are all, at best, leaseholders on Planet Earth,” it said, and we hold property “with some view to the benefit of society as a whole and of future generations.” Development plans are part of the People’s benefit under the social contract, and are for the welfare of all. They are not penal clauses."

billyhead

Can anyone tell me is there another court dispute going on or is this latest verdict final and the site won't be used to build property?

odyssey06

billyhead wrote: »

Can anyone tell me is there another court dispute going on or is this latest verdict final and the site won't be used to build property?

It's not final. Developer can appeal this decision and\or submit a different application if the appeal fails.