Planning Retention Fees too excessive???

skippy2

Hi

We applied for planning retention for our house "as built"
The home has been built for over 30 years .The only change in the footprint of the house is a small extension of 40 sqM about 15 years ago for which we had full planning.

During that construction we had changed a small bit at the rear which added a small piece measuring about 4 sqM in total. So we needed to apply for retention of this The only other differences are an extra velux at the back of the house and some windows that are smaller than in the original plans. We decided the best thing to do was apply for retention as built to make sure everything was ok.

We had an engineer do plans and submit and did not foresee any issues as it was so small a detail and affected no one but wanted to have everything done properly. Planning was granted but in the conditions were charges for roads and water infrastructure and amenity infrastructure etc totaling nearly €3k. to be paid within three months

This seems to be covered in the planning laws but we find this very excessive for basically a planning retention for such a small detail.

Is this normal to be hit with such high fees or is there any point in contacting the Council over same ??

Any advice appreciated

Tails142

Yeah I think retention fees are double the standard fees as a punitive measure for not building what was agreed to begin with or carrying out unauthorised development. If it was the same price would anyone ever bother to get planning in advance?

4Sticks

skippy2 wrote: »

Hi

We applied for planning retention for our house "as built"
The home has been built for over 30 years .The only change in the footprint of the house is a small extension of 40 sqM about 15 years ago for which we had full planning.

During that construction we had changed a small bit at the rear which added a small piece measuring about 4 sqM in total. So we needed to apply for retention of this The only other differences are an extra velux at the back of the house and some windows that are smaller than in the original plans. We decided the best thing to do was apply for retention as built to make sure everything was ok.

We had an engineer do plans and submit and did not foresee any issues as it was so small a detail and affected no one but wanted to have everything done properly. Planning was granted but in the conditions were charges for roads and water infrastructure and amenity infrastructure etc totaling nearly €3k. to be paid within three months

This seems to be covered in the planning laws but we find this very excessive for basically a planning retention for such a small detail.

Is this normal to be hit with such high fees or is there any point in contacting the Council over same ??

Any advice appreciated

It is mendacious and unfair but typically condition no 1 on all permissions includes wording essentially saying "build in accrodance with the plans you lodged" . They mean it. And they use it as an excuse to screw you later if you do not understand this as they do. And the law permits them to do so.

Drift

I think what the OP is complaining about is that he got hit with a fairly large development contribution and was questioning whether it was fair for the council to be levying development contributions when the building has been there for 30 years.

I'd say in the vast majority of cases it is probably fair to apply development contributions to retention permissions because the chances are no development contribution was originally paid. In your case OP I think you were a victim of your own carefulness - because you applied for retention as if your entire house was in contravention of planning laws you were hit with a "whole house" style contribution. I wonder if you had specifically applied for retention of window alterations and 4 sq m of floor area would your contributions have been less? (I know your fees would have been.)

4Sticks

Drift wrote: »

because you applied for retention as if your entire house was in contravention of planning laws

I have found in practice over and over that this is how LA's apply the rules.
you did not comply with condition 1 ergo the whole development needs retention. Buxtards!

Jest bend over OP

4Sticks

Drift wrote: »

I think what the OP is complaining about is that he got hit with a fairly large development contribution and was questioning whether it was fair for the council to be levying development contributions when the building has been there for 30 years.

Of course another way to avoid these is to use and pay for architectural services. An architects Opinion on Complaince tends to see off such charges from the LAs.