Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Opinion on Part V please ?

Options
  • 21-01-2019 6:55pm
    #1
    joebre
    Registered Users Posts: 551 ✭✭✭


    Planning permission was granted for 15 houses in 2004. For whatever reason,
    there was no condition attached to the planning permission relating to Part V.

    The same developer applied for an extension of duration in 2010.
    Again there was no condition attached to the planning permission relating to Part V.
    Apart from two bases, no houses were completed by the original developer.

    A new developer purchased the site in 2015 and applied for an Extension of Duration.
    The Council changed the condition regarding the Bond but did not impose a condition regarding Part V

    The second developer is looking for a change of layout where he wants 5 houses where there was originally 3.
    The planner is now stating that Part V is due on 10% of the new total number, 17 and the developer thinks that Part V should only apply to the net gain, ie. 2

    Opinions please ?


Comments

  • Options
    #2
    Gumbo
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 38,515 Mod ✭✭✭✭Gumbo


    joebre wrote: »
    Planning permission was granted for 15 houses in 2004. For whatever reason,
    there was no condition attached to the planning permission relating to Part V.

    The same developer applied for an extension of duration in 2010.
    Again there was no condition attached to the planning permission relating to Part V.
    Apart from two bases, no houses were completed by the original developer.

    A new developer purchased the site in 2015 and applied for an Extension of Duration.
    The Council changed the condition regarding the Bond but did not impose a condition regarding Part V

    The second developer is looking for a change of layout where he wants 5 houses where they was originally 3.
    The planner is now stating that Part V is due on 10% of the new total number, 17 and the developer thinks that Part V should only apply to the net gain, ie. 2

    Opinions please ?

    New planning, comply with the new rules.


  • Options
    #3
    yurtyaherne
    Registered Users Posts: 116 ✭✭yurtyaherne


    joebre wrote: »
    A new developer purchased the site in 2015 and applied for an Extension of Duration.
    The Council changed the condition regarding the Bond but did not impose a condition regarding Part V

    The second developer is looking for a change of layout where he wants 5 houses where they was originally 3.
    The planner is now stating that Part V is due on 10% of the new total number, 17 and the developer thinks that Part V should only apply to the net gain, ie. 2

    Opinions please ?


    It must have been a complete new application and not an Extension of Duration.


    The developer can only apply for a second Extension of Duration if the development is 20 houses or more and the developer must prove substantial works have been completed.


  • Options
    #4
    joebre
    Registered Users Posts: 551 ✭✭✭joebre


    The second extension of duration was granted as it was applied for before the restriction of "one extension only" was brought in 2010.


  • Options
    #5
    doug82
    Registered Users Posts: 43 ✭doug82


    What is the duration of the permission? Are 12 units staying as permitted?


  • Options
    #6
    yurtyaherne
    Registered Users Posts: 116 ✭✭yurtyaherne


    joebre wrote: »
    The second extension of duration was granted as it was applied for before the restriction of "one extension only" was brought in 2010.


    How could they apply for a 2nd Extension of Duration in 2010 if the original permission was only expired/due to expire? That would have been their 1st Extension of Duration application no?



    • Permission granted 2004 (Expires 2009/2010)

    • Extension of Duration applied for in 2010 (Expires 2015)



    The developer wouldn't have been able to apply for a 2nd Extension of Duration in 2015


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    joebre
    Registered Users Posts: 551 ✭✭✭joebre


    yurtyaherne wrote: »
    How could they apply for a 2nd Extension of Duration in 2010 if the original permission was only expired/due to expire? That would have been their 1st Extension of Duration application no?



    • Permission granted 2004 (Expires 2009/2010)

    • Extension of Duration applied for in 2010 (Expires 2015)



    The developer wouldn't have been able to apply for a 2nd Extension of Duration in 2015

    My error. The second extension was applied for in 2015 and expires in August 2021.


  • Options
    #8
    joebre
    Registered Users Posts: 551 ✭✭✭joebre


    doug82 wrote: »
    What is the duration of the permission? Are 12 units staying as permitted?

    Permission expires in August 2021.
    9 of the 12 houses occupied.
    One under construction.
    Two awaiting sales.
    That makes 12.
    Application is for change of remaining 3 to 5 of a new house type.
    Problem is that the Planner is looking for 10% of the new overall number.
    Why give him 1.7 houses (rounded to 2) if the net gain is only 2 (15 to 17)


  • Options
    #9
    doug82
    Registered Users Posts: 43 ✭doug82


    joebre wrote: »
    Permission expires in August 2021.
    9 of the 12 houses occupied.
    One under construction.
    Two awaiting sales.
    That makes 12.
    Application is for change of remaining 3 to 5 of a new house type.
    Problem is that the Planner is looking for 10% of the new overall number.
    Why give him 1.7 houses (rounded to 2) if the net gain is only 2 (15 to 17)

    The key thing is to keep the other 12 out of the application. Only outline the site for the 5 houses in red. Ironically you will have to apply for an exemption cert for those 5. If they don't grant the exemption cert they will apply a condition, which you could appeal to ABP. It seems the PA messed up in 2004 and are trying to retrospectively apply Part V. A good planning barrister would have a field day with this.


  • Options
    #10
    joebre
    Registered Users Posts: 551 ✭✭✭joebre


    doug82 wrote: »
    The key thing is to keep the other 12 out of the application. Only outline the site for the 5 houses in red. Ironically you will have to apply for an exemption cert for those 5. If they don't grant the exemption cert they will apply a condition, which you could appeal to ABP. It seems the PA messed up in 2004 and are trying to retrospectively apply Part V. A good planning barrister would have a field day with this.


    Red line is around the proposed 5 new sites only.
    Applied for an Exemption Certificate already but Council have sought clarification.
    Little more to add to the history except that the Council appeared to have dropped the ball back in 2004.
    They have requested FI on other technical matters separately.

    Agree that Barrister with planning expertise might be in order.


Advertisement