Retention application for unauthorised development at Tailors Hall???

[publicrealm]

[quote="Devin"]Oh what a hoot!!

Except that the An Taisce planning application is for retention of an established use. This was required due to changes in licensing laws in relation to holding of small dances/private events.


My, what a lot of heat (and over such a non-event?) I'm actually OK with the proposed use and think it would be ideal for the building. My issue is with due planning process.

I'm sorry that Devin has decided not to play - because he could provide a couple of simple clarifications for me. (Really Devin you should calm down a little rather than posting nasty messages and running away).

Maybe somebody else can help:

First item:

the An Taisce planning application is for retention of an established use.

This term (established use) is commonly understood to mean a use in place on and immediately prior to 01 October 1964. Such a use, if continued (without significant interruption or intensification) does not require pp. Easy win there for you Devin - case dismissed and AT can withdraw its planning application!

This IS what you meant isn't it Devin?

Or is that the use has been in place for over 7 years without enforcement (and is therefore immune from enforcement). This is commonly know as 'unauthorised development'. This would not be a win and AT should not withdraw their planning application.

Second item:

Is the AT planning application correct in stating that the ground and lower ground floors of Tailor's Hall have permission for 'community use?'

Simple really.

BTW, does anyone else find Devin's threats to 'out' posters who do not toe the line to be distasteful/concerning. Or his assumption that everyone (else) has a personal agenda?

I have had two pm's threatening to 'out' me (unless, presumably, I go away)?

[wearnicehats]

An Taisce actually object on approximately 3% of planning applications - recent history, particularly in Dublin has shown that ABP have upheld AT's concerns and most recently ABP seem to be doing DCC's planning function for them - ref Arnott's/Carlton sites.

]

just out of interest - any idea what that percentage is when you ignore any development under 1000sqm?

[wearnicehats]

just out of interest - any idea what that percentage is when you ignore any development under 1000sqm?

take, for example.

in 2008 there were 59,154 planning applications across the country. 3% of this is 1774

of these, however, only 8,291 were of a non domestic or agricultural nature

Let's assume that AT object to 1% of the domestic schemes (I'm probably being generous) that means that 1200 of the objections are of the non-domestic type or - aren't statistics great - that AT object to 14% of commercial schemes. This figure would be more in keeping with the experiences of archiects in that field

[PVC King]

Hats

You are only proving the veaxtious nature of the appeal taken in this case by turning it into a discussion on planning stats; I am disapointed that you have chosen to as I normally find what you say to make a lot of sense.

I feel a lot of sympathy for AT on this particularly the development levy angle; as landlord of Tailors Hall the council had the ability since 1986 or to assert a deviation from the user clause in the lease however they concurred that consent for this use did in fact exist. From that time there has been regular and occaisional use of the venue for private hire events.


When one looks back at the amount of money AT has saved the city by taking this building off their hands surely the money should be going in the other direction towards the latest round of refurbishment.

This really is a case of getting severly punished by a hurler in the ditch for dotting an i; no doubt sense will prevail with the i dotted.

[kevin dillon]

Great discussion everyone.
I agree with a few of the last few lines in Wearnicehats last post. Surely anytime the board overturns their inspectors recommendation ABP should be obliged to account for their thinking and issue their own detailed report. At least then there is greater clarity for a new design strategy for any second applications. This would also ensure the Board members become more accountable and reduce the potential for any undeclared design/ development bias or conflict of interest.

(Wasted time, fees and interest payments? Thats the risk a developer takes - the rewards can be significant but if it was so easy then everyone would be doing it ---- like a lot of the nation was up until recently!

[Smithfield Resi]

Surely anytime the board overturns their inspectors recommendation ABP should be obliged to account for their thinking and issue their own detailed report

Agreed.
Would love to read the one for the Clarence!

[wearnicehats]

Hats

You are only proving the veaxtious nature of the appeal taken in this case by turning it into a discussion on planning stats; .

Actually, I was just challenging the 3% figure along the lies, damned lies and statistics front.

I think what I'll do is gather together all my thoughts rationally and post on a new thread for all and sundry to shoot at - I've no problem sticking my head above the parapet

[Dan Sullivan]

take, for example.

in 2008 there were 59,154 planning applications across the country. 3% of this is 1774

of these, however, only 8,291 were of a non domestic or agricultural nature

Let's assume that AT object to 1% of the domestic schemes (I'm probably being generous) that means that 1200 of the objections are of the non-domestic type or - aren't statistics great - that AT object to 14% of commercial schemes. This figure would be more in keeping with the experiences of archiects in that field

Err.. that 3% (and where does it come from?) figure is not necessarily all objections. Speaking for Limerick, we made I would say less than half a dozen submissions on planning applications each year over the last 4/5 years. And not all of those were objecting to the developments but also consisted of submissions commending some aspects of developments and suggesting ways in which the application could be made better.

[Dan Sullivan]

Noooooo - under our current system he should have had a decision within 42 weeks. Can you actually fathom that timescale - 42 weeks!!!!! utterly nuts. In the thread shown above I cut it to 22 without being overly crazy (despite what Devin thinks)

Anyway I don't consider DPs optional but ABP are getting paid to do a job - why don't they do it? Rather than a flat "no" why not have a system where ABP stipulate in their Direction an acceptable quantum of development / height profile that would inform a new application - Thereafter all objections with regard to overdevelopment / height etc would be disregarded and the LA's decision on a second application would be final should all ABP stipulations be met

The inspector's report is not an acceptable document for this as, likely as not, the final ABP decision overturns it

Not everyone is a crazy developer. Not everyone breaks a development plan or submits insane schemes. Some people do quite the opposite but because anyone can object and because of the system they can be tied up for a year, paying interest on loans all the time.

I would have to ask the obvious here but who would you restrict the ability to make submissions on planning to? And given that those making submissions, whether neighbours or whoever have for the most part no vested commercial benefit in a negative outcome what is the problem with giving them time to make their submissions. They aren't professionals who are getting paid to work full time on them.

[Fairfield]

Guys,

An Taisce is a heritage organisation with planning expertise and has adopted a role of scrutinising and challenging the planning applications of others. As such it must be seen to set proper standards in its own applications, regardless of the merits of the individual application.

If the answer to Publicrealms questions is that AT’s planning application wrongly stated that they had permission for community use on two floors of the building - then surely they should withdraw their application and submit a correct one? (An incidental benefit of this might be that DCC would not impose the levy second time round)

From a quick read of the file it appears that they did not in fact have the permission they claimed - and that the use was in fact unauthorised?

They also appear to suggest that this claimed ‘permission’ means that other similar uses in the building benefited from the exempted development regulations – but the exempted development regulations do not apply to unauthorised uses - and AT must know this??

Time to clarify imho.

[wearnicehats]

Actually, I was just challenging the 3% figure along the lies, damned lies and statistics front.

I think what I'll do is gather together all my thoughts rationally and post on a new thread for all and sundry to shoot at - I've no problem sticking my head above the parapet

http://www.archiseek.com/content/showthread.php?t=8069

[publicrealm]

Time to clarify imho.

Fairfield - I checked myself in DCC this morning.

It's a retention application for unauthorised development (in an historic protected structure entrusted to the care of An Taisce), erroneously stating that permission exists for 'community use'.

Extract from AT's Online Planning Guide:
http://www.antaisce.org/builtenvironment/FAQ/PlanningGuide/tabid/196/language/en-US/Default.aspx

APPLICATIONS FOR RETENTION

Applications for retention are submitted to Local Authorities when the development has already been built without permission and the developer is attempting to regularise the development. This kind of application was intended for people who built a kitchen extension and then realised they needed permission, and could apply retroactively. It is abused by people who want to circumvent the proper planning process.

Retention applications go through the planning process in precisely the same way as normal applications. The difference is that if they are refused (either by Local Authority or by An Bord Pleanala), the development is still unauthorised and we ([I]An Taisce that is)generate an Enforcement file.[/I]

I look forward to their 'generating an enforcement file' (in the highly unlikely event of a refusal)!

Their 'Planning Guide' also states that:

From the DATE OF SUBMISSION of the application (not validation) everyone, including An Taisce, has 4 weeks in which to make submissions on the application.

I didn't know that - I thought it was 5 weeks.