PVC King wrote:&
Were those calculations done on an Abacus?
15 reversals are 15 reversals on major schemes as decided by a bord of the most emminent planners as appointed by Government; by granting planning permissions that were not professionally assessed to a standard capable of passing an Bord Pleannala they created a new layer of risk which meant that meant developers paid significantly higher financing costs due to the requirement to wait for the ABP decision and then spend months reapplying. If the decisions were bullet proof at first instance a lot more schemes would have been built prior to the music stopping.....
I would love to see a planning student do a thesis on the percentage of professional fees as a percentage of build costs on major schemes built in Dublin between 2004 and 2009; comparisons to London or Frankfurt would not be pretty.
You just love making unfounded allegations and taking the "safe" side of whomsoever you see as the final authority don't you PVC King?
Who says the decisions of the local authority weren't professionally assessed?
Did you read the Planners Report, the development plan, the Objections, and form a balanced opinion?
Similarly did you read the ABP Inspector's Report, the Members Direction and Deliberation and assess whether they had appropriately assessd the Appeal?
Good planning decisions are about reaching an acceptable balance.
Your statistical analysis of ABP decisions is a nonsense - each must be reviwed by itself.
Allow me ot explain a little of why this is so.
There is a problem with Dublin in terms of efficient running of the city that centres on achieving an acceptable level of density -vs- amenity, congestion and overlooking.
Attempts tp reach this balance are going tp be compromised because we still do not have an acceptable, affordable, modern public transport system even between the canals - thankfully most of us can cycle.
The original "ring of towers" applications [one in Clondalkin, one near Heuston Station, the O2 Tower, the U2 Tower, and the Ballsbridge Tower are all scupperd one way or another, but they they least showed people were thinking about the problem.
Now apply all this to the current planning system, where each local authority creates a development plan every five years.
The development plan has been defined by one Galway judge as being a form of contract between the Council, the electorate and stakeholders IIRC - I could stand corrected on the detail of the phrase but that was the gist of it.
Many differing and competing views have to be brought into some form of equilibrium for any viable - never mind "fair" - planning decision to be made.
Equally planning decisions need to be arrived at in a timely manner and in an way where unnecessary costs to not accrue to the parties involved.
Despite the legality of it having been questioned, I support the â‚¬20 "crank deterrent" Observation fee, and the â‚¬50 Appeal Observation fee, as a means of helping streamline the process.
I am less enamoured of the SDZ process, because people not in the professions related to building tend not to think so far ahead - which implies the people most affected may not be able to properly assess the implications - but as one way forward which seeks consensus at an early stage to avoid later delays it has something to recommend it.