Retention application for unauthorised development at Tailors Hall???

@Smithfield Resi wrote:

Who else is actually fighting the battle for heritage in this country?

No Resi, there are other people who fight that battle, mostly at a local level and often without the benefit of any leadership or guidance from anyone. There are even some people within the various local authorities who fight for heritage in what must be very difficult circumstances.

Even though many individual battles are won, I think the war is still being lost, because broader allegiences are not being formed across the whole body of people who share the same concerns about heritage, but who perhaps do not have the planning know-how to mount effective campaigns, or who are simply untapped as a resource on account of the insidious nature of many residents associations.

@Smithfield Resi wrote:

I would love to see the people you mention prick the An Taisce ‘bubble’ and become involved. I would also love to see a more structured community have a voice BEFORE planning is granted – at the moment An Taisce is the only national organisation filling that void.

Ok. one solution is, we all join An Taisce and with everyone inside the tent, pissing out, we could put out the fires of development for years.

Another solution would be to put in place a some kind of umbrella group, under which all shades of heritage opinion, from militant ATs on one side to gentle academics on the other, can feel comfortable and useful. A conference once or twice a year could be convened to review progress, re-energise the troops and hammer out strategies for elevating heritage to the position we all know that it should have.

An Taisce does an enormous amount of good work, but it’s fire fighting methods don’t foster broad support among the wider community who don’t always see things in terms of back or white.

@Smithfield Resi wrote:

The hard truth is this. In relation to planning An Taisce doesn’t represent anyone except the Development Plan. That is to say it insists that the legally binding contract that was made between the people and those who administer their local area is upheld by legal process.

Legalese is the lowest form of argument. We will never communicate the value of heritage to the broader community if we rely of the footnotes of zoning objectives to win planning battles.

@Smithfield Resi wrote:

http://www.collierbroderick.ie/Articles/HRUpdate-0210-Irish-Blogger-Settles-Libel-Case-For-100k%5B/url%5D

I merely meant that they are each equally as unappraochable as the other given that neither can be consulted. What I wrote perhaps read as the 2 being “in League” with each other which is obviously a ludicrous suggestion

my main gripe is not against AFT per se (Devin just seems to bring out the worst in me)but the whole process that castrates a LA and leaves development, and design teams (and fees) in limbo for years. As unacceptable in terms of development as many may view Dunner’s scheme for Ballsbridge, for example, is it really also acceptable to keep someone hanging on for 2 years before totally refusing the whole thing?

@Smithfield Resi wrote:

Isn’t that the point of development plans and zoning? I’m sure he would have had permission long ago if the development proposed was within the zoning objectives. On the other hand, why shouldn’t someone who picks a figure out of the air for what he’ll pay for a site (with everyone shaking their heads at the time and saying that’s stupid money) and then rides roughshod over the zoning, context and local sentiment for the area in proposing something totally inappropriate.

Why shouldn’t the ‘system’ give that applicant a pretty bloody hard time.

Or do you consider development plans optional?

______________________________________
Archiseek beers?? When and where?? Heritage pub?

Should I start a thread??

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.

@Smithfield Resi wrote:

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?

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.

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 wrote:

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.

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.

@Fairfield wrote:

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 (An Taisce that is)generate an Enforcement file.

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.:D