BUILDERS in the Newbridge area are losing out on millions of euro as local development is stalled owing to inadequate sewerage facilities.
While developers and builders are generally regarded as the chief beneficiaries of the recent boom years, it appears that some of those who purchased land in the Newbridge area, zoned for residential development, are now left sitting on literal-ly hundreds of acres as permission to build cannot be granted.
One builder told the Kildare Nationalist that he had purchased land three years ago and was still awaiting planning permission because the necessary infrastructure was not in place. Others have been given permission, but only on condition that development does not go ahead until the new sewerage facility is in place. In all, it is estimated that a land bank totalling around 300 acres in the Newbridge area is at present zoned residential but is unable to be developed for reasons of inadequate infrastructure.
The builders are frustrated because they say that the council would have been aware for years that the sewerage system needed to be upgraded. Furthermore, they point out that huge sums of money have been handed over by developers towards infrastructure, in the spate of building that took place over the past decade. The builder who spoke to the Kildare Nationalist stated that his company had paid almost •2m in levies designed to fund infrastructure, as part of his last residential development.
Given the current slowdown in the housing market overall, the delay in getting new homes built and onto the market is a considerable concern to developers in the area. In recent weeks, a mixed residential and commercial development in the Rickardstown area was also rejected by Kildare Co Council, citing the inadequacy of the sewerage service as one of the major reasons for the refusal.
A recent statement from the local branch of Fine Gael, however, indicated that according to calculations it carried out, an estimated •150m was paid by Newbridge people in stamp duty and VAT on new houses built between 2002 and
2007. The Fine Gael state-ment was intended to highlight the need for money collected locally in this way to be spent in the area, in terms of providing local facilities and amenities.
Asked for a comment on the issue of the sewerage capacity for Newbridge, county council spokesman Charlie Talbot said on Monday: "We have a proposal that has been approved by the Department of the Environment for the improvement of the Osberstown waste water treatment plant, which takes the sewage from Newbridge.
"This is in design review at the moment and we hope to go to public consultation by the end of 2008. This major project will be completed in 2011/2012.
"In addition, there are two advance elements to be put into place at an earlier date. These include a storm water, storage and pump house facility at Kilbelin and a new pumping station and storage capacity for foul sewage at Newhall. We would hope that these works would be completed by June 2009."
Acknowledging that the Osberstown plant is at present operating at close to capacity, Mr Talbot said that the council was currently giving planning permission priority to projects that involved an element of longer-term employment. "We would assign high priority to developments which offer local employment beyond just the construction phase itself and that applies to Newbridge and to anywhere else served by the Osberstown plant."
Mr Talbot said the reason for this was that the council had a long-term aim of tackling the problems of commuting, and creating "sustainable local employment" was viewed as a key element in resolving this issue.
Kildare Nationalist
www.buckplanning.ie
Showing posts with label kildare planners. Show all posts
Showing posts with label kildare planners. Show all posts
Monday, 17 December 2007
Friday, 16 March 2007
Planning board urged to reopen landfill hearing
A High Court judge has "strongly recommended" that An Bord Pleanála reopens an oral hearing into a proposed landfill development in Co Kildare following the board's acceptance that its decision granting permission for the landfill should be quashed because of the "unusual circumstances" leading to that decision.
The board had conceded that the failure to record its decision of July 24th, 2006, approving conditions attached to the planning permission for the landfill at Usk, Kilcullen, meant that it could not establish its decision was made in accordance with law, Mr Justice Peter Kelly said. He said he would quash the granting of permission on that basis.
While the Usk and District Residents Group, which had challenged the decision, had argued there were other grounds for quashing, he said it was not in anyone's interest that court time should be spent addressing those.
While he could not order the board to reopen its oral hearing, he was strongly recommending it do so and was also suggesting the issue of permission for the development should be determined by board members who were not involved in the original decision.
That suggestion, he stressed, did not mean he accepted the criticisms of the five board members involved in the original decision. There might or might not be substance in the criticism but he did not have to adjudicate on that and his suggestion was to minimise the risk of further judicial review.
On that basis, he granted the board's application for the matter to be returned to it for a fresh determination. He also directed that the board pay the costs of the residents group and of Greenstar Recycling Holdings Ltd, the developer of the proposed landfill.
The residents group had opposed the matter being returned to the board and had urged the court simply to quash the permission.
Mr Justice Kelly said his discretion whether to remit had to be exercised with the overall objective of achieving a just result. In this case, the board had disagreed with its inspector's recommendation to refuse and an imperfection in the way it had dealt with the disagreement had led to the permission being quashed.
If the case was not remitted, Greenstar would have to start all over again, he said. The residents had no complaint about how the board had dealt with the matter until August 2005, after the inspector's first report. In those circumstances, it would be disproportionate to Greenstar's rights not to return the matter to the board.
While the residents group had said it had no faith in the board's impartiality and alleged it dealt with the application in a "peculiar" and "incredible way", he would make no findings on those claims.
The case arose from an An Bord Pleanála decision to grant permission for the landfill development at Usk to process 200,000 tonnes of non-hazardous waste annually for 10 years.
Mary Carolan
© 2007 The Irish Times
The board had conceded that the failure to record its decision of July 24th, 2006, approving conditions attached to the planning permission for the landfill at Usk, Kilcullen, meant that it could not establish its decision was made in accordance with law, Mr Justice Peter Kelly said. He said he would quash the granting of permission on that basis.
While the Usk and District Residents Group, which had challenged the decision, had argued there were other grounds for quashing, he said it was not in anyone's interest that court time should be spent addressing those.
While he could not order the board to reopen its oral hearing, he was strongly recommending it do so and was also suggesting the issue of permission for the development should be determined by board members who were not involved in the original decision.
That suggestion, he stressed, did not mean he accepted the criticisms of the five board members involved in the original decision. There might or might not be substance in the criticism but he did not have to adjudicate on that and his suggestion was to minimise the risk of further judicial review.
On that basis, he granted the board's application for the matter to be returned to it for a fresh determination. He also directed that the board pay the costs of the residents group and of Greenstar Recycling Holdings Ltd, the developer of the proposed landfill.
The residents group had opposed the matter being returned to the board and had urged the court simply to quash the permission.
Mr Justice Kelly said his discretion whether to remit had to be exercised with the overall objective of achieving a just result. In this case, the board had disagreed with its inspector's recommendation to refuse and an imperfection in the way it had dealt with the disagreement had led to the permission being quashed.
If the case was not remitted, Greenstar would have to start all over again, he said. The residents had no complaint about how the board had dealt with the matter until August 2005, after the inspector's first report. In those circumstances, it would be disproportionate to Greenstar's rights not to return the matter to the board.
While the residents group had said it had no faith in the board's impartiality and alleged it dealt with the application in a "peculiar" and "incredible way", he would make no findings on those claims.
The case arose from an An Bord Pleanála decision to grant permission for the landfill development at Usk to process 200,000 tonnes of non-hazardous waste annually for 10 years.
Mary Carolan
© 2007 The Irish Times
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)