CRACKS in the walls and floors of up to 750 houses are "insignificant" and not caused by building material supplied by one of the country's largest quarrying companies, a court heard yesterday.
Yesterday, the Lagan Group launched a robust defence to claims by Menolly Homes, owned by developer Seamus Ross, that infill it supplied to four building companies controlled by Mr Ross was defective.
The denial came as Menolly Homes said it may apply to have the €60m row over structural defects in hundreds of homes in three new housing estates in Dublin struck out of court after new evidence came to light.
Menolly Homes, which built the homes using infill supplied from a Lagan-owned quarry, signalled its intention to have the litigation struck out after receiving minutes of three Lagan management meetings.
The minutes were only handed over to Menolly's lawyers on Monday at 3pm, several hours after Menolly had opened its case at the Commercial Court, sitting in Clonskeagh.
The minutes revealed that Terry Lagan, the group's director, believed that lands at Bay Lane -- its quarry near Dublin Airport -- were unsuitable for quarrying, a revelation described as one of "the utmost seriousness" by Brian O'Moore, senior counsel for Menolly.
Yesterday Mr O'Moore said that the "entire shape of opening of the case" would have been entirely different had the minutes been furnished to him.
Mr Justice Paul Galligan, who is presiding over the case with two designated assessors, said it was up to Menolly whether to accept new, confirmatory statements from Mr Lagan or to seek to have the Lagan Group's defences struck out.
Opening its defence, the Lagan Group insisted that the vast majority of the cracks that appeared in the houses built by Menolly have no structural significance and are unrelated to the infill material gleaned from a quarry it owns at Bay Lane, near Dublin Airport.
Conclusions
It also accused Menolly, which is seeking legal protection against up to €60m in anticipated damages claims from homeowners, of "jumping to conclusions" about the cause of the problems.
Menolly has claimed that the cracking in the houses was caused by the presence of pyrite, a mineral also known as "fool's gold", in aggregate infill procured by Irish Asphalt Limited, Lagan Holdings Ltd and Lagan Construction Limited.
All companies are owned by the Lagan Group.
Senior counsel Hugh O'Neill, opening the case for Lagan, said that Menolly and its experts had convinced themselves that pyrite was the problem in an effort to pass responsibility to the Lagan-owned companies.
"We know about the situation in the country where practically every second house with cracks is having this [the cracks] attributed to pyrite," he said.
"A problem which for some reason we managed to live without for many years is now said to be the root cause of endless cracking."
Mr O'Neill also claimed that Menolly had "rushed" to get the houses built and sold when the property market was booming and alleged that there were defects in the design and workmanship of some of the units.
The case, which could last for several months, continues today.
Dearbhail McDonald Legal Editor
Irish Independent
www.buckplanning.ie
Showing posts with label development. Show all posts
Showing posts with label development. Show all posts
Wednesday, 25 February 2009
Wednesday, 30 April 2008
Developers circle key DIT city centre sites
With the DIT moving to Grangegorman, there is keen interest in its property holdings, including 11 city centre acres, 103,000sq m (1.109 million sq ft) of owned buildings and 17,000sq m (182,986sq ft) of leased space
WELL OVER 92,903sq m (1 million sq ft) of property will hit the market over the next five to 10 years as the Dublin Institute of Technology begins to move onto its new 73-acre campus at Grangegorman in Dublin 7.
Exceptional listed buildings will be on the market for the first time in decades, and leases will be surrendered on prime Dublin office accommodation.
Developers are already expressing interest in a number of properties, says DIT's head of campus planning, Dr Noel O'Connor. "There is a huge amount of interest in the holding and a week doesn't go by without contact from people looking at the buildings. People are interested and they are planning and they are asking," he says.
Its existing holdings, about 103,000sq m (1.109 million sq ft) of owned buildings and another 17,000sq m (182,986sq ft) of leased accommodation, makes DIT one of, if not the largest, private holder of space in the city.
It controls about 11 acres of land associated with these sites, making for a hugely valuable holding, whether viewed simply as building sites or with finished buildings in situ.
The problem for DIT is that all this space and the 39 buildings that make up its holdings are scattered across central Dublin. There is a focus on several main sites but with separate buildings also dotted about.
"DIT is located across six or seven major locations in the city and we occupy major buildings on these sites," says Dr O'Connor. "You have to remember we are the largest provider of education in the country. We have a huge student body of about 20,500 students at all levels. It reflects the scale of DIT but you don't get the sense of it because we are so fragmented."
This fragmentation is also a reflection of how DIT grew over the decades. It opened its doors more than 120 years ago on Kevin Street in October 1887 as one of the city's first technical schools. Other schools opened and gradually some of these began to fall under the remit of the new state's department of education.
DIT emerged from the amalgamation of six colleges about 20 years ago, says Dr O'Connor, some of them former City of Dublin Vocational Education Committee locations. The institute took on its current look with the passing of the DIT Act in 1992.
DIT has since grown by leaps and bounds, with rising student numbers, a widening of DIT's educational award capacity and staff numbers reaching 2,000. This growth has forced the move to Grangegorman, but it should also be a huge benefit to the institute, says Dr O'Connor.
He points out that the Cathal Brugha Street building in Dublin 1 opened in 1941 with about 250 students. Its tourism and catering courses now handle about 2,500 students, he says.
DIT provides awards at apprentice, diploma, undergraduate and postgraduate level. Its new Focas research centre in Camden Row - located behind the main Kevin Street science block - handles no fewer than 100 PhD students working on advanced scientific projects.
The holdings are worth a considerable amount given some of the locations. Kevin Street couldn't be more central and sits on a large site. Cathal Brugha Street is also as central as one can get, sitting literally a stone's throw from O'Connell Street. Bolton Street is also in prime development territory.
Everything DIT holds will come under the hammer, Dr O'Connor says, the idea being that the sales return of these properties and leases would cover a substantial part of the cost of developments at Grangegorman. He would not suggest a possible value for the various properties, and rightly so.
Much of the yield will depend on conditions at the time a site reaches the market, nor would he want to show the institute's hand in terms of cost. And he stressed that the properties would be released on a phased basis, to match the departure of faculties from existing locations to the new campus.
Ronan Webster of CB Richard Ellis applied a quick tot and believes that the holdings would be worth at least €300 million to €350 million. "There is good stuff and there is bad stuff in there," he says. "Much of what is available would need refurbishment."
If one assumes 92,903sq m (1 million sq ft) of space, perhaps 74,322sq m (800,000sq ft) would be useable and this could sell at between €6,459 per sq m (€600 per sq ft) and €10,764 per sq m (€1,000 per sq ft), with a mean of about €8,611 per sq m (€800 per sq ft). That would yield €640 million but it will cost between €3,230 per sq m (€300 per sq ft) and €4,306 per sq m (€400 per sq ft) in refurbishment costs, he suggests. This reduction brings the possible value to a very rough estimate of €300 million to €350 million.
He noted that a number of the buildings were listed structures. DIT indicated that Cathal Brugha Street, Bolton Street and the building adjacent to the library in Rathmines are all listed.
"Office or residential is how you would use these properties," says Webster. The brick building in Rathmines could be subsumed into the library, but Bolton and Cathal Brugha streets would readily convert into residential.
James Meagher of HT Meagher O'Reilly agrees that these properties would readily lend themselves to residential. "If you couldn't get a commercial use you could convert to residential," he says. "You could maybe use it as student accommodation or as a hostel-type hotel."
One significant challenge would be the lack of parking. These are older buildings and do not offer underground space. Nor would it be easy to retrofit underground parking beneath these structures.
The large holding in Mountjoy Square is all leased and this probably won't return anything for DIT, says Meagher, unless the leases are good for more than five or 10 years. Subletting is an option but then DIT would get dragged into property management that is not part of its educational remit, he adds.
There was also the land value associated with the properties. Kevin Street has at least two acres, he suggests. The building is not listed and this was hugely valuable land right on top of St Stephen's Green. "If the buildings are redundant they could be knocked and rebuilt," he says, with the land being much more valuable than any attempt to use ageing office space.
DIT will try to maximise the return on its property portfolio, Dr O'Connor says. "The property here will go towards funding the new development and that is the whole objective. Ten years will see most of DIT relocated. Even in five years you are going to see a major tranche of students up in Grangegorman."
The institute also makes much of remaining in the heart of the city rather than decamping into the suburbs. "We pride ourselves on being DIT and being located in the city," Dr O'Connor says. "The new campus is in the inner city as well. We are not moving out."
And although leaving places with such a long and strong association for DIT will be difficult, staff are ready for a change, he suggests.
"Everybody is looking forward to the new campus. Certainly there will be nostalgia and the buildings have served Ireland well over the past century. But the different faculties are looking for the next generation of facilities. Grangegorman will give them this."
Irish Times
www.buckplanning.ie
WELL OVER 92,903sq m (1 million sq ft) of property will hit the market over the next five to 10 years as the Dublin Institute of Technology begins to move onto its new 73-acre campus at Grangegorman in Dublin 7.
Exceptional listed buildings will be on the market for the first time in decades, and leases will be surrendered on prime Dublin office accommodation.
Developers are already expressing interest in a number of properties, says DIT's head of campus planning, Dr Noel O'Connor. "There is a huge amount of interest in the holding and a week doesn't go by without contact from people looking at the buildings. People are interested and they are planning and they are asking," he says.
Its existing holdings, about 103,000sq m (1.109 million sq ft) of owned buildings and another 17,000sq m (182,986sq ft) of leased accommodation, makes DIT one of, if not the largest, private holder of space in the city.
It controls about 11 acres of land associated with these sites, making for a hugely valuable holding, whether viewed simply as building sites or with finished buildings in situ.
The problem for DIT is that all this space and the 39 buildings that make up its holdings are scattered across central Dublin. There is a focus on several main sites but with separate buildings also dotted about.
"DIT is located across six or seven major locations in the city and we occupy major buildings on these sites," says Dr O'Connor. "You have to remember we are the largest provider of education in the country. We have a huge student body of about 20,500 students at all levels. It reflects the scale of DIT but you don't get the sense of it because we are so fragmented."
This fragmentation is also a reflection of how DIT grew over the decades. It opened its doors more than 120 years ago on Kevin Street in October 1887 as one of the city's first technical schools. Other schools opened and gradually some of these began to fall under the remit of the new state's department of education.
DIT emerged from the amalgamation of six colleges about 20 years ago, says Dr O'Connor, some of them former City of Dublin Vocational Education Committee locations. The institute took on its current look with the passing of the DIT Act in 1992.
DIT has since grown by leaps and bounds, with rising student numbers, a widening of DIT's educational award capacity and staff numbers reaching 2,000. This growth has forced the move to Grangegorman, but it should also be a huge benefit to the institute, says Dr O'Connor.
He points out that the Cathal Brugha Street building in Dublin 1 opened in 1941 with about 250 students. Its tourism and catering courses now handle about 2,500 students, he says.
DIT provides awards at apprentice, diploma, undergraduate and postgraduate level. Its new Focas research centre in Camden Row - located behind the main Kevin Street science block - handles no fewer than 100 PhD students working on advanced scientific projects.
The holdings are worth a considerable amount given some of the locations. Kevin Street couldn't be more central and sits on a large site. Cathal Brugha Street is also as central as one can get, sitting literally a stone's throw from O'Connell Street. Bolton Street is also in prime development territory.
Everything DIT holds will come under the hammer, Dr O'Connor says, the idea being that the sales return of these properties and leases would cover a substantial part of the cost of developments at Grangegorman. He would not suggest a possible value for the various properties, and rightly so.
Much of the yield will depend on conditions at the time a site reaches the market, nor would he want to show the institute's hand in terms of cost. And he stressed that the properties would be released on a phased basis, to match the departure of faculties from existing locations to the new campus.
Ronan Webster of CB Richard Ellis applied a quick tot and believes that the holdings would be worth at least €300 million to €350 million. "There is good stuff and there is bad stuff in there," he says. "Much of what is available would need refurbishment."
If one assumes 92,903sq m (1 million sq ft) of space, perhaps 74,322sq m (800,000sq ft) would be useable and this could sell at between €6,459 per sq m (€600 per sq ft) and €10,764 per sq m (€1,000 per sq ft), with a mean of about €8,611 per sq m (€800 per sq ft). That would yield €640 million but it will cost between €3,230 per sq m (€300 per sq ft) and €4,306 per sq m (€400 per sq ft) in refurbishment costs, he suggests. This reduction brings the possible value to a very rough estimate of €300 million to €350 million.
He noted that a number of the buildings were listed structures. DIT indicated that Cathal Brugha Street, Bolton Street and the building adjacent to the library in Rathmines are all listed.
"Office or residential is how you would use these properties," says Webster. The brick building in Rathmines could be subsumed into the library, but Bolton and Cathal Brugha streets would readily convert into residential.
James Meagher of HT Meagher O'Reilly agrees that these properties would readily lend themselves to residential. "If you couldn't get a commercial use you could convert to residential," he says. "You could maybe use it as student accommodation or as a hostel-type hotel."
One significant challenge would be the lack of parking. These are older buildings and do not offer underground space. Nor would it be easy to retrofit underground parking beneath these structures.
The large holding in Mountjoy Square is all leased and this probably won't return anything for DIT, says Meagher, unless the leases are good for more than five or 10 years. Subletting is an option but then DIT would get dragged into property management that is not part of its educational remit, he adds.
There was also the land value associated with the properties. Kevin Street has at least two acres, he suggests. The building is not listed and this was hugely valuable land right on top of St Stephen's Green. "If the buildings are redundant they could be knocked and rebuilt," he says, with the land being much more valuable than any attempt to use ageing office space.
DIT will try to maximise the return on its property portfolio, Dr O'Connor says. "The property here will go towards funding the new development and that is the whole objective. Ten years will see most of DIT relocated. Even in five years you are going to see a major tranche of students up in Grangegorman."
The institute also makes much of remaining in the heart of the city rather than decamping into the suburbs. "We pride ourselves on being DIT and being located in the city," Dr O'Connor says. "The new campus is in the inner city as well. We are not moving out."
And although leaving places with such a long and strong association for DIT will be difficult, staff are ready for a change, he suggests.
"Everybody is looking forward to the new campus. Certainly there will be nostalgia and the buildings have served Ireland well over the past century. But the different faculties are looking for the next generation of facilities. Grangegorman will give them this."
Irish Times
www.buckplanning.ie
Monday, 14 May 2007
Dredging of Bantry harbour paves way for €12m development
THE planned dredging of Bantry’s inner harbour will pave the way for proposed developments costing up to €12 million in the world famous west Cork bay.
The board of Bantry Harbour Commissioners has been notified of the provision of €3m for dredging and other related works.
The weekend announcement by Transport Minister Martin Cullen gives the go- ahead for the first stage of development in the inner harbour. The money had been outlined in the Government’s Supplementary Budget in January 2007.
Chairman of the harbour board Letty Baker said the planned project was one of the most important to take place in Bantry and would be of tremendous benefit to fishing, local residents, bay-users and tourism. She said the multipurpose plan would cater for all marine activity.
It involves dredging a minimum of two metres below spring low water in the inner harbour.
Ms Baker said the works will allow for further improvement works such as extending the existing pier, access to the entire dock wall at all times, upgrading the quay walls, docks and construction of a breakwater out from the railway pier. The plan, she said, had been in the pipeline since 2005.
The harbour board, in conjunction with officials attached to Cork County Council’s western division, commissioned financial consultant Raymond Burke to prepare a report for submission to the Department of Transport.
After public consultation, the report was given to Mr Cullen in late 2006.
“The dredging is crucial,” said former mayor Ms Baker. “Although the bay is a magnificent natural resource, total movement within the inner harbour is restricted to high tide.”
“The important thing,” she said, “is that we harnessed local expertise and presented all parties with an opportunity to make an input into the plan.”
Ms Baker said it was hoped the dredging works would commence before the end of the year.
Irish Examiner
The board of Bantry Harbour Commissioners has been notified of the provision of €3m for dredging and other related works.
The weekend announcement by Transport Minister Martin Cullen gives the go- ahead for the first stage of development in the inner harbour. The money had been outlined in the Government’s Supplementary Budget in January 2007.
Chairman of the harbour board Letty Baker said the planned project was one of the most important to take place in Bantry and would be of tremendous benefit to fishing, local residents, bay-users and tourism. She said the multipurpose plan would cater for all marine activity.
It involves dredging a minimum of two metres below spring low water in the inner harbour.
Ms Baker said the works will allow for further improvement works such as extending the existing pier, access to the entire dock wall at all times, upgrading the quay walls, docks and construction of a breakwater out from the railway pier. The plan, she said, had been in the pipeline since 2005.
The harbour board, in conjunction with officials attached to Cork County Council’s western division, commissioned financial consultant Raymond Burke to prepare a report for submission to the Department of Transport.
After public consultation, the report was given to Mr Cullen in late 2006.
“The dredging is crucial,” said former mayor Ms Baker. “Although the bay is a magnificent natural resource, total movement within the inner harbour is restricted to high tide.”
“The important thing,” she said, “is that we harnessed local expertise and presented all parties with an opportunity to make an input into the plan.”
Ms Baker said it was hoped the dredging works would commence before the end of the year.
Irish Examiner
Thursday, 26 April 2007
School to house €50m social plan campus
ONE of Ireland's most famous hurling schools and seminaries is to be transformed into a €50m education campus to tackle social disadvantage.
The ambitious redevelopment blueprint for St Finbarr's-Farranferris College in Cork was unveiled yesterday by the Bishop of Cork, Dr John Buckley.
The plan was drawn up by multi-millionaire developer and St Finbarr's past pupil, Michael O'Flynn, who described the project as one of the most exciting he was ever involved with.
Under his proposal, the 22-acre St Finbarr site will be developed to include:
* A total refurbishment of the main building.
* Construction of six new high-tech office buildings.
* Sell-off of a 13-acre site for the development of 108 private residential units.
The buildings will house services by Cork VEC, FAS, Cope Foundation, Rehab, Cabas and Northside Community Enterprises, UCC and CIT.
RALPH RIEGEL
Irish Independent
The ambitious redevelopment blueprint for St Finbarr's-Farranferris College in Cork was unveiled yesterday by the Bishop of Cork, Dr John Buckley.
The plan was drawn up by multi-millionaire developer and St Finbarr's past pupil, Michael O'Flynn, who described the project as one of the most exciting he was ever involved with.
Under his proposal, the 22-acre St Finbarr site will be developed to include:
* A total refurbishment of the main building.
* Construction of six new high-tech office buildings.
* Sell-off of a 13-acre site for the development of 108 private residential units.
The buildings will house services by Cork VEC, FAS, Cope Foundation, Rehab, Cabas and Northside Community Enterprises, UCC and CIT.
RALPH RIEGEL
Irish Independent
Thursday, 25 January 2007
Is the NDP built on poor foundations?
This is what Frank McDonald writes in The Irish Times:
The experience of the past 10 years, according to Taoiseach Bertie Ahern, "shows the need for, and benefits of, longer-term policy planning to ensure that we rise to the challenges and maximise the opportunities facing us".
Would that this were true. Although the word "sprawl" is mentioned nowhere in the latest National Development Plan (NDP), the document concedes that most of Ireland's population growth "is taking place in the urban hinterlands".
Among the resulting changes, it says, "are longer commuting times, increasing car numbers and usage, and serious congestion difficulties with attendant impacts on competitiveness, quality of life and the environment".
Had the last NDP been properly focused, some of these negatives could have been avoided - for example, with a determined effort to ensure an adequate supply of affordable housing in Dublin and the smaller cities, in order to curb sprawl.
Instead, the Government adopted a laissez-faire approach to planning, with the result that Dublin's commuter belt now extends to 100km and the same is true, to a lesser extent, within the orbit of Cork, Limerick, Galway and Waterford. There is much emphasis in the new plan on balanced regional development, with the Taoiseach saying implementation of the National Spatial Strategy (NSS) "is crucial to our ability to absorb the huge population growth predicted over the next 20 years".
As the plan says, "economic development in all countries, including Ireland, invariably occurs at a different pace in different regions", reflecting many different factors, "some of which can be directly influenced by Government policy".
The dramatic growth which Dublin has experienced is inextricably related to the fact that it "has spearheaded the growth of the Irish economy" and thus, in terms of scale and significance, it's on a different level to other NSS gateways.
The key question about the latest plan is whether it will succeed in developing these eight gateways and nine "hub" towns in a way that would ensure their growth and prosperity while simultaneously taking some of the pressure off Dublin.
As the NDP says, long-term population trends show that the economically stronger regions are those with large urban centres containing a high proportion of their population. In that broad context, some of the gateways hardly qualify at all.
The best bet in counterbalancing Dublin would be to strengthen the "critical mass" of the Atlantic gateways of Cork, Limerick, Galway and Waterford, both individually and collectively, to develop a second "major metropolitan corridor".
However, apart from better road links between them, there is not much on offer to Ireland's second-tier cities - though one of Cork's real strengths is its scale, which is equivalent to the combined populations of Limerick, Galway and Waterford.
Yet, notoriously, when it came to "decentralising" public servants from Dublin, the Government ignored Cork city, opting instead to scatter them around smaller towns throughout the county, from Clonakilty right round to Youghal.
Had the Government paid any attention to its own spatial strategy, this would not have happened. So now there isn't even a clutch of civil servants to people a single office block that would help underpin the redevelopment of Cork's docklands.
How can this be reconciled with the new NDP's declaration that promoting regional development "will aim to ensure that each NSS gateway region maximises its potential for economic and social development"? The answer is that it can't.
It is simply disingenuous to say, as the plan does, that the "direct instrument [ of decentralisation] will strengthen . . . the hub, smaller town and rural structure and complement the key and dynamic role to be played by the gateways".
As for the new Gateways Innovation Fund, worth €300 million over three years, each of the nine gateways (including Dublin) will have to make bids for a share of the money for projects that are not funded by "mainstream capital programmes".
This pilot programme is intended to "stimulate and reward joined-up thinking at local and regional level [ and] bring about better co-ordination in regional development and to support distinctive and innovative projects in gateway areas".
But there is a stick as well as this carrot: local authorities that adopt policies which are inconsistent with the NSS by facilitating development patterns such as extensive low-density housing "will not be favoured by investment under this plan".
In addition, Minister for the Environment Dick Roche "will as necessary use his powers under the planning Acts to compel local authorities to adopt land use policies that are consistent with the NSS and the regional planning guidelines".
Mr Roche has already intervened to curb the over-zoning of land in Laois by issuing a planning policy directive under the 2000 Planning Act, and he may well do the same in the case of Monaghan County Council's recent spate of land rezoning.
Roche's predecessor, Martin Cullen, declined to use these powers in 2002 to halt the over-zoning of land around Gorey, Co Wexford, even though there was evidence that up to 70 per cent of its new residents were commuting to Dublin.
The capital's sprawl was allowed to continue unabated, piggy-backing on major road improvements financed under the last NDP. It remains to be seen whether the Government will really crack down on similar piggy-backing on the latest plan.
At least it talks about the importance of promoting a switch from car to public transport. The critical issue for Dublin, it says, is to ensure that the range and quantity of housing as well as transport and social infrastructure can accommodate its population within the region, served by high-capacity public transport.
The real shame is that this was not recognised and made a priority by the last NDP.
The experience of the past 10 years, according to Taoiseach Bertie Ahern, "shows the need for, and benefits of, longer-term policy planning to ensure that we rise to the challenges and maximise the opportunities facing us".
Would that this were true. Although the word "sprawl" is mentioned nowhere in the latest National Development Plan (NDP), the document concedes that most of Ireland's population growth "is taking place in the urban hinterlands".
Among the resulting changes, it says, "are longer commuting times, increasing car numbers and usage, and serious congestion difficulties with attendant impacts on competitiveness, quality of life and the environment".
Had the last NDP been properly focused, some of these negatives could have been avoided - for example, with a determined effort to ensure an adequate supply of affordable housing in Dublin and the smaller cities, in order to curb sprawl.
Instead, the Government adopted a laissez-faire approach to planning, with the result that Dublin's commuter belt now extends to 100km and the same is true, to a lesser extent, within the orbit of Cork, Limerick, Galway and Waterford. There is much emphasis in the new plan on balanced regional development, with the Taoiseach saying implementation of the National Spatial Strategy (NSS) "is crucial to our ability to absorb the huge population growth predicted over the next 20 years".
As the plan says, "economic development in all countries, including Ireland, invariably occurs at a different pace in different regions", reflecting many different factors, "some of which can be directly influenced by Government policy".
The dramatic growth which Dublin has experienced is inextricably related to the fact that it "has spearheaded the growth of the Irish economy" and thus, in terms of scale and significance, it's on a different level to other NSS gateways.
The key question about the latest plan is whether it will succeed in developing these eight gateways and nine "hub" towns in a way that would ensure their growth and prosperity while simultaneously taking some of the pressure off Dublin.
As the NDP says, long-term population trends show that the economically stronger regions are those with large urban centres containing a high proportion of their population. In that broad context, some of the gateways hardly qualify at all.
The best bet in counterbalancing Dublin would be to strengthen the "critical mass" of the Atlantic gateways of Cork, Limerick, Galway and Waterford, both individually and collectively, to develop a second "major metropolitan corridor".
However, apart from better road links between them, there is not much on offer to Ireland's second-tier cities - though one of Cork's real strengths is its scale, which is equivalent to the combined populations of Limerick, Galway and Waterford.
Yet, notoriously, when it came to "decentralising" public servants from Dublin, the Government ignored Cork city, opting instead to scatter them around smaller towns throughout the county, from Clonakilty right round to Youghal.
Had the Government paid any attention to its own spatial strategy, this would not have happened. So now there isn't even a clutch of civil servants to people a single office block that would help underpin the redevelopment of Cork's docklands.
How can this be reconciled with the new NDP's declaration that promoting regional development "will aim to ensure that each NSS gateway region maximises its potential for economic and social development"? The answer is that it can't.
It is simply disingenuous to say, as the plan does, that the "direct instrument [ of decentralisation] will strengthen . . . the hub, smaller town and rural structure and complement the key and dynamic role to be played by the gateways".
As for the new Gateways Innovation Fund, worth €300 million over three years, each of the nine gateways (including Dublin) will have to make bids for a share of the money for projects that are not funded by "mainstream capital programmes".
This pilot programme is intended to "stimulate and reward joined-up thinking at local and regional level [ and] bring about better co-ordination in regional development and to support distinctive and innovative projects in gateway areas".
But there is a stick as well as this carrot: local authorities that adopt policies which are inconsistent with the NSS by facilitating development patterns such as extensive low-density housing "will not be favoured by investment under this plan".
In addition, Minister for the Environment Dick Roche "will as necessary use his powers under the planning Acts to compel local authorities to adopt land use policies that are consistent with the NSS and the regional planning guidelines".
Mr Roche has already intervened to curb the over-zoning of land in Laois by issuing a planning policy directive under the 2000 Planning Act, and he may well do the same in the case of Monaghan County Council's recent spate of land rezoning.
Roche's predecessor, Martin Cullen, declined to use these powers in 2002 to halt the over-zoning of land around Gorey, Co Wexford, even though there was evidence that up to 70 per cent of its new residents were commuting to Dublin.
The capital's sprawl was allowed to continue unabated, piggy-backing on major road improvements financed under the last NDP. It remains to be seen whether the Government will really crack down on similar piggy-backing on the latest plan.
At least it talks about the importance of promoting a switch from car to public transport. The critical issue for Dublin, it says, is to ensure that the range and quantity of housing as well as transport and social infrastructure can accommodate its population within the region, served by high-capacity public transport.
The real shame is that this was not recognised and made a priority by the last NDP.
Friday, 15 December 2006
State's climate change performance 'atrocious'
From Irish Times:
Carbon trading allowances to be bought by Ireland over a five-year period account for less than the equivalent of one second of all global greenhouse gas emissions, according to Minister for the Environment Dick Roche.
But Green Party leader Trevor Sargent said the emissions could be the equivalent of 20 hours a year. He criticised Ireland's climate change performance as "atrocious" and fourth worst in the world per capita after the US, Australia and New Zealand.
They were speaking during the introduction of the Carbon Fund Bill, which provides for the purchase by the State of €270 million in carbon allowances between 2008 and 2012.
Mr Roche said that "the purchase of carbon credits is a legitimate, practical and logical option under the Kyoto Protocol". If there was an absolute cap on carbon emissions, this would require every industry to cut emissions to a pre-determined figure. "While this idea has clear merit, it also has cost implications which, in the Irish case, would be ruinous for many businesses."
The Minister said he met representatives from the Irish pharmaceutical sector which, they said, directly employs 24,000 people and exports goods to the value of €40 billion, with a further 20,000 to 30,000 people employed in related areas.
The sector incurs significant energy costs and is part of the trading system, but it would face a perilous future if we were to introduce more restrictive measures."
Mr Sargent said, however, that when "we describe ourselves as being part of the European project and so forth, we are about twice the EU average as regards carbon emissions". Then "we try to present Ireland as a clean and green country. Long may that brand work for us, but it is not helped by the reality of our climate change failure."
Fine Gael's environment spokesman, Fergus O'Dowd, said "the reality is that unless all of us make fundamental changes in our homes, our lifestyle, where we work, how we go to work and where we live, we will not deal successfully with the issue of climate change."
And it was "disingenuous of the Minister to suggest that regardless of how bad our emissions are in Ireland, they are only minuscule in terms of the world's emissions".
Labour spokesman Eamon Gilmore said that "Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats Party never took Kyoto seriously. It took them three years to produce a national climate change strategy, which they then ignored".
He added: "With just over five years to go until the 2012 deadline, Ireland is now 23-26 per cent above the 1990 level, depending on whose figures one takes."
Sinn Féin spokesman Arthur Morgan said it "is a pure stunt for the Minister to try to convince members that the purchase of a further €270 million worth of
carbon allowances constitutes an environmental measure. This is a cost that taxpayers should not be obliged to bear.
"Had we acted to cut emissions, we would not be forced to purchase such allowances."
Carbon trading allowances to be bought by Ireland over a five-year period account for less than the equivalent of one second of all global greenhouse gas emissions, according to Minister for the Environment Dick Roche.
But Green Party leader Trevor Sargent said the emissions could be the equivalent of 20 hours a year. He criticised Ireland's climate change performance as "atrocious" and fourth worst in the world per capita after the US, Australia and New Zealand.
They were speaking during the introduction of the Carbon Fund Bill, which provides for the purchase by the State of €270 million in carbon allowances between 2008 and 2012.
Mr Roche said that "the purchase of carbon credits is a legitimate, practical and logical option under the Kyoto Protocol". If there was an absolute cap on carbon emissions, this would require every industry to cut emissions to a pre-determined figure. "While this idea has clear merit, it also has cost implications which, in the Irish case, would be ruinous for many businesses."
The Minister said he met representatives from the Irish pharmaceutical sector which, they said, directly employs 24,000 people and exports goods to the value of €40 billion, with a further 20,000 to 30,000 people employed in related areas.
The sector incurs significant energy costs and is part of the trading system, but it would face a perilous future if we were to introduce more restrictive measures."
Mr Sargent said, however, that when "we describe ourselves as being part of the European project and so forth, we are about twice the EU average as regards carbon emissions". Then "we try to present Ireland as a clean and green country. Long may that brand work for us, but it is not helped by the reality of our climate change failure."
Fine Gael's environment spokesman, Fergus O'Dowd, said "the reality is that unless all of us make fundamental changes in our homes, our lifestyle, where we work, how we go to work and where we live, we will not deal successfully with the issue of climate change."
And it was "disingenuous of the Minister to suggest that regardless of how bad our emissions are in Ireland, they are only minuscule in terms of the world's emissions".
Labour spokesman Eamon Gilmore said that "Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats Party never took Kyoto seriously. It took them three years to produce a national climate change strategy, which they then ignored".
He added: "With just over five years to go until the 2012 deadline, Ireland is now 23-26 per cent above the 1990 level, depending on whose figures one takes."
Sinn Féin spokesman Arthur Morgan said it "is a pure stunt for the Minister to try to convince members that the purchase of a further €270 million worth of
carbon allowances constitutes an environmental measure. This is a cost that taxpayers should not be obliged to bear.
"Had we acted to cut emissions, we would not be forced to purchase such allowances."
Monday, 11 December 2006
€500,000 funding for conservation work at St. Patrick's Cathedral
The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government has announced that the Department is providing funding of €500,000 for conservation works carried out this year in St. Patrick's Cathedral. The Minister made the announcement during his launch of the Cathedrals Conservation Plan. The conservation works being funded include the erection of fire protection screens in the roof space of the Cathedral and the restoration of the West Window by William Wailes. The Minister congratulated the Dean, Chapter and Board of the Cathedral and the Heritage Council for the production of the Conservation Plan.
The Minister said that "St. Patrick's Cathedral is a place of outstanding cultural significance". "Its architecture, history, liturgy, music and traditions combine to make it one of the most important historic structures in Ireland" continued the Minister.
The Minister said that "In 2006, my Department has also provided significant continued funding for projects at a number of important heritage properties held in trust or private ownership including Christchurch Cathedral, Dublin; the Cathedral Church of the Most Holy Trinity, Waterford; Fota House; Westport House; Headfort House, Kells; and Russborough House". The Minister also highlighted that "Local authority projects in respect of the town walls in Waterford City and Duckett's Grove, Co. Carlow are being supported".
Sunday, 10 December 2006
Neighbourhood Noise Bill
I had an email over the weekend concernign the Green's Nieghbourhood Noise Bill. Here's an article from the Indo' on this:
DECIBEL hell - the cacophony of noise from alarms, loud music and other aural irritants - was firmly in the political firing line yesterday.
If you are intersted, the Bill is available for download at: http://www.oireachtas.ie/viewdoc.asp?fn=/documents/bills28/bills/2006/5606/b5606d.pdf
DECIBEL hell - the cacophony of noise from alarms, loud music and other aural irritants - was firmly in the political firing line yesterday.
The Green Party promised to be not only good for the environment, but also for your ears. It pledged to take action to put peace and quiet back into everyday life.
The party placed noise pollution at the top of its agenda along with other forms of pollution, announcing a private members' Bill for the Autumn that would crack down on the clamour no-one wants to hear.
Penalties
The Bill, while certain to be defeated by the combined might of the Government parties, would impose new penalties and controls and beef up the ranks of noise inspectors. It will also form a key plank of the Greens' election manifesto.
Noise control officers would be hired by every local authority in the country if the Greens get into Government next year. They would be charged with taking immediate action once a complaint has been received from the public.
"They will have the powers to take action 24 hours a day, seven days a week," said party leader Trevor Sargent, who claimed the Noise Police would be largely financed by the revenue they generate from fines.
Such a force would provide "a clear and effective remedy for noise from building sites, car alarms, helicopters, noisy neighbours, barking dogs and outdoor events," Mr Sargent said.
The Greens' Neighbourhood Noise Bill seeks to simplify and enhance the tackling of noise pollution.
"Existing legislation deals with only certain types of environmental noise and involves a range of bodies as well as the courts," Mr Sargent said.
Environment spokesperson Ciaran Cuffe added: "All of us have experienced problems with neighbourhood noise at some point in our lives, yet noise hasn't received the same attention as other forms of pollution."
Under existing rules, different agencies are responsible for dealing with noise from different sources, he pointed out. "Barking dogs are dealt with by local authority dog control officers, loud music by environmental health officers and the Irish Aviation Authority is responsible for noise from low-flying helicopters."
The Green Party also intends to tighten up regulations to reduce noise pollution at a more commercial level.
Local authorities and bodies have to draw up noise maps and agree action plans, but do not provide meaningful timetables or incentives to achieve it, Mr Sargent said.
If you are intersted, the Bill is available for download at: http://www.oireachtas.ie/viewdoc.asp?fn=/documents/bills28/bills/2006/5606/b5606d.pdf
Sunday, 12 November 2006
The basis of town planning practice in Ireland
What does planning set out to achieve?
The physical planning system seeks to facilitate and encourage development within sustainable patterns of settlement whilst fostering protection of the natural and built environment and promoting the efficient use of land and infrastructure. It plays a key role in facilitating delivery of the infrastructure programmes in the National Development Plan 2000 - 2006 (NDP) and in addressing housing supply requirements. The system is directly operated by planning authorities and An Bord Pleanála (our planning appeals body). The Department of the Environment and Local Government provides the essential legislative framework and policy guidance (which we will be covering) and the courts become involved in cases where judicial review is sought.
What is planning practice?
Planning practice is how the planning system works from day to day; it’s the mechanics.
The planning system is generally learned in one of two ways: (1) Through a planning law course, or (2) Through practice and reference to guidance, such as the Department of the Environment’s leaflets. At providing enough know how for participants in the planning process to understand the system and operate the processes involved.
Some people have had some experience with planning; some positive but often more negative. Patrick Shaffrey wrote as far back as 1973:
For to long planning has been a sort of battlefield. On the one hand, some developers considered any outside opinions or comments on their proposals as wearisome and unnecessary, frequently designed to thwart what in their view were sensible and well thought put projects. On the other hand, individuals and organizations were wary of any change, and did not fully realize that social and economic progress does result in physical changes to the environment. As a result, the central philosophy and objective of planning was often lost in the welter or arguments and counter arguments (p. 7).
Before surveying battlefield planning it is useful to start by explaining, briefly, planning’s underlying philosophy.
Planning is essentially a creative activity designed to anticipate, guide and direct, in the common interest, developments which can influence our physical environment in some way or other. Good planning need not be restrictive, or on the other hand allow a free for all, which may benefit a few at the expense of the many. The Planning Acts provide for the involvement of all sectors of society in the process (though whether this provision can be effectively exercised is the subject of much debate). Through planning an attempt is made to control and monitor future development in a well ordered, sustainable, manner. Whether a person likes it or not the Irish Government has laid out the manner by which we must plan for the future.
The Irish Government commenced the formal physical planning of
In August 2000, the Planning and Development Act, 2000 was enacted following detailed consideration of its provisions by the Oireachtas. This Act, which revises, extends and consolidates the legislative basis for the Irish planning system, introduced many significant changes and initiatives designed to introduce a sustainable development ethos into the Irish planning system, increase the efficiency of the system and ensure a strategic approach to land-use planning in Ireland. The Act was brought into force in stages. Some priority provisions commenced by the end of 2000 including those on the supply of housing, on strategic development zones and on the transfer of the Minister's statutory functions to An Bord Pleanála. By
Some of you will be aware of the Planning and Development Act 2000 which has reformed planning law in
Administration of planning
Planning is primarily a service of local government. The two-tier structure of the Irish local government system was established in the 1898 Local Government (
· The Upper tier consists of the larger local authorities – the county councils and the county borough corporations. In 1898 a democratically elected body was established in each of the 33 administrative counties (Temporary has two ridings: north and south). Management of the financial and administrative business of the county was entrusted to this council, which consisted of a chairman and councillors. There were also six borough corporations in existence at the passing of the Act, which became County Borough Corporations with the same power as county councils. They were located in counties, but administratively separate.
· The lower tier of local government consisted of the remaining 5 borough corporations, urban district councils, town commissioners and rural district councils. County councils took over rural district council functions in 1925. This lower tier has a small range of local government functions.
County councils and county borough corporations became very strong after 1898. But with strength did not come efficiency. Nepotism, clientelism and corruption in local government is not just a recent phenomenon. Ministers and civil servants took a to0ugh line in the 1920s and a number were dissolved and replaced by salaried commissioners, who were efficient, had administrative expertise and displayed complete impartiality in the solution of many urgent local problems. They were so successful that it was proposed they share power with the elected members. The post of city manager emerged, first in Cork CBC in 1929; in 1942 this system was extended across Irish local government.
Local government boundaries have been the subject of debate over the years, including the Barrington Report in 1991. But in 1994, the Minister of the Environment, confirmed the retention of the existing administrative boundaries at a local level. Saying they were a strength to be built on.
In the 1940 Management Act, functions of local government are divided into ’executive’ and reserved’ – the former exercisable only by the manager and the latter by councillors. In broad terms, powers reserved to the elected representatives concern policy and financial matters, while the manager is responsible for decisions which involve the execution of settled policy and which, in particular, might be open to political of personal influence. Thus, within the planning system, the councillors adopt the development plan and the manager makes the decision whether to grant or to refuse planning applications.
As an aside, the introduction of the management system has been the single most important development in the history of Irish local government. But councillors didn’t like it. Their grievances were addressed with the City and
All local authorities, except town commissioners, were entrusted with the full range of planning responsibilities in 1964, giving 87 planning authorities for a population of 2.8 million. Under the Local Government) Dublin Act, 1993, this number increased to 88 with the creation of Fingal,
Also, the manager of each county is also, by virtue of the office, the manager of each of the sub-county urban authorities, and thus performs an important co-coordinating role in the context of the multiplicity of small planning authorities.
The main elements of Irish planning
1. DEVELOPMENT PLAN
The main instrument for regulation and control of development is the Development Plan. Each planning authority is required to publish notice of its intention to review its plan, not later than 4 years after the making of a development plan. A new plan must be made every 6 years (ie. 2 years after the notice of the intention to review the plan has been published). The plan states the authority's policies for land use and for development control and promotion in its area. The authority, in exercising control, must consider the provisions of the Plan, and try to secure its objectives.
In general, the Plan shows the authority's objectives for the sole or primary use of particular areas (eg residential, commercial, industrial, agricultural), for road improvements, for development and renewal of obsolete areas, and for preserving, improving and extending amenities. Public participation in making the Plan is important. The public can become involved in the making of the development plan, at the initial stage, when the planning authority publishes its intention to review the plan, at the draft plan stage and if applicable, at the amended draft plan stage. At all these stages, the public can make submissions or observations, within specified time periods, on what is being proposed by the planning authority at all these stages. Notice of the making of the draft plan is published and the draft plan goes on public display for at least 10 weeks, during which time the public may make submissions on its content. Any submissions received within the specified period must be considered before the Plan is adopted. Before a plan is adopted, copies of the draft must be sent to various statutory and voluntary bodies who may be able to give the authority specialist advice.
We will consider development plans in more detail later.
2. DEVELOPMENT CONTROL
All decisions to grant or to refuse planning permission are firstly for the relevant planning authority, and for An Bord Pleanála (the Planning Appeals Board) in an appeal. As we have seen, the Local Government Act, 2001 provides the framework for reserved and executive functions. Reserved functions are performed by elected councillors, executive functions by the authority's manager or delegated officials. Granting or refusing planning permission is an executive function. Under the Local Government Act, 2001, elected councillors can, by resolution, direct the manager to take a particular action. The use of this power for planning applications is restricted, and only occurs in a small number of cases (0.01% of applications in 1999).
All development, unless specifically exempted, needs planning permission. Where there is doubt over what constitutes development, anyone can refer the case to the planning authority for a decision on payment of the prescribed fee. The declaration made can be appealed to An Bord Pleanála, within 4 weeks of the issuing of the declaration, on payment of the prescribed fee. In general, authorities must decide planning applications within 8 weeks of the date of receipt of the application. The applicant or any person who made a valid submission in writing, in relation to the planning application, to the planning authority can appeal to An Bord Pleanála, within 4 weeks of the decision.
In deciding applications, authorities are restricted to considering the proper planning and development of the area concerned, including the preservation and improvement of amenities, the development plan, and any valid, written submissions or observations made on a proposed development. The fee for making a submission or observation on a planning application is currently €20. For details on the fees for making planning applications, you should contact your local planning authority. Where permission is refused, or granted with conditions, the authority must give reasons for the decision. A planning permission normally lasts for five years, but may be extended in certain cases
3. APPEAL SYSTEM
An applicant for permission and any person who has made a submission or observation on a planning application may appeal a planning decision to An Bord Pleanála, the planning appeals board. Appeals must be made within 4 weeks of the decision. In an appeal, the planning application is considered anew by the Board, who examine all relevant issues independently. The Board must, among other things, consider the proper planning and development of the planning authority's area and any submissions or observations received. The Board's decision may only be challenged, within 8 weeks, by judicial review in the High Court. However, the Court may extend this period where it considers that there is sufficient reason for doing so. The Court will not reopen the planning merits of the case. It may only give leave to pursue the review process where it is satisfied that there are substantial grounds for claiming that the Board's decision is invalid or should be quashed. The person seeking leave must also have a substantial interest in the decision making process or had good and sufficient reason for doing so.
4. ENFORCEMENT OF PLANNING CONTROL
Enforcement of planning control is the responsibility of the planning authority. Where development takes place without permission, or where it does not comply with conditions of a permission, the authority may take enforcement action. Under the Planning and Development Act, 2000, planning authorities are obliged to follow up genuine complaints about breaches of planning control within a given timeframe, are entitled to retain fines imposed by Courts for planning offences to help finance more active planning control and can refuse to grant planning permission, subject to the consent of the High Court, to any developer who has seriously failed to comply with a pervious permission. These provisions came into force on
Given that planning practice is heavily dominated by statutory planning, that is by the planning application process, I thought we’d look at some planning statistics! This will make you think about the system as a whole .
In the ten year period from 1991 to 2001 the number of planning applications made to local authorities increased by approximately 80%. The number of planning applications in 2002 was 62,810 which represented a reduction of 17% compared with 2001.
In the 1980s and early 1990s up to 1993 the applications for planning permission fluctuated between 33,000 and just over 40,000. Between 1994 and 2000 there was a constant rise in the figures giving a cumulative increase of over 100% in the seven year period.
The overhead gives the number of refusals and the ‘refusal rates’. The percentage of planning decisions that consist of a refusal (the refusal rate) had shown a consistent decline from 15.1% in 1981 to 7.4 % in 1986. Between 1987 and 1997, apart from 1988, the rate fluctuated between 8 % and 11%. The rate for 2000 was 16.6% and rose slightly to 16.9 % in 2001. The refusal rate fell to 15.9 % in 2002.
The refusal rate is not an indicator of the proportion of applications that end up as refusals, nor should it be regarded as an indicator of the ‘efficiency’ or ‘commitment’ of any individual planning authority. Higher refusal rates might be expected, for example, in areas of high amenity value or in areas under intensive pressures for speculative development.
In 2002, 4,324 planning decisions were the subject of an appeal to An Bord Pleanála - a decrease of 16% over the previous year. The figure does not include reactivated appeals. A small number of appeals - approximately 1% of the total - were disposed of without a formal decision (withdrawn, invalid, etc.). In 2002 the number of formal decisions amounted to 4,276. Slightly less than one in three appeals leads to a reversal of the local authority decision.
Since 1997 applications for outline permission accounted for about one in ten of all applications. In the years 1998 to 2001 this figure increased to 12% in 1998, and to 15% in 1999 and 2000 respectively. In 2001 these applications remained at 13% of the total and decreased to 9% of this level during 2002. It should be noted that the use of outline applications is relatively frequent in some authorities. The ratio of applications for approval to those for outline permissions is approximately 1:4.
The ‘refusal rate’ for outline permissions - at approximately 35% - is more than twice the average rate.
The refusal rate for approvals is approximately one fifth of the average rate. It should also be noted that while outline permissions deferred are 12% of all deferrals. Approximately 45% of all outline applications are deferred.
A decision on a planning application must be made by the planning authority within a period of eight weeks. This period can be extended in two ways. The first occurs when a planning authority requests additional information (S34(8)(b) of the 2000 Act, Art. 33 of the 2001 Regulations). A second procedure, requiring the written consent of the applicant, allows the planning authority to extend the eight-week period. This provision was introduced in a 1976 Act and is now provided under S34(9) of the 2000 Act. Deferrals arising from the applicant’s consent increased as a percentage of total deferrals in 1997, 1998 and 2000: -
· 1997:20%;
· 1998:24%; and
· 2000: 30%.
Under the Planning Acts, councillors can influence development control decisions. (1) S140 of the Local Government Act, 2001 (formerly S4 of the
While only limited use is made of these procedures overall, some authorities do use them to a considerable extent. The S140 procedure was used in 5 authorities, i.e. 5 county authorities account for 100% of the total usage (dominated of course by Kerry which passed 10). The total number of such motions was 27 (a 58% reduction on 2001) the number passed by Council decreased to 23 (a 45% fall on 2001 figure). The number of material contraventions resulting from S140 and S4 motions in 2002 continued to fall by 50% on the 2001 figure to only 5 instances.
The procedure under S34(6) of the Planning and Development Act, 2000 has increased by 20% on 2002. This is the procedure which provides that a development may materially contravene the Development Plan subject to certain procedures being complied with. In this instance a decision to grant planning permission requires the vote of not less than three quarters of the members of the Council in favour. The increase in the number of ‘material contraventions’ in 2002 was in the order of 20%. The overall number of material contraventions passed by local authorities in 2001 was 93. This represented a 30% decrease on the 132 material contraventions passed in 2000. In 2002, 112 material contraventions were passed by local authorities, i.e. a 20% increase on the 2001 figure.
In 2002 almost eight out of every ten applications were for residential development (class 1 and class 2 - houses and domestic ‘extensions’). Figures are available by class of development.
The amount received in contributions has continued to rise since 1987 with an exceptional decline of approximately 2.5% between 1992 and 1993. There was an increase of approximately 26% for 1997, 15% in 1998, 31% in 1999, 27% in 2000, 11% in 2001, and 24% in 2002. Increases or decreases in the figures may be the result of a number of factors such as changes in the rates charged, size and type of developments carried out in a particular year, the overall level of implementation of planning permissions and perhaps increased enforcement of planning conditions.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)