Cost of getting planning permission

No, normal statutory planning fees are set in the Planning Regs.

e.g.
House extension is €34
House is €65
Commercial buildings are at a rate of €3.60 per square metre.
For very large developments with huge floor areas the €3.60/sqm is not used. Rather a maximum fee is applicable which is €38,000.

I would guess the €800,000 they are talking about included legal fees, architects fees, surveyors fees, engineers etc
 
LouisCribben said:
I was reading the following story about some people who bought a 70 acre site for 16'000'000

http://www.independent.ie/national-...gaa-stars-euro16m-property-dream-2852885.html

And then they borrowed a further 800'000 to fund getting planning permission........

Is that a normal amount to get planning permission ? (around 10'000 per acre) ?
Click to expand...


Louis,

I want to put costs of procuring a planning permission in perspective for you.

The local landowner allegedly sold the land (70 acres) for 16 Million Euro to the syndicate.
This included a local councillor, which reveals part of the tangled web that exists where land zoning and permissions is concerned.

The men borrowed "more than" 16 million Euro but its not quantified, nor is it stated for what they borrowed it.
Let's leave it at sixteen million Euro for now, which means the original cost per acre was around 228,571 Euro

A four bed semi house in Johnstown near Navan in Meath is on for 160,000 Euro or so and let's assume it actually sells for say 150,000 Euro after everything for the sake of argument.
Allowing for 10% of the sale price as a reasonable reflection of the site purchase cost for zoned lane that's 15,000 per house site.
Allowing for 15 houses per acre, that 225,000 per acre, which isn't a million miles from what they paid for it.

The bank is looking for €853,463 from each of the men as an interim payment, having rejected an offer of payment they had made, or a total of €3,413,852.
A significant portion of this may be interest.

The men sold 10 acres of this land back to the local council for 330,000 Euro.
The original cost per acre was 228,571 Euro, so they sold the ten acres at a substantial loss of 1,955,714 Euro going the bare figures.

The maximum return is now limited to what they can build on sixty acres and they have failed to achieve permission
The syndicate appear to have been deal a blow by the former landowner, but the dates of the planning application are unclear.

What is clear is that they have not followed a profitable path, having disposed of over 14% of their holding for a 2 million Euro loss.

If they had been well-advised by someone who managed to negotiate a safe course to a permission and achieve a better result with the entire ten acre site, then total procurement and advice fees of up to a 800,000 Euro would have been well spent, but it may not have been enough to do the needful.

Assuming it was all housing and a good density was achieved, seventy acres at fifteen houses per acre at 150,000 Euro per house could have yielded a gross return of 157,500,000 Euro.

Procurement costs of between two and five per cent (planning, negotiations, public meetings, promotions) of this could have been appropriate.
That's going on current deflated figures and would have been a lesser percentage in the boom prices
Just look at the mess they're in because they have no permission!
This warrants further investigation.

ONQ.

[broken link removed]

All advice on AAM is remote from the situation and cannot be relied upon as a defence or support - in and of itself - should legal action be taken.
Competent legal and building professionals should be asked to advise in Real Life with rights to inspect and issue reports on the matters at hand.
 
Okay, let's see...

[broken link removed]

"The county council had made it a condition of the planning permission it granted that the developers would contribute towards the cost of a new link road between Ratholdron Road (Windtown Road) and the N3. However, even with this stipulation in the planning permission, the board said the development would tend to create “serious traffic congestion” on the inner relief road, in the absence of a second crossing over the Blackwater River for southbound traffic and would, therefore, be premature.

The board also said that the layout of the proposed development was “unacceptable”. The disposition of community/education/commercial uses at the southern end of the site was “fragmented” and dominated by roads and car parking. It also criticised the design of the public open space and civic space.

The quantum of office use proposed at this edge-of-town location would be inappropriate and would result in the generation of unnecessary car trips, the board added. In addition, the provision of parking spaces for retail units was inadequate and would result in on-street parking on the access road, it added.

The board drew attention to the fact that the environmental impact statement submitted with the planning application was lacking in an appropriate level of detail, “particularly with regard to baseline information on flora, fauna (including avian species, invertebrates and aquatic species), soil, bedrock, aquifier(s) which may exist beneath the site”. In the absence of such detail, the board said, it was not possible to effectively assess the environmental impact of the proposed development."

-------------------------------------------

[broken link removed]
[broken link removed]

"5.0 THE PLANNING AUTHORITY’S DECISION
5.1 Material Contravention of the Navan Development Plan

Following the receipt of unsolicited additional information, the Council initiated Material Contravention procedures on 8th April 2009, indicating it was proposing to grant planning permission in contravention of Objective LAP5 of the Navan Development Plan 2003-2009. The Agenda of the Council Meeting of 25th May 2009 is included on file – item 2 being the relevant one. No details of the actual motion passed by the Councillors has been included on file – but it would seem reasonable to assume that the motion was passed, in that a notification of decision to grant permission subsequently issued."
​
[broken link removed]

[broken link removed]

[broken link removed]

The Board's website does not host the drawing files and the Meath Co Co document server seems to be down:

"Firefox can't find the server at idocsweb.meathcoco.ie."

-----------------------------------------

There are fair comments we can make about this significant proposed mixed use development.
This planning application required both an EIS and a material contravention - the latter always raises controversy.

The upper cost limit for an EIS could be circa €150,000 although that which was submitted was allegedly not up to scratch.
I note for the moment that I haven't read the Boards files in any detail - I glazed over after reading both comments that I quoted above.

Full design fees at the time may have been upwards of 2K per house plus the design of the commercial buildings, masterplanning, services and cost estimates.
Then there probably were legal fees, Barristers Opinions (they'd have been foolish not to at least consider taking a Judicial Review) and accountants fees.

I would not be surprised to learn that total professional fees top €500,000 on this scheme.
It effectively amounts to the planning of a small, self-contained new town.

-------------------------------------------

It seems clear that the bare facts are not giving us the full story here.
There is no valuation on the mixed use development available to me to range against the 150 million plus figure I advanced above but there was huge potential profit to be made.
Being aware of the potential of this kind of return, and seeing inadequate road design, parking provision and submitted information, the Board may have decided to throw the book at them.
The recently expressed view of the outgoing Board chairman - his regret that the Board hadn't taken a firmer stance against poor decisions - may have informed the Board's decision in the subject application.

ONQ.

[broken link removed]

All advice on AAM is remote from the situation and cannot be relied upon as a defence or support - in and of itself - should legal action be taken.
Competent legal and building professionals should be asked to advise in Real Life with rights to inspect and issue reports on the matters at hand.
 
Thanks ONQ

Good case study to understand the planning laws and procedures.

Nice to see such transparency in the bord pleanala reports........everything was documented very well, and the decisions clearly explained (which is what you'd expect of course from an independent body).
We have an example here of some people who took quite a big punt in buying land where planning permission was no forgone conclusion, and it didn't work out, although it may work out in some future application.

Maybe this is proof(if proof is needed) that our planning laws may be working
 
You're very welcome, Louis.
One caveat I should have included is that all my cost figures are very rough.

I just did the research, but you asked the question, so its thanks to you, my friend! :)
I learned a heck of a lot by reading the links and the urban design guides referred to therein.

As for the planning laws working, we need a better framework than the National Spatial Strategy.
Its a poor attempt to address several issues and lent support to questionable permissions by local councils.

ONQ.

[broken link removed]

All advice on AAM is remote from the situation and cannot be relied upon as a defence or support - in and of itself - should legal action be taken.
Competent legal and building professionals should be asked to advise in Real Life with rights to inspect and issue reports on the matters at hand.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top