Developer not complying with planning application

We have just received a letter from our managing agents to say that after investigation (instigated at the behest of the residents) the builders of our development have been found to be in breach of the planning application by Fingal County Council. The breach is that they have failed to erect gates at the entrance to the development.

The letter states that FCC have written to the developers telling them they have four weeks to confirm that they will comply with planning application. If they do not respond, FCC will prosecute the developer in the District Court.

Does anyone have any idea what is the likely outcome in this scenario, i.e. do developers generally comply with these notices, or are there ways to get around them? There have been a number of cctv cameras installed in recent weeks (since the builders were served with notice by the council) and I am wondering if this is the prelude to the argument that gates are not necessary?

If the District Court orders the builders to erect the gates what is the penalty if they fail to comply?

The builders erected gateposts some time ago, but have since indicated that they did not plan to erect gates (on the basis that there were 'problems' with gates in other developments).

Out of interest what is the developement ?
I was at the development where i am buying and there are gate posts up but no sign of gates.... however building work is still ongoing.

Seabrook Manor in Portmarnock.

Generally if a developer is convicted of failing to comply with planning requirements then their chances of getting subsequent planning permission is reduced, I would assume in this case the developer would comply but drag his heels, as it will take over a year for it to appear before a judge.

Could they wind up the company and/or set up a new company to apply for PP for future developments if they fail to comply? Do planners look behind applications for this kind of scenario? Would be difficult to detect if the councils reviewing the applications were different.

If it was a condition of the permission that gates be erected then the developers pretty much have to comply.

Once it has got to the stage of the enforcement people from FCC getting on the case and initiating proceedings there is little the developer can do other than put them up. At worst, the end result will be that the development will technically not have planning permission and there will be resulting problems for re-sale.

In reality, though I doubt that a developer would let it get that far and will eventually give in and put them up.

I thought that most CoCos were more interested in not having gated communities - do you know why in this case there was a condition that gates be erected ? NOrmally it seems to be the developer who wants an enclosure and the CoCo who wants more open access and less gates.

z

I don't think that it was a condition of the application, I think that it was just a part of the application (there is a distinction here, no?)


I think that the developer could resubmit the planning application, but we could just object I guess.

Why do CoCos want easier access to developments? The only reason I know of is for access to fires (i.e. fire brigade has trouble getting the gates open cos they don'ty have the code).

The difficulty with re-sale is a frightening scenario, but hopefully it won't come to that. I am still on the pessimistic side about the chances of getting the gates put up, but at the same time, it's not really that big a job, and for sake of peace and quiet, the developers might play ball sooner rather than later.

I raised the resale thing only as a worst case scenario. The reality is that the developer would be slightly mad to let something as relatively insignificant as erecting gates affect the entire development like that.

The reason that CoCos generally aren't in favour of gated communities is that CoCos are interested in public good and shared facilities, while developers are interested in prestige and security.

I am generalising quite a bit here, but the basic thing is that given a choice between open space and facilities available to the community and open space and facilities available to a select group of people within that community most CoCos would favour the former. Of course, planners and other relevant officials don't always get their way which is why there are many gated communities around. Also, I am not denying that gates serve a valuable function - they do. Or that people shouldn't be able to secure their property - they should.

On re-reading your post I guess that the developer doesn't want to put the gates up because they may have to maintain them and this will cost the developer over time.

z

zag said:

On re-reading your post I guess that the developer doesn't want to put the gates up because they may have to maintain them and this will cost the developer over time.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure about that as there is actually an amount budgeted in our management fees for 'gate maintenance'. It was suggested that the developers had problems with similar gates at Larch Hill (Santry) were installed, but I'm not sure if that's a valid excuse.

Any Larch Hill residents have any experience of this?

I lived in a gated development. There is no ongoing expense for the builder. Once the gates are up the maintenance of them is handed over to the management company and this is where you will see the increased costs. Its true that these constituted the biggest expense in our case - I think the mgt company paid out about 3k in one year alone on the gates. The main problem we had is kids vandalising them/climbing on them/playing with the mechanisms etc and this caused most of the problems.

On the issue of county councils preferring to leave estates open, this presents a problem. Its all very well for them to want to give open spaces accessible to the general community, but the fact is that it is private property which has to be maintained by the residents, who need public liability insurance on it. This means that if kids from other areas choose to play on your 'green' and have an accident, its the residents ultimately, and not the coco who is responsible.

Finally, I don't want to scaremonger, but you need to make sure this is sorted and the builder complies with the planning permission. We recently sold our house and went through a difficult sale because the purchaser's solicitor claimed planning permission was not complied with by the builder (this turned out not to be the case but was messy to sort out). We were told repeatedly by our own solicitor that you cannot/it is difficult to sell a house if the builder hasn't complied will all conditions of the planning permission.