Builder applying for planning on green areas in Estate

Chipboard

The developer who built our estate has gone back in for planning to build an additional 56 houses on the green areas. It is over 5 years since the first houses were completed and sold in the estate and everyone thought he was about to up tools and go until a few weeks ago when these planning notices appeared on various green areas in the estate. Obviously we're up in arms about it and there have been residents meetings with County Councillors present (who were of no use whatsoever) but it looks like he may get away with it. Seemingly you only have to leave 10% of the ground in green area and he has left 20%. He also appears to be within the density allowed. Its crazy though because we dont have the infrastructure to cope with the present number of houses (491) and he hasn't finished the estate like he said he would (paths missing, walls not plastered, wooden fences where there should be walls). The craziest thing about it is that some people who this same builder charged £5k extra for their houses on the basis that they were at the end of a street, will now not be at the end of the street when he builds the additional houses.

Has anyone been in this situation or know a person/estate that has??

Dub13

Moved from Consumer Issues

You should get a better response here.

Victor

It would appear to be legal. What did you base buying your house on?

What was included in the planning permissions for the existing houses.

Why isn't the infrastructure adequate? Use this as a means of objecting (which you need to do quick).

Make a compalint to the council about the incomplete state of the estate.

BrianD

I suggest that you pool your resouces and hire a good planning consultant who will write your objection. Use this as the lead objection. However, each member of your community should also submit an objection/observation. You have up to 5 weeks from the notice date. Ranting and raving to the council about 'loss of views' etc. will get no where. The points about lack of infrastructure can be used.

Sponge Bob

Brian and Victor are correct about how to deal with the planning side. Do as they say.

The individuals who paid extra for non overlooked houses should immediately sue the builder for breach of contract (separately and individually ) as well. Get an estate agent / valuer to calculate the losses for all of them and write an individual estimate . The THREAT of new builds beside them is enough to cause a loss so they can get suing now.

Calculate losses for all of a) while planning is a threat b) if planning is given and c) if the houses are built . Even if teh builder was refused there will be a case for a) against him from those residents.

As for the councillors, get them to take the estate in charge right now, then he no longer owns the green areas

muffler

Its a common enough problem with developers trying to maximise the full development of the estate but at what cost to the residents and the proper planning of the area. Some of these developers would build (and probably have:)) in the front garden of a house.

All of the advice given above is spot on and particularly BrianD's regarding the engagement of a planning consultant. There are a lot of issues here and you will need a professional to advise you first hand.

Do try and keep the councillors onside. Invite them to your meetings and then let them stand up and be counted

Chipboard

I'm grateful for all the input, but I just want to explain further;

I've been told by people who have gone through this that loss of view is a more useful objection than lack of infrastructure. The Meath county development plan has already earnmarked the area for more housing so claiming lack of infrastructure is a no go (even though it is indisputably true).

The estate isn't finished yet. He was just about to finish when the notices went up looking for additional infill houses so no its not handed over to the council yet and you cannot force him to hand it over. Some estates can be completed for 20 years and still not have been handed over. Meath county council have a policy of not taking over the green areas anyway, which I believe is a total cop out. The builder doesn't retain them - they are vested in the residents.

Going after him in relation to non compliance with the original planning would be be only playing into his hand. I only mentioned the non compliance issues because it gives a picture of the kind of company we're dealing with. Think about it - he's no doubt influential and the council will be seeking to give him planning, but they have a small problem in that around 330 residents have objected (I'm not being sarcastic - this really only is a small problem) and they have to be seen to take account of peoples objections. If we object to the additonal houses on the basis that he didnt complete the paths on the original plans, the planners or a court will ensure that he does this. He will do it with a happy heart cos it might cost him say €150k and then the planners will give him the go ahead on the 56 infill houses because they will be seen to have managed the situation. He will be laughing all the way to the bank as he will now make an additional c€5m profit out of the additional houses for spending a couple of hundred grand.

We had a resident meeting with the coucillors and it was a farce.

When I entered the room Shane McEntee was telling the crowd to forget about fundraising to go the legal route or going the legal route individually. He said to stick with him and we'd make sure there was no addtional houses built in our lovely estate. How could anyone tell you not to pursue your legal remedy when your rights are being trampled on.

Pat Boshell stood up next and praised the estate and said he would make sure not a brick was laid. I heard a guy at the back of the hall muttering that if the houses were built, Pats shops would get so busy he would have to close them.

A few minutes later Dominick Hannigan stood up and said that the councillors had absolutely no power or input to the planning process. He said that they were responsible for zoning but after that it was out of their hands.

A councillor called Tom Kelly who certainly is not the 'electioneer' that Pat Boshell is, spoke the truth and nearly got booed out of the hall. He said that he had been through the mill campaigning and going to court in relation to a nearby development (I got the impression he lived there and was involved in his capacity as a resident) and they could get no satisfaction despite intense lobbying and several High Court cases. People turned on him because they only wanted good news which the likes of Pat Boshell and Shane McEntee were providing. The only trouble is that it was painfully obvious that PB and SME were only saying this so they can turn up on the doorstep in 18 mths time and commisserate us on the state of the place and get our vote on the basis of having 'fought the good fight'.

I am amazed to hear that this problem is common because I have posted it on a number of bulletin boards and I have yet to find a person/estate that has been through this situation before.

muffler

Chipboard wrote:

I've been told by people that loss of view is a more useful objection than lack of infrastructure............................................

Going after him in relation to non compliance with the original planning would be be only playing into his hand. If we object to the additonal houses on the basis that he didnt complete the paths on the original plans, the planners or a court will ensure that he does this......................................................

How could anyone tell you not to pursue your legal remedy when your rights are being trampled on.......................................................................

said that the councillors had absolutely no power or input to the planning process. He said that they were responsible for zoning but after that it was out of their hands.

Just picking through a couple of your points: I was always led to believe that in planning terms no one has the right to a view. To privacy etc yes.

Non compliance with a previous grant of permission does have a bearing as the Planning Authority could not grant (or should not grant) permission for failure to comply with the conditions of the original permission.

I think that you should seek legal redress only after pursuing the matter fully through the planning system including An Bord Pleanala. I am referring to the new planning application here.

Planning applications can be debated and more by the elected members of the Council

I can only reiterate my previous opinion that you should definitely engage a planning consultant. And I wouldn't hang about either. He/she will advise you accordingly.

Sponge Bob

Chipboard wrote:

A few minutes later Dominick Hannigan stood up and said that the councillors had absolutely no power or input to the planning process. He said that they were responsible for zoning but after that it was out of their hands.

That man told the truth.

A councillor called Tom Kelly who certainly is not the 'electioneer' nearly got booed out of the hall. He said that he had been through the mill campaigning and going to court in relation to a nearby development (I got the impression he lived there and was involved in his capacity as a resident) and they could get no satisfaction despite intense lobbying and several High Court cases. People turned on him because they only wanted good news.

He sounds fairly honest too.

Sponge Bob

muffler wrote:

Just picking through a couple of your points: I was always led to believe that in planning terms no one has the right to a view. To privacy etc yes.

Correct, the phrase is AMENITY and you are entitled not to be OVERSHADOWED resulting in loss of Amenity.

Non compliance with a previous grant of permission does have a bearing as the Planning Authority could not grant (or should not grant) permission for failure to comply with the conditions of the original permission.

Of course it does . It means the builder cannot be trusted.

I can only reiterate my previous opinion that you should definitely engage a planning consultant. And I wouldn't hang about either. He/she will advise you accordingly.

Best advice of all.

delly

Just wondering where abouts in Meath your living? Our development had a similar problem when the developer decided to upgrade the 'village style' shops into a full blown town centre. All the residents chipped in and hired a consultant to the tune of 5 grand or so and made objections to An Bord Pleanala which is still in prograss.

MorningStar

Hi,

Everybody is giving general hopeful ideas on how to deal with this issue but as is my way I think you should consider some general details.

No completion of construction i.e. paths etc can be enforced by your council but is not seen as a breach on planning as such and can warrant a fine. To call lack of minor things lack of infastructure sounds like a strech and may do more damage to your case if you use it as reason. Lack of ability for sewage, electricity and water will really only count.

If the "green" space belongs to the developer and it is zoned residential he more or less can build on it no matter what you say.

THe council can't really do anything either way and what little they can do is normally not done as they are also under presure to increase developments from everbody else.

The planning authority are under a lot of pressure to increase density on serviced sites.

Loss of view may be said as an amenity but if the view loss is only from you window and you can still see around the area it will be dismissed. Loss of light would need to be to all windows in you house to really be any
use. Housing developments generally are not expected to have great views and amazing light so it may not be seen as reasonable expectation from the existing houses.

Ultimately the best you can hope for is a reduction of the new properties but it really depends on the loaction and other surroundings.

Has the developer applied for new planning permission or an ammendment to the the original?

Fight your case as hard as you can but match it with reasonable expectation. It is cheap for the developer to keep reapplying and he most likely has done similar many times.

Chipboard

MorningStar wrote:

If the "green" space belongs to the developer and it is zoned residential he more or less can build on it no matter what you say.

That is a valid point from one perspective but consider this; if this same builder charged £5k extra for end houses 5 years ago and now he is going to build additional houses onto the end of a row thus taking away this benefit (and probably charge the new 'end house' additional money on the same basis) then do you actually think that this is a fair situation.

I dont know if sale of property comes under the sale of goods act but if it did, this would certainly seem to breach the spirit of the act if not the act itself.

MorningStar wrote:

Loss of view may be said as an amenity but if the view loss is only from you window and you can still see around the area it will be dismissed. Loss of light would need to be to all windows in you house to really be any use.

That is definetly not true because my brother objected sucessfully to a house beside him the garage of which was going to block light to his sunroom.

Are far as I can see the whole planning situation is a sham. Nobody knows the can do's/cannot do's and it is just a case of 'make it up as you go along'.

MorningStar

Chipboard wrote:

That is a valid point from one perspective but consider this; if this same builder charged £5k extra for end houses 5 years ago and now he is going to build additional houses onto the end of a row thus taking away this benefit (and probably charge the new 'end house' additional money on the same basis) then do you actually think that this is a fair situation.

The difference is the garden would be sold with the house the park isn't. The builder wouldn't own the garden so can't build on it! He owns the park

Chipboard wrote:

I dont know if sale of property comes under the sale of goods act but if it did, this would certainly seem to breach the spirit of the act if not the act itself.

Not really all parks and amenities are proposed untill they are built. The houses may have been bought with the expectation of these green spaces but that is not what was sold and many people don't know this.

Chipboard wrote:

That is definetly not true because my brother objected sucessfully to a house beside him the garage of which was going to block light to his sunroom.

Are far as I can see the whole planning situation is a sham. Nobody knows the can do's/cannot do's and it is just a case of 'make it up as you go along'.

So light would not have been the grounds for refusal but may have contributed. So has the building not been built now or just changed?

Planning is not a sham just difficult for people unfamiliar with it to understand. More of an art than a science is really what people have trouble with. Houses will be built there is no doubt in my mind at best you will get a reduction in the number. The pressure to increase denisty is so high

babaduck

Based on the experience my friend had in a similar situation, I believe that this firm is incredibly reputable - they took on their case (and won)

http://www.irishplanninginstitute.ie/consultant_detail.jsp?consultant=42

lomb

Chipboard wrote:

That is a valid point from one perspective but consider this; if this same builder charged £5k extra for end houses 5 years ago and now he is going to build additional houses onto the end of a row thus taking away this benefit (and probably charge the new 'end house' additional money on the same basis) then do you actually think that this is a fair situation.

to be very frank with u, u and the residents dont really have a leg to stand on. these are the facts, 1.
the development plan(created by 'your' elected representatives has zoned the area and the green spaces residential.
2. in the plan the density is stated, this is high because your elected representatives are under severe pressure to make houses affordable by increasing supply.
3. lack of infrastructure other than mains sewage water(as another poster said) etc are the only ones taken into account, anything else is irrelevent as your plan states the density and the objectives etc (i know this is all wrong and there is a lack of infreastructure but legallly this is irrelevent.
4 end houses were sold for an extra 5 as usually they have bigger gardens etc, anyway the builder can sell them for anything he wants, it was the house for sale not the greenspace.
5 incompleted paths are a legal matter and wouldnt or shouldnt legally interfere with the decision to grant planning.

finally, your case is the sorry reality of the brutal game of property, the builder is protecting his interests ( by chosing to build there, both u and i would probably do the same and i think u know it, if we were in his position)
and u are protecting ur interests in your perceived devaluation of your properties in amenity and/or value and i would do the same if i was in your position.

at the end of the day i think the law will prevail and tbh its on his side. thats just the sad and brutal world for u, people protect their interests even when it prejuduces others, sad but true.

best u can do is do all u can and hire a planning consultant as others have mentioned and create a report and submit it on behalf of the residents association . if it doesnt work then at least u gave it ur best shot.

Sponge Bob

lomb wrote:

to be very frank with u, u and the residents dont really have a leg to stand on. these are the facts,

spoken like a true greedy irish builder .

The residents bought into an estate with green areas, that is contractual and is part of the original contract of sale (at the then density) .

Even if the local authoority gives planing, the deliberations of the planners will help the residents take breach of contract against the builder for destroying the green areas . They may also have a case against the local authority for allowing this to happen by not taking in charge by now...or not ensuring completion so they could take in charge.

Sleipnir

The law only has so much to do with planning. e.g. There were plans to build a very tall building in Donneybrook which would have been legal but was rejected.
Recently, some blocks of apartments were rejected becuase they were too small. Perfectly legal, just too cupboardy (Little Britain fans??!!)

If everyone of the 491 houses object, collect photographs of the work he has not completed etc etc, lodge you complaints and if the CC approve it then you'll have to lodge an objection with An Bord Planala.

Or, you could just move house which would probably work out cheaper.

MorningStar

Sponge Bob wrote:

The residents bought into an estate with green areas, that is contractual and is part of the original contract of sale (at the then density) .

I think you are wrong there. All extra amenities are proposed and not part of the contracts normally. I doubt it is on the contracts. THey may expect it but it is very unusual to here of them included in the sale.

Even with everybody complaining it may mean nothing. Density pressure is huge overriding most things especially NIMBYs.

lomb

Sleipnir wrote:

The law only has so much to do with planning.

that is true to some extent where a proposal is on knife edge, then peoples objections are taken into account.
that casr of a tall tower and small apartments, was no doubt to do with visual ammenity and building requirements somewhere hidden in the development plan.
i think in chipboards case though there isnt much to complain on. hes building houses not a tower or small apartments, although no doubt objections are good, my advice is take it all the way to bord pleanala, see what happens. b interesting to see!

Sponge Bob

lomb wrote:

i think in chipboards case though there isnt much to complain on. hes building houses not a tower or small apartments, although no doubt objections are good, my advice is take it all the way to bord pleanala, see what happens. b interesting to see!

Chipboard may have the brochure where the green areas were indicated and thats enough for breach of contract if all the other residents who bought in originally join in.

They all bought off the plans becuase there was green area indicated. Had there not been they would not have bought. I am sure they all remember that clearly

Then there was the 'end of row non-overlooked ' premium paid by some which is a top up action in their case .

Had the builder never indicated 'proposed' green areas in any documentation that would be difficult to prove but I suspect the documentation is around if the estate is that big.

Also go to the original estate agents and get a copy of their file, make sure a few of ye go and get a solicitor to ensure that file is not destroyed 'by accident' at any stage if it exists. Confirm the data in the planning office from 5 years ago is consistent with the brochures .

MorningStar

Sponge Bob wrote:

Chipboard may have the brochure where the green areas were indicated and thats enough for breach of contract if all the other residents who bought in originally join in.

Sorry Bob you really don't know what you are talking about on this. A brochure is no where near a legal document. It's been here a few times about people complaining about layout changes etc... and basically brochures are worth nothing.

Sponge Bob wrote:

They all bought off the plans becuase there was green area indicated. Had there not been they would not have bought. I am sure they all remember that clearly

THey may have bought thinking that the green areas were definite but there is no legal reason for that at all.

Sponge Bob wrote:

Then there was the 'end of row non-overlooked ' premium paid by some which is a top up action in their case .

All based on the proposed building which at all times was subject to change. No legal ground at all. THe properties were sold at differnt prices and nowhere will you find a legal document saying you won't be overlooked. Even as a sales speal it won't make a differnece.

Sponge Bob wrote:

Had the builder never indicated 'proposed' green areas in any documentation that would be difficult to prove but I suspect the documentation is around if the estate is that big.

Proposed doesn't mean gaurenteed. I understand the average joe thinking these things matter but they don't. The legal documnets are what counts

Sponge Bob wrote:

Also go to the original estate agents and get a copy of their file, make sure a few of ye go and get a solicitor to ensure that file is not destroyed 'by accident' at any stage if it exists. Confirm the data in the planning office from 5 years ago is consistent with the brochures .

Again the estate agent doesn't have any legal documents regarding green spaces. Sorry Bob there are no legal grounds or prescendents here as far I can see. Buyer beware!

lomb

indeed there are no legal grounds, there are so many get out clauses in brochures and legal contracts that the only thing u are buying is whats checked by your solicitor on contract. estate agent brochures mean absolutely nothing.
anyway affected residents can always move, im sure all of them made money, im sure the builder will refund anyone for the cost of their house even the 5 grand dearer ones:D somehow i doubt anyone would take him up on it though:p
in fact its a little known secret that bidding at auction without checking title, grounds, planning etc, can mean u buy something thats got its title under contest, the garden is half whats in the brochure, and theres an enforcement notice against it for demolition because of no planning, and literally once u sign the contract after the bidding ends its urs, like it or not. thats why all these things you have checked preauction which means paying a solicitor a grand or so. for all u know it may be withdrawn on the day for no reason. savage business tbh...

Victor

MorningStar wrote:

Sorry Bob you really don't know what you are talking about on this. A brochure is no where near a legal document. It's been here a few times about people complaining about layout changes etc... and basically brochures are worth nothing.

You could complain to the www.asai.ie

The best way of challenging this is checking the planning file and seeing what was included as green space for the current houses.

MorningStar

Victor wrote:

You could complain to the www.asai.ie

The best way of challenging this is checking the planning file and seeing what was included as green space for the current houses.

I may not be a 100% on this but the broschures are not advertisements but illistrations of a proposed building. They are not really considered advertisements and therfore not bound by advertisement laws. They do tend to have disclosure on them too.

The planning of the past really doesn't make that much difference if they are applying for new plans or changing existing ones. THe new rules mean said greenspaces don't need to be as big.

Imagine you were in the middle of building a car and you had to restrict the engine due to a law. The law is then changed so you can remove the restrictor. Would the law stop you removing the restrictor and/or would you leave it there?

Green spaces are a restrictor to the builder and the governemnt and the people want more houses. Fight as hard as you can but also accept the reality. Considering older estates deal with this kind of thing all the time nd you hear of very few succesful cases I think an new unfinished estate may have less power

Sponge Bob

Sponge Bob wrote:

Confirm the data in the planning office from 5 years ago is consistent with the brochures .

Sigh,Morningstar seems not to have read my entire post , I know what a brochure is.


Confirm the data in the planning office from 5 years ago is consistent with the brochures .

Any legal action is dependent on the planning file,the brochure should depict the same green areas precisely .

What you the buyer was told is in the brochure.

homeOwner

Sponge Bob wrote:

Any legal action is dependent on the planning file,the brochure should depict the same green areas precisely .
What you the buyer was told is in the brochure.

I'm afraid this is not the case spongebob. The brochure does not form any part of the legally binding contract that was signed when they bought the house off the plans. It clearly states this on all property brochures. When you sign the contract, you are given more precise details of what you are buying but not of the surrounding common areas which are subject to change.

JimmySmith

Sponge Bob wrote:

Any legal action is dependent on the planning file,the brochure should depict the same green areas precisely .

Not true at all. in fact you'll find that almost all apartment complexes built in the last 5 years look nothing like the brochures that the first phases were bought from nowadays. Simple fact is developers use this to 'trick' people much the same way as McDonalds food does not look like the picture - ask Michael Douglas

Also i know several people who have tried to stop their green areas being built on, but of course they all failed.

MorningStar

homeOwner wrote:

I'm afraid this is not the case spongebob. The brochure does not form any part of the legally binding contract that was signed when they bought the house off the plans. It clearly states this on all property brochures. .

I don't think Bob is going to change his mind. For some reason he thinks they are very important piece of documentation. It would be interesting to know what he is basing this on.

Sponge Bob

The planning file is the important bit you pl0nks . The estate agents brochure showing the same green areas is further evidence .

Planning Consultants (BrianD and Victor are STILL 100% correct in what they said ages ago ) do not look at brochures but in a breach of contract case they become important if consistent with the planning application for the estate as I said .

Thats because the brochures contain more 'invitation to treat' material which is important in contract law and breach of contract cases . The brochure may state that certain premises were €5k more for a certain guarantee of exclusivity at the end of a terrace , the planning file will say no such thing .

If the planning file is different from the brochure then the planning file is definitive innit but if they are consistent in terms of layout then the brochure is IMPORTANT IF READ IN CONJUNCTION with the planning file and used as evidence .

The biggest problem is that planners do not give a sh1t about people or communities and that is why I find myself endorsing BrianD and Victors suggestion wholeheartedly again while also advising Chipboard to prepare additional lines of attack outside the dysfunctional planning system in order to deal with this greedy developer.

homeOwner

Sponge Bob wrote:

The planning file is the important bit you pl0nks

Very mature. If all else fails resort to insults. Your post makes no sense and writing in CAPS does not make it anymore understandable.

To say that a brochure which forms no part of a legal contract is taken into consideration in a breach of contract case is nonsense.