Two pieces in the Irish Times today about zoning and planning enforcement; another a couple of days ago in the Examiner about planning permissions. All three raise some questions with regards to the planning system.
Story 1. The Sisters of Charity are up in arms about Dublin City Council’s rezoning of their 108 acres of land in 18 parcels in the city. It has been classed as Z15, which means that if developed it has to have a greater proportion of open space and affordable housing. They are arguing that the 2011-2017 development plan is ‘diverting private property into public ownership and ‘steralising’ its lands without compensation’. They claim the plan is illegal as ‘applies a restrictive zoning to an arbitary selection of lands’. The IT reports that they want the rezoning quashed, a stay put on sections of the plan affecting their property, and ‘damages for alleged breaches of private property and religious freedom rights under the Constitution and European Convention of Human Rights’. It’s the same rezoning that RTE are challenging.
Development from Google Street View
Story 2: The Examiner reports that Athy Town Council have endorsed an application to build 8 additional properties on an estate where ‘residents have lived for three years with unfinished roads, incomplete public lighting and inadequately secured construction sites’. There were 27 objections to the application, with residents concluding that the “Approval of this application is tantamount to endorsing the dangerous and reckless abandonment of site works.” The senior planner for the council concluded on a site visit that: “Any unfinished areas have been fenced off and the site is kept relatively tidy.” One resident notes: “It’s very frustrating. Since we moved in 2007, nothing has been done. I am still looking out on the shells of three unfinished houses, gardens are not maintained, sections of footpath unfinished, the green area out front is without public lighting. It really has been left very shoddily.” Clearly the residents and the planner agree that the existing site is still unfinished and some houses in the earlier phases are still vacant, which begs the question as to why give an endorsement to the next phase?
One of the shop fronts An Taisce objects to
Story 3. An Taisce has accused Dublin City Council of neglecting planning provisions with respect to unauthorised shop fronts and signage, and of failing to take enforcement proceedings against signage erected without permission or which had been refused permission. In particular, they highlight the state of the main thoroughfares to the south of the Liffey – Westmoreland Street, Dame Street, Parliament Street and South Quays – an area of major civic and architectural importance, and a core area for tourists. They argue that these streets are becoming dominated by low-order shops – mostly fast food and convenience stores – which are competing against each other through garish signage. This signage is transforming the look and feel of an important part of the city.
These three stories relate to three core areas of planning: zoning, permissions, and enforcement. They are three snapshots of a regime that is creaking along under old values and practices, that needs a branch and root review and updating for the twenty first century. All political parties are promoting quite radical reform of a political system that is not fit for purpose. It’s time we had a look at what works and doesn’t work in planning in an era when many planning tools are inappropriate or blunt (for example in relation to addressing the problems of unfinished estates) or have not been used in any kind of effective way in a very long time (e.g. enforcement). And we really do need to move from individualism to utilitarianism as a guiding ethos.
Rob Kitchin
February 8, 2011 at 10:52 pm
Actually, Ireland does have a good planning system. All the elements are there. It is in the practice where the problems arise. Politics plays a key role in that.
In respect of this and earlier posts regarding housing and zoning for example, the Department published a very good guidance document on developing a local housing strategy (2000) after the adoption of Part V of the Planning and Development Acts.
As regards unfinished housing estates, I have thought long and hard about bonds issues, which does need more examination. Bonds are supposed to be the protection against unfinished housing estates in that local authorities should be able to call in the bond and finish the public works (street lighting, open space, services, etc.). Why are local authorities apparently reluctant to do this? Are they not empowered to? I am aware of one case where the bond was transferred to later phases of development BEFORE work was completed on earlier phases; and I do think that the whole issue of privatising what are essentially public services and infrastructure in housing estates (viz a viz management companies) is another contributing factor.
Lastly, what you speak of here is the need for a culture change. A new planning system can’t do that.
February 9, 2011 at 10:58 am
Laurie, the elements of the system might be there, but if they are not working then there is a clearly a problem that needs fixing. Some questions:
Why do we have an enormous number of unfinished estates and vacant offices, retail parks and hotels?
How many houses, extensions, signage, etc have been built without planning permission and/or building control compliance?
Why have planning authorities only been giving due regard to RPGs, not following them?
How many houses and other developments have been built on flood plains in the last ten years?
Why do we have serious problems with ground water quality due to development?
Why have development plans been produced in silos and not in a multi-scalar fashion?
Why do we have way too much land zoned?
Why is the landscape littered with McMansions and inappropriate development?
Why has the NSS been slow to be implemented and undermined by property incentives and decentralisation?
Why do we have 120,000 households on the
housing waiting list?
We could go on.
The planning system does not seem to have been doing its job as effectively as it could – there are issues with zoning, permissions and enforcement. Yes, planners work within the constraints of legislation, the system as it is set up, resources and wider political and social culture. And I want to be clear, my critique is aimed sqaurely at the planning system, not the planners who are trying to operate within it. But clearly there are issues that need redress.
On paper we might have a good planning system, but if in practice the system does not work as it should then changes need to be made. If a more rigid system is needed to change culture – as with say drink driving – then that is what is needed in my view. But without changes we’re going to have the same problems repeating forever more.
February 9, 2011 at 1:05 pm
In relation to the Athy permission – There are provisions in the recently adopted Planning & Development Act 2010 (Section 35) which gives local authorities the power to refuse subsequent permission where an applicant has failed to comply with a previous permission, and where the local authority consider there is a “real and substantial risk” that the new development would not be completed in accordance with the new permission if granted.
While not excusing the local auhtority in this case (i work in the private sector) it would appear that their hands were tied to a certain extent by the fact that the life of the previous permission (normally 5 years) had not yet run out and so claiming failure to comply is not (yet) applicable. Also, following the Section35 procedures inevitably ends up in the High Court which no small local auhtority wants to risk unless they have a watertight case.
Would be intresting to see if there are any specific conditions attached to the new permission restricting commencement of the new development until the original permission is completed – which the local authority could apply if the entire scheme is included in the (red-line) planning area for the second application. It’s a pity the journalist in this case didn’t do a bit more rooting.
An imperfect and deficient planning system and legislature in many ways for sure, but there are ways of ‘working within the system’ to get a better solution for the ‘common good’ if those in control really want it.
As an aside, but related to above – A common change you will see in the 2010 Planning Act (which updates/replaces the 2000 Act) is the replacement of the word “may” with “shall” in relation to certain local authority responsibilities. Signficant. “May” means “its up to ye!” (i.e. local authority autonomy). “Shall” means “do as we say!” (i.e DoEHLG, state, central planning). Section 35 unfortunately uses “may”…..
February 9, 2011 at 1:11 pm
So long as the very meaning of the word ‘planning’ is continuously misconstrued with notions of building permission we will remain a long way off from establishing a planning and development ethos more in tune with a continental European approach that is carried through all sectors of government and at every spatial scale.
In Britain (from where we inherited our planning system) the government is attempting to revolutionise the way people relate to the bigger picture with the ‘localism’ / ‘big society’ agenda. Whilst this to me looks suspiciously like a top-down approach ripe for abuse, I would argue that in Ireland we have an emerging de facto localism throught the sheer desparation felt by the recession.
Perhaps the tory/lib dem jargon should be borrowed/appropriated by politicians here in their reform agenda to harness acknowledgement and acceptance that the role a comprehensive and integrated spatial planning policy will play in getting us out of the current malaise.
I wish more politicians would read this blog!
June 13, 2012 at 11:03 pm
It’s a relief to find someone who can explain tihgns so well
February 10, 2011 at 12:03 pm
[…] recent An Taisce submission to Dublin City Council, mentioned on this site in the last few days, makes for very interesting reading. It is a fascinating and detailed insight […]
February 11, 2011 at 9:03 am
One law for the Sisters of Charity-another for the builders/developers- mates of the rural Gombeen councillors.!
Dodgy re zoning is their “crack cocaine” and they cannot believe we have entered a new era-or, are the current re-zonings being used as “added value” for the NAMA transfers?
February 11, 2011 at 7:40 pm
I couldn’t comprehend how the application uin Athy would be allowed, so I decided to look up the decision before commenting. On inspection it looks like no more than a bit of sensationalist reporting. This is a pity as the actual story is quiet interesting.
This is actually an application to change the existing permission for 6 detached houses on the site to eight semi-detached houses. The construction of these eight houses will involve the demolition of three partially detached houses (out of the original six). This seems to be in fact an attempt by a developer to implement a new strategy to complete the estate given the new economic realities.
In granting the permission the planner included a condition that unfinished areas of footpath must be completed within 3 months of the date the permission is granted, meaning enforcement actions may be taken after this.
While the residents of this estate can take some comfort from the fact that the developer is still around and engaging with the process of finishing the estate, there are still some issues here. The new application now runs for a further 5 years, which means that technically the developer can avoid dealing with the currently unfinished houses for this period. In this case I feel the planners have missed an opportunity here. They could have negotiated a timescale for the demolition of the shells that exist on site and for a design and specification for some temporary works which would lessen the negative effect of the unfinished portion of the estate in the interim. This could have been conditioned to the permission and given the residents certainty as to the fate of the unfinished part of the estate in the near future.
February 15, 2011 at 8:45 pm
Mark, many thanks for the clarification. As you say, it makes sense but perhaps an opportunity missed. I’m still of the view that we need to look at how these kinds of situations arise and how the system might be adjusted. It’ll be interesting to see if the enforcements are implemented if there is non-compliance.