ABP rejecting plans inappropriately

T

T McGibney

Registered User
Messages
7,393
There's a major problem in relation to housing - everyone wants more housing in principle, but as soon as any plans are unveiled for new development, they object to them.

My local paper this week reported that a development of 26 houses beside a school and swimming pool was rejected by An Bórd Pleanala after a petition was signed by 200 neighbouring residents, amid concerns about badgers and squirrels. An Bórd Pleanala attacked the plans as ""unimaginative and substandard in its form” by failing to have regard to the site's locational context."

They didn't mention that Tesco already have planning permission for a new superstore a short distance away.

Clown world stuff.
 
Last edited:
T McGibney said:
An Bórd Pleanala attacked the plans as ""unimaginative and substandard in its form” by failing to have regard to the site's locational context."
Click to expand...

We have a lot of substandard housing in Ireland. ABP is right to reject such plans. From your description of it, it would seem that if they come back with a more imaginative and standard plan, they will get approved. Or did ABP say "We will not allow any development on this site because of the danger to badgers and squirrels".

Brendan
 
Hi Brendan

The report is here https://www.anglocelt.ie/2023/09/21/galetech-lose-housing-appeal/

I find it depressing that 200 residents' signatures were deemed relevant. That and the involvement of an environmental charity. This is not virgin territory, it's probably at most 700m from the centre of Cavan town.
 
Seems like ABP made the right decision

1. The majority of the appeal site is zoned for “Amenity and Open Space”
purposes within the Cavan County Development Plan, incorporating a Local
Area Plan for Cavan Town, 2022-2028 with an objective to “Protect and
provide for amenity and open space areas”. The eastern portion of the site is
zoned for Existing Residential purposes with an objective to “Protect and
enhance the amenity of developed residential communities”.

The proposed development seeks to provide a residential development on
lands primarily zoned for “Amenity and Open Space” purposes within the
Cavan County Development Plan, incorporating a Local Area Plan for Cavan
Town, 2022-2028. Residential is listed as a use which is not permitted on
lands zoned for “Amenity and Open Space” purposes. The development
would contravene materially the zoning objectives pertaining to the majority of
the site as set out within the Cavan County Development Plan, incorporating a
Local Area Plan for Cavan Town, 2022-2028 and would be contrary to the
requirements of Strategic aim (ii) of the Development Plan Core Strategy
which seeks to promote development that is reflective of the scale of the Core
Strategy and zoning maps.
The development is therefore considered contrary to the provisions of the
Cavan County Development Plan 2022-2028 and the proper planning and
sustainable development of the area.
 
If a developer buys land whose zoning excludes residential development, they should not be surprised when ABP refuses permission.

I am told that the local authorities are just approving most planning applications on the grounds that they are going to ABP anyway, so let them make the decision.

Brendan
 
Brendan Burgess said:
If a developer buys land whose zoning excludes residential development, they should not be surprised when ABP refuses permission.
Click to expand...

That's all fine and dandy.

But if the zoning excludes residential development then why didn't An Bórd Pleanala simply give that as the reason for refusal, rather than adding the subjective rider that it considered the plans to be "unimaginative and substandard in its form by failing to have regard to the site's locational context? The Bórd should stick to the legislation and forget about the colour supplement.
 
Marsupial

I read the decision. And it is clear that the substantial reason is zoning and development plan.

They added the following note, which seems reasonable, but which also seems unnecessary.

 
I don't believe ABP are constrained by local authority zoning, and so that in itself is insufficient

Also, the plans for the development were submitted prior to the approval of the development plan that re-zoned the land. So while it might seem a little daft the zoning in place at the time of submission was the one relevant to the application. It seems unlikely that the developer would be unaware of a pending change in zoning...
 
These ABP decisions can be confusing.

AFAIK they have to be exhaustive (including references to otters and geese and architectural style) so that someone cannot claim in the High Court that one factor was overlooked.

The media reports tend to highlight things that may appear trivial.
 
Brendan Burgess said:
I am told that the local authorities are just approving most planning applications on the grounds that they are going to ABP anyway, so let them make the decision.
Click to expand...
This has been my recent experience with my own local authority.

I had cause to object to a neighbour’s proposed extension and conversion of a shed to a granny flat. My objections were based on the existence of Japanese Knotweed on the site - three metres away from my garden, serious drainage and percolation issues (which would see foul effluent from the proposed septic tank system seeping into my garden), and the existence of an existing septic tank which had been recently installed with no planning permission.

My objections were ignored completely and full permission granted by the authority.

It looked to me as if the local authority knew that an appeal to ABP was likely, so put no thought into the decision having regard to the application or objections.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register