COMHAIRLE CONTAE ÁTHA CLIATH THEAS
SOUTH DUBLIN COUNTY COUNCIL

MEETING OF TERENURE-RATHFARNHAM AREA COMMITTEE 1

Tuesday, December 04, 2007

HEADED ITEM NO. 10

BUILDERS YARD MUCKROSS AVENUE

As the members are aware the Council’s Planning Department has for some time now been investigating the builder’s yard at Muckross Avenue with a view to ascertaining whether or not it is in breach of the planning laws, and if enforcement action is warranted.

The file on this matter was referred to a barrister, Mr. Damian Keaney, B.L., for advice on the matter.

Mr. Keaney has summarised the situation as follows:

1. A builder’s yard/ depot has been in operation at this location since the 70s, and therefore there is an established use at this location.

2. During the 1980’s, the builders yard was acquired by Chatham Pipelines. Enforcement action for unauthorized change of use was taken by the then Dublin County Council, but was ultimately unsuccessful as An Bord Pleanala ruled that no material change of use had taken place.

3. In April 2005, the premises were leased by SLM Builders Providers. It is suggested that since then, the premises has been used as builder’s providers, either wholesale or retail. SLM deny that any material change of use has occurred.

Mr. Keaney went on to advise that in order to take an action in a case of this kind, the Council must establish two things;

• Firstly that a change of use has taken place and
• Secondly, that such change of use is material.

In this instance, evidence that any change of use has taken place is scant, amounting to nothing more than a copy of an advertisement from a local newspaper and one receipt.

Nontheless, if the Council is to proceed, substantial evidence that the change of use is material would have to be provided. Mr Keaney has advised that to do this, it would be necessary to demonstrate that the amenity of local residents has been significantly adversely affected by the operation of the yard in recent years. This could best be provided by way of sworn evidence from local residents, testifying to the extent to which matters have worsened since SLM began leasing the premises.

A letter to this effect has issued to the complainants, which also advises that if they feel that they are in a position to provide evidence to assist in substantiating that a material change of use has taken place,the Council would be happy to hear from them with a view to discussing how to proceed.

Unfortunately however, without such evidence the Council cannot proceed any further with this matter, at this time.

Also it should be noted as previously indicated to the members it is not possible to acquire these lands by Compulsory Purchase Order under the Derelict Sites Act as they site is not deemed to be a derelict site within the meaning of the Act.

However, the Council’s Valuer was instructed to commence negotiations with the owners of the site to purchase the land in question. The Council’s Valuer has written on a number of occasions to the owner, but to date no response has been received indicating the owners willingness to dispose of the site to the Council.

The Housing Department has indicated that given the estimated site value as given by the Valuer, and the likely number of homes that could be permitted on the site, that the acquisition of the site for the provision of social/affordable housing is not considered a viable option either by Compulsory Purchase Order or agreed purchase.