COMHAIRLE CONTAE ÁTHA CLIATH THEAS
SOUTH DUBLIN COUNTY COUNCIL
MEETING OF LUCAN AREA COMMITTEE
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
MOTION NO. 2
MOTION: Councillor G. O'Connell
That the Manager bring forward a report detailing how the bond for the Riversdale Estate was dealt with (Item ID 24704 at the September meeting), and in particular to explain what, if any amount, was retained in lieu of the failure of the developer to deliver on Condition No. 9 of the Grant of Planning Permission which stated inter alia:
‘The walls at the rear of the proposed houses numbers 2 to 24 and along the western boundary of the site shall be retained at their existing heights and shall, prior to the construction of any of the houses hereby permitted, be repaired, made good and improved, where necessary, with walling that matches the said walls…..’ and to explain why the Council did not use the bond to address the situation.
Furthermore, this Committee notes that the wall in question was not erected as a boundary wall for the houses that back onto it (as is implied in the Report presented at the September meeting) but is rather a heritage wall that bounds the park and which An Bord Pleanála stipulated had to be preserved. The wall in question is at least as much the responsibility of the County Council as the owners of Waterstown Park as it is of the neighbouring residential properties. Both parties were entitled to have it properly maintained as per the planning condition prior to or at the same time as both the Estate and the Park were taken in charge/into Council ownership.
This Committee recommends that the matter be referred the next full Council meeting with the objective of having the Council carry out without delay the necessary works to the wall that should have been done as set out by An Bord Pleanála on Condition 9 and at no expense to the residents concerned.
REPORT:
Condition no 12 of the planning permission granted on 31st October 1989 by An Bord Pleanála under Register Reference 88A/0666 and PL/6/5/78396 for the construction of houses at Riversdale, Lucan Road, Palmerstown, Co. Dublin stated:
The developer shall lodge with Dublin County Council a cash deposit, a bond of an insurance company, or other security acceptable to the Council to secure the satisfactory completion and maintenance until taken in charge by the Council of roads, footpaths, sewers, watermains, drains, open spaces, street lighting and other services required in connection with the proposed development, coupled with an agreement empowering the Council to apply such security or part thereof for the satisfactory completion or maintenance, as aforesaid, of any part of the said services. The form, amount, and arrangements for lodgement of the security shall; be as agreed upon between the developer and the Council or, in default of an agreement, shall be as determined by An Bord Pleanála.
Reason: to secure the satisfactory completion of services required in connection with the proposed development and to be provided by the developer as part of the proposed development.
In compliance with this condition cash security in the sum of £30,000 (€38,000 approx) was lodged. During 2000 and 2001 all of this money was used to complete works required to bring the services in the development to taking-in-charge standard.
As the wall to which the motion refers was not to be taken in charge it did not come within the terms of the condition requiring the security.
There is now no course of action open to the Council under the terms of the planning permission, or the Planning Acts, in relation to this wall.
As stated in the previous report the wall in question is private property and as such the maintenance and upkeep of the wall is the responsibility of the owners.
Regarding the wall the Parks department has reported: “There are no footpaths or convenient access by the public to the rear of this wall. The wall is the responsibility of the adjoining householders including the consequences arising from their failure to maintain it.”
As previously reported, the Architects Department has inspected the wall and found that its condition did not warrant any action under the Dangerous Structures legislation.