COMHAIRLE CONTAE ÁTHA CLIATH THEAS
SOUTH DUBLIN COUNTY COUNCIL
MEETING OF LUCAN AREA COMMITTEE
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
MOTION NO. 11
MOTION: Councillor G. O'Connell
As a follow up to my previous motions and questions on the matter, with reference to the:- Planning permission granted on 31st October 1989 by An Bord Pleanála under Register Reference 88A/666 and PL/6/5/78396 for the construction of 91 houses at Riversdale, Lucan Road, Palmerstown, Co. Dublin.
Which included at Condition No. 9 of the Grant of Planning Permission 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..
The above condition relates to several boundary walls of various dwellings constructed on the lands.
In 1999 the Council issued High Court proceedings under Section 27 of the Local Government (Planning & Development) Act 1976 against Caslan Developments in respect of the outstanding works to be carried out in order to bring the estate up to taking in charge standards. The proceedings included the non-compliance with Condition No 9.
An adjournment of the case was sought by the developer and this was agreed to by the Council in order to allow negotiations to be carried out. After several further adjournments, the case was adjourned generally with liberty to re-enter in February 2000.
A recent report on foot of one of my motions stated "having regard to the length of time that has elapsed in this matter, enforcement under Planning legislation is no longer possible".
That the Manager please provide answers to the following three questions:
- Why was the relevant planning condition not enforced as set out in the planning permission?
- On whose behalf, or why, did the Council bring legal proceedings?
- Why did the Council not pursue the matter through the Court, why was the case withdrawn and when withdrawn why was it not re-entered within the statutory period?
REPORT:
The wall in question is private property and as such the maintenance and upkeep of the wall is the responsibility of each individual homeowner.
In answer to the three questions posed in the Motion, the following is the position;
That the Manager please provide answers to the following three questions;
1.Why was the relevant planning condition not enforced as set out in the planning permission?
As previously reported, enforcement action was taken in relation to compliance with Condition 9 of the Planning Permission Granted. However, the legal proceedings taken on foot of this enforcement action were adjourned with liberty to re-enter by the Judge hearing the case in February 2000.
2. On whose behalf, or why, did the Council bring legal proceedings?
Enforcement action and any consequent legal proceedings are always taken in the interests of proper planning ans sustainable development which is in the interest of the common good.
3. Why did the Council not pursue the matter through the Court, why was the case withdrawn and when withdrawn why was it not re-entered within the statutory period?
The matter was not withdrawn, rather it was adjourned with liberty to re-enter by the Judge in February 2000. At this point in time, having regard to the provisions of the Planning and Development Act 2000 (as amended) enforcement under planning legislation is no longer possible.