Council ‘failing to use powers’ to deny new planning permissions to the developers of ghost estates

The country’s largest local authority has been asked to explain why it has not used its power to deny new planning permissions to the developers of ghost estates.

An independent member of Cork County Council has highlighted that under Section 35 of the Planning and Development Act 2000, local authorities can deny planning permission to those responsible for previous developments if it is satisfied that “a person or company… is not in compliance with the previous permission, or with a condition to which the previous permission is subject”.

Speaking at yesterday’s meeting of the council, councillor Marcia D’Alton queried why the local authority has never exercised its power under the act.

She highlighted a case of the developer of an unnamed and unfinished housing estate in a Cork town. While the developer went into receivership with debts transferred to Nama, a family member operating under a different company name, but acting from the same registered address, has recently applied for planning permission to build housing on a field nearby.

“It is not acceptable to burden society through irresponsible actions... those who do are held to account by laws designed for that purpose,” she said.

“Section 35 allows all sorts of permutations to a basic aim; to hold to account developers who have left a burden on society. To the best of my knowledge it has never once been used by any local authority in the country.”

While the motion found cross-party support, deputy county manager Declan Daly said enacting the provision would be difficult in terms of identifying companies that have changed name, and the fact that any challenge to a council’s decision to deny permission under Section 35 could result in costly legal action.

“Any response from the developer would be a challenge to the High Court,” he said.

“A local authority or planning authority would want to be very confident of where it was going and its likelihood of success in order to incur the costs associated with a High Court case.

“The planning authority has to prove that substantial unauthorised development has taken place, or a conviction for that particular company or person has been served under the planning act,” he said.

He added that Section 35 makes no specific reference to cases where developers seek extension of duration of planning permission, and is unclear as to whether the provision allows local authorities to cite instances of unsatisfactory developments that took place in areas under the remit of other councils.

“The costs can be substantial, there can be different companies involved and it is our view that it is cumbersome at the moment, and that is reflected in the fact that not only Cork County Council, but no one else has used it thus far,” he said.

Ms D’Alton has asked the council executive to identify its difficulties in using Section 35 and to relay these to the Government.