Ban developers of ghost estates from seeking future planning permission?

locke

Well-known member
Joined
May 2, 2007
Messages
3,238
A fine Gael Senator has proposed that property developers responsible for unfinished housing estates be given lifetime bans from seeking planning permission. Seanad Community Spokesperson, Cork’s Senator Jerry Buttimer, welcomed the National Housing Development Survey Report in the Seanad this week saying it marks the first step on the long road of dealing with ghost estates and associated planning decisions, which have blighted the Irish landscape.

He also proposed a plan to deal with errant developers. He said: “First things first, we must set about ensuring that those developers who are responsible for unfinished estate should never again be given planning permission and are never again allowed to re-register their old company. It’s time to get tough.
Full story

At first glance, it doesn't seem the worst of ideas, but I'd question how easy it would be to implement. While it's easy to look at developers as people, they are often hiding behind companies. So how do you implement? If a person is a director of a company that left behind a ghost estate then any company of which they are a director in future may not apply for planning permission? But does that not leave loopholes in terms of registering things in their spouse's name? Change director to employee and there would be no development ever again in Ireland.
 


D

Deleted member 17573

So, if a developer builds an estate - and this might only be a handful of houses - that turns out to be a bad investment decision, and even if he can sustain the loss incurred himself without any support from the taxpayer, he should be excluded from the business for life? Another FG howler that wasn´t thought out.:roll:
 

Barnacle

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 15, 2009
Messages
854
I agree, it would be very hard to implement as there are many ways around it but rules defiantly need tightening up. There already is a provision in the Planning Act where planning can be refused because previous planning granted was not adhered to.

However, at the very least they should insist that all future Bonds are in the form of hard cash upfront as opposed to Insurance Bonds. To many builders have just walked away and when the residents try to enforce to access the bond, they find out that it is not worth the paper it is written on.
 

alonso

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 17, 2006
Messages
2,550
The good Senator would be better advised rooting out the Fine Gael COuncillors who pushed all these rezonings through and those that are still seeking further rezonings.

We will need more houses in the medium-long term. There is no point whatsoever in banning developers in a situation where they fully intended to finish the jobs but went bust.
 

Sync

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
29,614
God no. Practically it's not possible for the reasons you've outlined regarding changes in directors/company names etc.

But if I did my planning and was a responsible new builder in 2008, why should I be banned for life because my new houses aren't selling?

It's so woolly that all you'd see is an FF CC not letting FG linked builders get planning permission, FG CC's not letting FF builders get them etc etc. It's not workable.
 

Squire Allworthy

Well-known member
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
1,404
Utter madness. Do you think they intended to leave estates unfinished?

Better policy would be to tighten up on the financial sector and perhaps follow up on the individuals behind a few questionable practices.
 

onetimeonly

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 28, 2010
Messages
696
The good Senator would be better advised rooting out the Fine Gael COuncillors who pushed all these rezonings through and those that are still seeking further rezonings...
Extend this to all parties and you've got yourself a plan. I'd love to see the breakdown of which way councillors (in all parties) voted on the questions of rezoning and/or okaying development plans. Would anybody like to do all the research to save me the bother?
:)
 

Dunlin3

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 31, 2009
Messages
3,174
How about firing the planners and elected officials who issued the planning permissions first of all. That would be the place to start.
 

Pauli

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 22, 2006
Messages
1,181
Of course they should get lifetime bans. But why stop there? Tighten the planning rules so that a developer must first obtain a licence to operate. Councils must impose a duty on the developer to pay for the infrastructural costs of building houses and apartments. That means they must pay for the roads, pavements, water connections, electricity connections, sewage disposal infrastructure, telephony and WiFi, . Failure to do this and it is bye bye licence. Make operating without a licence a criminal offence subject to a minimum 5 year mandatory custodial sentence.

And if they don't like it, sod them.
 

Nonsence & lies

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 13, 2010
Messages
504
Not with our county councillors on the job. Look at what these pathetic jokes allowed to happen when times were good. Threatening leagal action for unfinished footpaths etc on one hand, then handing out further planning and worse council contracts on the other.
 

locke

Well-known member
Joined
May 2, 2007
Messages
3,238
So, if a developer builds an estate - and this might only be a handful of houses - that turns out to be a bad investment decision, and even if he can sustain the loss incurred himself without any support from the taxpayer, he should be excluded from the business for life? Another FG howler that wasn´t thought out.:roll:
I used the headline from the newspaper article, although reading it, it would seem that he referred to unfinished estates rather than unoccupied ones. I guess the premise would be that if you were in a position to start developing new estates, you're in a position to finish the old ones, so you should do that first.

I don't think it's the worst proposal in the world, but I don't think it could be implemented in practice.
 

Watcher2

Well-known member
Joined
May 2, 2010
Messages
34,586
Full story

At first glance, it doesn't seem the worst of ideas, but I'd question how easy it would be to implement. While it's easy to look at developers as people, they are often hiding behind companies. So how do you implement? If a person is a director of a company that left behind a ghost estate then any company of which they are a director in future may not apply for planning permission? But does that not leave loopholes in terms of registering things in their spouse's name? Change director to employee and there would be no development ever again in Ireland.
A better idea would be to ban all those who do not pay off all their debts in full, had to have their debts written down etc. They shouold be banned from ever engaging in the construction industry again, unless only as a mere bricky.
 

DaveMc

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 31, 2009
Messages
852
So, if a developer builds an estate - and this might only be a handful of houses - that turns out to be a bad investment decision, and even if he can sustain the loss incurred himself without any support from the taxpayer, he should be excluded from the business for life? Another FG howler that wasn´t thought out.:roll:
FG howler from a Howler of a Senator.
Next time the Senate is on TV watch out for that guy; no matter where the camera is pointing you will see and hear him in the background (he's not called 'here here Jerry for nothing)

Wonder if he will bring up the rezonings and planning permissions that went on when he was a member of Cork Council? (before he handed his seat to his brother)

Whats the differance between FF and FG?
You get a better class of shyster in FG.
 
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
22,622
This the Jerry Buttimer who made a complete NIL declaration in register of members interests, no occupational income from being a member of Seanad etc ?
 


New Threads

Most Replies

Top