Legal Dispute Over Housing Development in Co Waterford
A housing development consisting of 28 units in Co Waterford is facing potential demolition due to a planning enforcement order issued by the local authority. The High Court has been made aware of this situation, with lawyers representing Cosmo Development Kilmeaden Ltd arguing that the project must be re-evaluated.
The development is being constructed for Waterford City and County Council as social housing. However, the local authority’s enforcement order from May claims that the dwellings are built at an elevation 3m to 4m higher than permitted, classifying the project as unauthorized. Cosmo Development seeks to have this order overturned, stating that it would require the demolition of the houses, extensive excavation, and reconstruction at a lower level.
Understanding Floor Levels and Planning Permissions
Floor levels (FFL) refer to the height of a building’s floor after all flooring materials have been installed. The enforcement order claims that the FFL of the units under construction do not align with the development’s planning permission when measured against a temporary benchmark on the site. In planning applications, applicants typically use either a temporary local benchmark or an Ordnance Survey Ireland (OSI) datum point as a reference for measurements within the proposed development.
Cosmo Development argues that the original planning application, prepared by an architecture firm not involved in the current dispute, failed to include either a temporary local benchmark or an OSI datum point. According to the developer, the temporary benchmark referenced in the council’s enforcement order was introduced “arbitrarily and without any explanation” by the architecture firm in a compliance submission after permission had been granted.
Historical Context and Planning Issues
The planning permission for the development was initially granted in April 2022 to a previous owner of the Kilmeaden site. Cosmo Development claims that the retrospective use of the temporary benchmark amounts to imposing an entirely new level regime after the grant of permission. The developer insists that the planning permission intended for the houses to be built “relative to the existing topography,” rather than “under the existing ground level with extensive excavations required.”
The company states that the enforcement order should be quashed because it is based on a mistaken interpretation of the planning permission. This argument is supported by the fact that the development was meant to be constructed in alignment with the natural landscape.
Judicial Review and Temporary Stay
During the hearing, barrister John Kenny, representing Cosmo Development, emphasized that the project is being built for Waterford City and County Council as social housing. Mr Justice David Holland expressed satisfaction with allowing the developer to proceed with judicial review proceedings against the council.
In addition, the judge granted a temporary stay on the enforcement order, which will remain in effect until the case is revisited later this month. This decision provides some relief to the developer while the legal battle continues.
Ongoing Implications
This case highlights the complexities of planning permissions and the importance of accurate benchmarks in development projects. The outcome could set a precedent for similar disputes in the future. As the legal process unfolds, all parties involved will be closely watching the developments in the court.
