Core Planning Reasoning
The recommendation is to direct the Planning Authority to attach Conditions 22 (General Development Contribution) and 23 (Supplementary Rail Contribution) as they were correctly applied, but to remove Condition 24 (Special Development Contribution) because the Planning Authority failed to adequately demonstrate that the specific infrastructure works directly benefited this particular development or constituted exceptional costs not already covered by the general scheme.
Decision Maker's Conclusion
- The General Development Contribution (Condition 22) and the Supplementary Rail Contribution (Condition 23) are correctly calculated and applied in accordance with the terms of the respective adopted schemes.
- The Planning Authority failed to satisfy the requirements of Section 48(2)(c) regarding Condition 24, as they did not prove the proposed works at Cobh Cross were a direct requirement of, or provided a specific benefit to, this development over the wider area.
- The sustainable travel element of the special contribution (Condition 24) lacked transparent apportionment and raised concerns of 'double charging' as such infrastructure is generally covered under the 'Roads' element of the general contribution scheme.
Cited Policies (CDP)
Section 48 of the Planning and Development Act 2000 (as amended)Section 49 of the Planning and Development Act 2000 (as amended)Section 48(2)(c) - Special Development ContributionsCork County Council Development Contribution Scheme 2004 (Revised 2012)Supplementary Development Contribution Scheme – Cobh/Midleton – Blarney Suburban Rail ProjectDevelopment Contributions, Guidelines for Planning Authorities (2013)
Decision Document Summary
The proposal involves the construction of 13 warehouse and light industrial units totaling 4,335 sqm at Fota Enterprise Park, Carrigtwohill, Co. Cork, on a site currently used for container storage. The appeal is a first-party challenge against three financial conditions (Nos. 22, 23, and 24) totaling over €259,000. The Inspector found that the general levy and the suburban rail project levy were standard applications of adopted policy and should remain. However, the Inspector argued against the...SOURCE PDFOpen Original
Note: If code appears below, the council site is blocking the preview. Please open the original file.