Think they also won the tender for some big works up around Ennis. Wasn’t there some controversy in the Dáil about the work conditions and some TD making a stupid kebab eating reference
The problem is these lads a generally exploited by these companies.If anyone can exploit foreign labour it’s definitely Paddy.
1 Like
That seems so recent and yet also feels like a lifetime ago. 2005.
Life is what happens while you’re busy making other plans etc.
ooooooffffffffffffftttttttttttttttt
I can’t recall if it was after a successful or unsuccessful election bid, but I remember his Aunty Mary O’Rourke thanking her campaign team for “working like blacks”. It was probably around 2008.
1 Like
That was shocking!
I was working too hard at the time it happened to fully take in its significance.
Neighbours in a salubrious southside Dublin suburb demanded €225,000 each to not object to planning permission for a housing development.
The written request has been referred to gardaí after the property developer reported a potential fraud.
It lifts the lid on the practice of “go away money” payments for dropping objections to planning in the housing crisis.
The homeowners all work in highly reputable positions, including a senior executive in a prestigious professional services firm, the director of an international company and a member of a state board.
No payment was made by the developer, and the housing is still caught up in the development process. The residents did not lodge legal objections. Houses in the area regularly sell in the €1m-plus price range.
Property industry figures say if compensation has to be paid to every resident who claims their house is being devalued, the cost of housing will increase even further.
The small group of residents met with the developers as the housing was going through the planning process. During the meeting, they set out their requirements.
Residents demanded an €125,000 “up-front payment” plus either a substantial boundary divide or another €50,000 and changes to the part of the development or another €50,000. The final tally per house was €225,000.
The group also proposed to bring an offer to other residents along the road, but this would not be for cash, merely for boundary changes. In effect, their own neighbours would not be getting the same benefit.
The residents’ list of demands were to not take a legal challenge against the development and to not support any other objection “whether by way of financial contribution, provision of information or otherwise”.
The small group of residents met with the developers as the housing was going through the planning process. During the meeting, they set out their requirements.
In the letter seen by Independent.ie, the small group of residents wanted a signed agreement from the developers providing “€125k per house after tax (tax position to be clarified so that a gross figure can be included in the agreement) to be paid up front upon us signing the aforementioned agreements”.
A stone wall “precise height and stone to be clarified” and changes to the boundary between the existing houses and the site for the new housing and landscaping “type of trees to be clarified/agreed with input from both sides” was also included.
“If you cannot give this… then we would accept (€50k after tax) to each house on top of the payment referred to … above.”
The residents also sought changes to part of the development near their houses or a second option along with “€50k (after tax) to each house on top of the payment referred to…above”.
The agreement would be confidential: “There will be no disclosure from any party of any of the provisions of this agreement.”
A deal concerning landscaping and boundaries was to be brought to other neighbours – without any cash payment.
“We would also agree to put an offer from you to [other residents]. For such an offer to significantly reduce any residual risk of support for [an objection], we think this offer would need to include […] at the very minimum, but obviously the more you can give here, the more any such risk reduces.”
The residents gave the developers 24 hours to consider the offer.
“This timing is very important here and we would need to work together to sign the relevant agreements … if the above proposal is going to be workable.”
The garda fraud squad has received the correspondence from the developers, alleging criminality. “In relation to your query I can advise the Garda National Economic Crime Bureau continues to assess a complaint received,” the garda press office said.
The complaint to gardaí seemed to have been prompted by the demands being made so blatantly and the stage of the process at which it happened
The written list of demands was sent from an email address of one of the leading professional services firms in Dublin.
Some residents who made the demand were contacted by the Irish Independent. The lead home-owner, who sent the email, said on the phone: “I had no involvement in that issue.”
When it was put to them that they sent the correspondence outlining the demand, the response was: “No comment.” This individual has not replied to further queries.
A second resident was approached at their home and replied: “Who are you? Sorry. I don’t talk to people. Thank you.” They then went back into their house and closed the door.
Another resident was not at home and did not respond to queries.
The developers were contacted, but “will not be providing any comment”.
Construction industry sources say there is a growing pattern of developments being objected to and some parties wanting payment.
Contributions towards the development of community facilities and amenities are seen as normal and part of the process to show there is a broader benefit.
However, the complaint to gardaí seemed to have been prompted by the demands being made so blatantly and the stage of the process at which it happened.
“This is unique,” a source said.
Residents request payments to compensate them for the reduction in the value of their property as a result of the houses being built.
Garda sources said there had been complaints about payments made being involved in the planning process, but there can often be nothing criminal about them.
“If your neighbour is building an extension and another neighbour objects, a payment might be made,” a source said. “Ethically, it’s question-able, but not necessarily illegal.”
A legal expert who examined this case for Independent.ie suggested there could be a breach of the law concerning conspiracy to defraud.
The barrister pointed to the active and passive corruption under Section 5 of the Criminal Justice (Corruption Offences) Act 2018.
“Active and passive corruption involves: a person who corruptly requests a gift, consideration or advantage as an inducement to, or reward for, or otherwise on account of, any person doing an act in relation to his or her office, employment, position or business shall be guilty of an offence,” the lawyer said.
1 Like
It is funny when the latest “solution” will drive down supply.
This week the LDA finally got planning permission for a watered down version of their plan for Dundrum. “Local residents” concerns heard for years and still not happy.
They’ll now move on to trying to build the thing. “Public tenders” will ensure it is significantly more expensive than what a private developer can build.
Maybe builders can build apartments and houses for people who will buy them. The Government guarantee to buy them if they don’t sell therefore taking the risk away.
The policy you are promoting will ensure more stock will leave the market. Owner occupied stock has worse utilisation than renter stock.
This will therefore require us to build even more, all at a time when it is a struggle to plan and resource 50k a year (which needs to be the target based on demographics).
This is yet more tinkering around the edges, designed for quick vote wins rather than doing something substantive.
That’s a mental story
Be great if they’re convicted.
4 Likes
Was chatting to a developer during week. He said that the civil service won’t request a derogation from EU on procurement rules to allow government directly build houses more quickly. Procurement delays everything. He said Building is actually the quickest part of the whole process - it’s the planning and procurement that adds years.
The use of housing associations and government financing them is to side step procurement rules.
2 Likes
That is correct. We are seeing a large amount of work with cooperative housing and others as they are taking on existing or near-built blocks which need retrofit.
1 Like
Not a fuckin hope,they are no doubt FGers
Well then thats one for things i learned today. Smart move. I will need to reassess my position on social housing and the gubbermint sitting on thier hands.
This lad seems to be some bucko.
It would be great if someone broke his legs.
South Dublin planning saga: Lawyer leaves top firm over €225k demand
3 Likes