What is stated to be the "detailed response" of July 16th by Dublin City Council to the Minister for Environment Heritage and Local Government's Planning Review is neither detailed nor a response, but a systemic evasion of the facts.

 

Attempting to play down the significance of the 23 cases under investigation against the 18,000 mainly small domestic applications determined by the Council, is disingenuous in the extreme. The 23 cases raised by An Taisce represent most of the major applications from 2006 to 2009 in the city centre including the O'Connell Street Architectural Conservation Area, the Quays, Smithfield, Temple Bar and Thomas Street, as well as Ballsbridge, affecting major streetscapes and protected structures.

 

It is plainly false of Dublin City Council to state that while 15 of the cases resulted in the Council permission being overturned that "the remaining eight were upheld" . The facts are that, in the 7 of the 23 cases, the Board either requested the substantial submission of revised plans including removal of high-rise elements at the Carlton O'Connell Street site, the Arnotts development and the Ballsbridge Veterinary College site, or attached conditions requiring substantial revisions including removal of upper floors. 

 

The greatest evasion in the response is that in all of the schemes refused or significantly reduced in scale by An Bord Pleanala the key issue was the failure of the Council to comply with its own Development Plan, including provisions for Architectural Conservation Areas, Conservation Areas and Residential Conservation Areas, and the protection of the character and amenity of the city generally, or impact on protected structures.  

 

The response to Question 4 on the non-application by the Council of its own Development Plan provides no case analysis of the relevant decisions.  No rebuttal is made to the determinations by An Bord Pleanala that the decisions by the Council contravened the Development Plan or required substantial revisions to meet Development Plan standards.

 

In the case of the Carlton development the Council response does not deny that it encouraged the applicant to include an "iconic" higher feature in the middle of the scheme. While the original 13 storey "ski slope" block was reduced in scale to 9 storeys in the Council's decision, An Bord Pleanala ruled that a higher feature was entirely inappropriate because of Development Plan policies and required that it be omitted in the revised scheme requested and then approved by the Board.

 

In the case of the two Harcourt Terrace Garda Station applications, while the schemes as rightly stated were different, the  issue not addressed by the Council was the height concern which led to the refusal of the first application. The permission on the second application required An Bord Pleanala to reduce the height and bulk.  The same consideration applied to the two successive schemes on School Street (behind Thomas Street) which led to a second refusal by the board. These cases show that the Council was disregarding the status of An Bord Pleanala as national appellate body, in considering new applications on sites where development had previously been refused by the Board.

 

The 23 cases raised by An Taisce may be summarised as follows (Board reference numbers are provided):

 

 

226444 - 9 storey block on west side of Smithfield beside Luas line refused on grounds of excessive scale

 

230716 - Replacement of the  6 storey former Motor Tax Office behind the Four Courts with 11 storey block refused on grounds of impact on area

 

229147 - Floating pontoon and barge at Ormond Quay Lower between Halfpenny and Millennium Bridges refused on grounds of impact on Conservation Area.

 

221587 - Commercial development of up to 9 stories on Hickeys fabrics site, Parkgate St., refused on grounds of impact on Conservation Area and protected structures

 

225560 - The first permissions for the Garda Station site in Harcourt Terrace for 5 to 9 stories opposite 3 to 4 storey protected structures

 

221294 - 15 and 16 storey scheme adjacent to Windmill on north side of Thomas Street; impact on Conservation Area and protected structure

 

217151 - First application for a site on School Street to rear of Thomas Street and near Guinness storehouse for 9 to 12 storey scheme refused on grounds of conflict with Local Area Plan.

 

227953 - Second largely similar scheme for the School Street site with 11 and 12 storey elements failing to address refusal on first scheme.

 

228245 - 6 storey scheme on Ushers Island  (Liffey Quays ) rising to 8 storey to Island Street reduced by Council from original 12 storey scheme. Board overturned on design and residential amenity grounds

 

218778 - The replacement of the 5 storey McConnell House block on Charlemont place on the Grant Canal near Harcourt terrace with an 8 storey block

 

228512 - While omitting the tower block the acceptance of the Sean Dunne scheme with 15 story blocks and canyon like spaces entirely rejected by the Board

 

233611 - Topaz garage site corner of Donnybrook Road and Boookvale Road, D4, 

 

231466 - demolition of 3 storey building at 10-12 Lansdowne Road for development  of up to six stories

 

231468 - Franklin House, 140-142 Pembroke Road; demolition of 4 storey building with replacement up to 8 storeys. Refused by Board on grounds of impact on Residential Conservation Area.

 

229574 - Redevelopment of Madigan's Public House, 133-135 Morehampton Road, D4 refused on grounds of impact on protected structures

 

 

 

232347 - The skyline roofscape breaking features of the Carlton development removed in revised application sought by Board

 

224640 - The development of blocks rising to 16 stories in the Arnotts development behind the GPO, which were removed in order to protect the scale of the city centre

 

226157 - The rebuilding of the 4 storey former ESB office in Fleet Street to 6/8 storeys; An Bord Pleanala decision required elimination of proposed two upper stories

 

221294 - 13 storey block at Bridgefoot Street with overhanging section designed to have  prominent impact up and down western Quays; reduced to seven stories

 

231916 - Demolition of Frawleys department store and 2 adjoining buildings in Thomas Street Conservation Area for 5 storey building; Board approved revised scheme retaining all streetfront buildings

 

228224 - The reduction in the scale of the Ballsbrige Veterinary college site scheme reducing 15 storey central section

 

232740 - The reduction of the second 4 storey residential and 7 storey Harcourt Terrace scheme as a result of substantial revision requested by the Board

 

232964 - Replacement of 4 storey 1980s office block with 9 storey building, significantly reduced in height and footprint

 

The Dublin City Council response does not address the status of its Development Plan as a legal instrument adopted by the elected members, to which the Council must have regard in all planning decisions as well as Ministerial Guidelines.  Instead of accepting that a Development Plan should provide clarity, the Council argues that it is a matter of interpretation and "opinion".

The Dublin City Council  submission then proceeds to question the status of both the Supreme Court in adjudicating on High Court appeal decisions and An Bord Pleanala as the national planning appellate body. This disregards an important 2008 High Court judgement Cicol Ltd V an Bord Pleanala and the 1986 McCarthy J in X J S Investments  Ltd, that development plans should be clear and easily understood  in their content and provisions.

 

The claim made that the Draft Dublin City Development Plan currently before the elected members "seeks to provide clarity in relation to the issue of building heights and density and more certainty than that  contained in the current plan " has no basis. The opposite is the case. The Draft plan undermines the provision of previous plans protecting Dublin's historic low rise character.  It creates a new definition twisting the definition of "low rise" as development of 8 stories across the city centre and introducing a badly worked out provision for higher density development around a number of newly defined 1KM hubs around suburban rail stations.  The plan also adopts an unreasonable designation of "medium rise" as being up to 16 stories in 9 areas outside the city centre.

 

The concluding comments evade the issue in An Taisce's raising of the Dublin City Council's part in the property bubble. Over-zoning of land and overestimation of the quantum of development needed was endemic to Councils across the country is of course a national issue.

.

However in the Dublin City area the Council's loose application of Development Plan provisions on height and scale fuelled excessive development expectations, and hence inflated land values, notably in Dublin 4.  The result is now going to part of the long term national debt burden through NAMA.

 

The culpability for the lax banking and financial regulation of the boom years is now accepted. The parallel legacy of over-zoning nationally will be addressed by the 2009 Planning Bill which is now passing into law, and will result in substantial dezoning. The specific disregard for Development Plan policies in encouraging inflated land speculation, over-scaled development expectations and resulting permissions in the Dublin City Council area, must now be addressed by Dublin City Management.

 

 

Ian Lumley                                      Kevin Duff

Heritage Officer                                Dublin City Association, An Taisce

 

An Taisce

web: www.antaisce.org
ph: 01 7077075
fax: 01 4533255
An Taisce, Tailors' Hall, Back Lane, Dublin 8