An Bord Pleanála (Jury’s Site), Lansdowne Road, Ballsbridge, Dublin 4 (Ten year permission...

PL 29S.237454 An Bord Pleanála Page 1 of 90

An Bord Pleanála

Inspector’s Report

Development: Demolition of structures on site and construction of a mixed-use development including 568 residential units, hotel, retail units, non-retail service units, restaurants, bars and all associated site works at D4 Hotels (Jury’s Site), Lansdowne Road, Ballsbridge, Dublin 4 (Ten year permission sought).

Planning Application

Planning Authority: Dublin City Council.

Planning Authority Reg. Ref.: 4015/09.

Applicant: Mountbrook Homes.

Type of Application: Permission.

Planning Authority Decision: Grant permission.

Planning Appeal

Appellants: See overleaf

Types of Appeal: First Party against contribution condition, only, and Third Party.

Observers (1) Ringsend Irishtown and Sandymount Environmental Group

(2) Ailesbury Road Residents’ Association.(3) Carmel O’Connor.

Date of Site Inspection: 25th November 2010.

Inspector: Andrew Boyle.


APPELLANTS

First Party:

Mountbrook Homes.

Third Party:

1. James O’ Reilly,2. Conor Keoghan and Fiona Foy-Hollands.3. Frank and Loretto Meagher.4. Anthony Harrison.5. Ballsbridge Wood Management Company.6. Maura Kiernan.7. John McCarthy.8. Ailesbury Park Residents’ Association.9. Jane Lanigan.10. Lansdowne and District Residents’ Association.11. Patrick Kennon.12. Dr. Hugh Staunton.13. Pembroke Road Association.14. An Taisce.15. Paul Walsh.16. The Doyle Collection.17. Simmonscourt Castle Residents’ Association.18. Upper Leeson Street Residents’ Association.19. Dublin South East Green Party.20. Lorraine Hickey and Robert Bastow.21. Dermot Desmond.


1.0 THE SITE

The site is that of the D4 Hotels, formerly Jury’s, the Towers, the Berkeley Court and the Berkeley Apartments. The site takes up the northwestern sector (about 57%) of a triangular block bounded to the northwest by Lansdowne Road, to the east by Shelbourne Road and to the southwest by Pembroke Road. The site is bounded by these roads to the northwest, east and southwest. On its southeast side, it adjoins, at the western end of this boundary, the three and four storey flat roofed 1960’s red brick building of the former UCD Veterinary College, now vacant and boarded up. This is followed, in an easterly direction by a surface car park and finally, in an easterly direction, by the six and seven storey red brick 1970’s office buildings of Shelbourne House.

The site contains three blocks. These are the former Jury’s/Towers Hotel, the former Berkeley Apartments and the former Berkeley Court Hotel. These are now operated as the D4 Hotels and D4 Berkeley Apartments. The former Jury’s/Towers Hotel is located at the corner of Pembroke Road and Lansdowne Road. It consists of an eight storey L-shaped bedroom block extending for a distance of about 90 metres along Lansdowne Road to a position approximately in line with the party boundary between numbers 14 and 16 Lansdowne Road. At its northeastern end, it returns into the site for a distance of about 61 metres. This L-shaped block encloses, to its south, the remainder of the former Jury’s Hotel (now known as the Ballsbridge Inn), a single-storey structure containing the entrance foyer and hotel reception rooms, conference rooms, dining rooms, a small supermarket, “D4 Stores”, etc.

Continuing to the northeast, the D4 Berkeley Apartments are housed in a relatively small five-storey block measuring 24 metres by 16 metres in plan and containing 16 residential units. This is located approximately mid-way between the two hotels and 42 metres back from the boundary with Lansdowne Road.

The former Berkeley Court Hotel, now known as the D4 Berkeley, is located at the corner of Lansdowne Road and Shelbourne Road. Again, its highest, bedroom component is L-shaped in plan, but in this instance, it has a frontageof just 43 metres towards Lansdowne Road. It extends back about 50 metres into the site and this part faces towards Shelbourne Road. The bedroom component is generally seven storeys in height, although there is an eighth storey in a mansard roof extending back a short distance from the Lansdowne Road elevation and facing towards Shelbourne Road. This building is a minimum of 13 metres back from the boundary with Lansdowne Road, opposite numbers 30 and 32, but is generally further back at a distance of 21 metres, opposite numbers 26 and 28. The southeastern corner of the bedroom block is a minimum of 27 metres from the boundary with Shelbourne Road. Similar in principle to the Ballsbridge Inn, the L-shape of the bedroom block encloses the single-storey component housing the remainder of the hotels’ functions, together with a further larger single-storey component which extends to the northeast towards Shelbourne Road.


Apart from very limited areas of landscaping, the hotels and apartment block are surrounded by surface car parking and circulation. The perimeter trees, mainly holm oak, are a remnant of the Trinity College Botanical Gardens which occupied the site prior to the hotels.

The site has a stated area of 2.98 hectares. This includes the public footpaths outside the site on Pembroke Road, Lansdowne Road and Shelbourne Road, as well as part of the junction of Lansdowne Road and Shelbourne Road. The actual site area is 2.78 hectares.

Facing the site, on the opposite side of Lansdowne Road, at the corner of Lansdowne Road and Northumberland Road is the nine-storey pre-cast concrete panel-faced 1970’s office block of Lansdowne House. This office block is followed, in a northeasterly direction, by a three-storey red brick office building currently occupied by the IRFU. This office building, in turn, is followed by numbers 14-44 Lansdowne Road (even numbers). With the exception of numbers 18-24, these are very substantial two-storey over garden level semi-detached Victorian houses. Each block has a four-bayed main front elevation flanked by single-bayed entrances with stone steps leading to the ground floor hall doors. They have double hipped pitched roofs. Numbers 18-24 differ from the remaining houses in making up a terrace of four units. They are three-storey over basement in height. They have the same general architectural treatment as the remaining houses, but the setback entrance bays of the end units are just single-storey over garden level in height. The entrances of the centre units are twinned and are flush with the main elevation. The majority of these houses appear to be in residential use, though numbers 14 and 18 are in office use and number 44, at the corner with Shelbourne Road is a guesthouse – Butler’s Townhouse.

Facing the site, on the opposite side of Shelbourne Road, is Lansdowne Lodge, a detached Victorian house at the corner of Shelbourne Road and Lansdowne Road. This is followed by Shelbourne Avenue and then numbers 1-3 Carlton Villas a terrace of two-storey red brick early 20th century houses. All of these buildings on the opposite side of Shelbourne Road appear to be in residential use.

Facing the site, on the opposite side of Pembroke Road is a 3-storey car showroom and a series of modern office blocks, generally finished in pre-cast concrete and varying in height from three to five storeys. However, one of these office blocks, number 85 Pembroke Road appears to have been derived from a triple-bayed two-storey over garden level detached Victorian house. This has now been widened to five bays and a mansard floor has been added.

2.0 THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

The proposed development was modified, extensively, in response to a request for further information from the planning authority. This revised scheme was re-advertised.


It is proposed to demolish and clear all of the existing structures on the site.

Above ground level, the new building on the site, as modified in the submission of further information to the planning authority, would consist of three separate blocks, although, for the purposes of the application, these are further divided into numbered sub units.

At the southwestern end of the site, fronting towards Pembroke Road, there would be a hotel building of nine storeys. To the rear (northeast) of this hotel building and also a substantial open area at the corner Lansdowne Road and Pembroke Road, there would be a predominantly residential block, up to 15storeys in height. This would take up most of the remainder of the site of the Ballsbridge Inn. This building would be virtually square in plan, measuring 83 metres by 89 metres, but would be angled at its southwestern corner. It would also have two projections of 29 metres and 23 metres towards Lansdowne Road, termed “pavilions”. At ground floor level, with the exception of the shorter of the two projections towards Lansdowne Road, which would be in residential use, this building would be in commercial use with a central anchor retail unit surrounded on the external faces of the building by retail/commercial units, cafés, bars and restaurants. At first floor level and above, the main part of the building would form a quadrangle around a central courtyard amenity area. Overall, this building would be nine storeys in height, but it would have two vertical projections at the southeast and northwest corners of the quadrangle continuing up to fifteen storeys.

The third building would be located on the D4 Berkeley and the D4 BerkeleyApartments site. This would consist of a linear spine building extending over a distance of about 130 metres towards Shelbourne Road. It would continue the building line, along Lansdowne Road, proposed for the main part of the building on the Ballsbridge Inn site. It would return along Shelbourne Road for the full extent of the site. It would also feature three projections towards Lansdowne Road, two of them longer and one of the shorter as proposed for the building on the Ballsbridge Inn site. At ground floor level, the most easterly of the three projections would consist of a crèche and the return along Shelbourne Road would be in office use. Otherwise, this entire building would be in apartment or duplex residential use. Again, it would have a height of nine storeys, with the exception of the return element along Shelbourne Road, which would be six storeys in height, only.

The proposed development would have a double height ground floor level. A standard architectural treatment would be used throughout on the two main buildings. The lower floors would have a heavier darker appearance through the adoption of a stone/reconstituted stone cladding system on the outer skin of the building. The top two floors, described as “penthouse levels”, including those of the two fifteen storey towers, would have a lighter appearance through the adoption of anodised insulated aluminium panels in place of the stone/reconstituted stone on the lower floors. The cladding panels would apply only to the outer skin of the building at the locations of balconies. The inner walls at these locations and the outer walls elsewhere would adopt a selected brick cladding system. The balconies would make up most of the


outward facing façades and these would be bounded by toughened glass balustrades with openable winter garden glazing over. The buildings would thus have a preponderance of void over solid.

The hotel building would have a slightly different treatment to the two main buildings. The intermediate floors from first floor level to eighth floor level would have an approximately equal distribution of solid to void. The external walls (there would be no balcony enclosing external skin) would consist of stone/reconstituted stone vertically lined cladding panels. Instead of the slightly offset glazing pattern on the main buildings, the hotel building would have a much more pronounced checkerboard pattern on the intermediate floor levels. When seen from Pembroke Road, the greater part of the façade of the hotel building would appear to be framed from ground level to roof level within a rectangular frame of stone/reconstituted stone, seemingly in a different colour to the cladding system between the bedroom windows. This frame would include a free-standing triangular column forming the northwestern apex of the building. The restaurant at ninth floor level in the hotel would be located behind a setback fully glazed façade towards Pembroke Road. There would be a full length dining terrace outside this glazed façade and beneath the roof frame. The dining room and terrace would be beneath a feature roof. The southeastern end of the façade of the hotel toward Pembroke Road would be given a different treatment, with the façade brought slightly forward and anodised aluminium louvre/grille screens in front of the bedroom windows. The fire escape stairwell at this end of the building, set well back from the main façade would, again, be walled in a stone/reconstituted stone cladding system. Three lifts plus a goods lift would provide access to the different floor levels within the hotel. One of these lifts would be external at the rear of the building in a semi-circular glazed housing.

The hotel building would have a special treatment at its northwestern end, being sharply angled towards the apex formed by the free-standing triangularframe column. This angle would be picked up by the angle at the southwestern corner of the main building on the Ballsbridge Inn site.

Externally, at ground level, there would be an extensive plaza at the corner of Lansdowne Road and Pembroke Road, designated “Pembroke Plaza”. Most of the existing perimeter trees, largely holm oak, would be retained, as would the perimeter railings along Lansdowne Road. There would be a series of communal open spaces between the mainly residential wings projecting towards this road. At the northeastern corner of the site at the junction of Lansdowne Road and Shelbourne Road there would be a private play space for the crèche. To the side of the buildings at the southeastern boundary of the site a new pedestrian street, designated “New Pembroke Street” would be achieved in combination with the redevelopment of the adjoining Veterinary College site.

An indicative overview of the massing of the proposed development in the context of existing development in the vicinity of the site and the major developments permitted on the adjoining sites may be gained from a model which was submitted with the application and is now available to the Board.


The applicant summarises the key site statistics for the proposed development, in accordance with the planning authority’s decision to grant permission, as follows: -

Residential Units 534 no. unitsResidential Gross (Blocks 1-11) 85,468.60 sq.m.(Residential Net (Blocks 1-11) (71,559.60 sq.m.)Retail/Commercial Uses 4,083.00 sq.m.Restaurant/Cafes/Bars 1,950.40 sq.m.Community Facilities (Crèche/Healthcare)

1,670.50 sq.m.

Hotel (Block 12:151 no. rooms) 6,449.00 sq.m.Gross Floor Space (above ground) 99,621.50 sq.m.

Basement and Ancillary Areas 50,613 sq.m.Hotel Leisure/Spa and Conference 1,688 sq.m.Total Area below ground 52,301 sq.m.Total Area (above and below ground) 151,922.50 sq.m.Site Area (i.e. excluding 0.2 ha of DCC controlled lands)

27,800 sq.m. (2.78 ha/6.86 acres)

The revised scheme, submitted as further information to the planning authority would have contained 535 residential units. In a “Housing Quality Assessment” submitted in response to the planning authority’s request for further information, the applicant summarises the residential accommodation as follows: -

Number of Apartments

Type Number of Apartments1-Bed Apt 592-Bed Apt 2682-Bed Apt with Study 1043-Bed Apt 724-Bed Apt 32Total no. of units 535Total no. of beds 2,262

Average Apartment Sizes

1-Bed 68.1 m2

2-Bed 127.6 m2

3-Bed 192.3 m2

4-Bed 223.5 m2

Average Unit Size = 134.0 square metres


It is proposed to carry out the development in two phases. The first phase of the development would consist of the redevelopment of the D4 Berkeley and D4 Berkeley Apartments site. The second phase would consist of the redevelopment of the Ballsbridge Inn/ Ballsbridge Towers site. A ten year planning permission is sought for the entire development. An Environmental Impact Statement was submitted and advertised with the original lodgement to the planning authority. This was partly modified in response to the planning authority’s request for further information.

The revised scheme is described hereunder, on a floor by floor basis.

2.1 Lower Ground Floor

This floor level would consist of the bottom floors of three wings, described as pavilions, extending towards Lansdowne Road from the main blocks of the proposed development. It would accommodate the bottom floors of duplex units which continue at ground floor level. The main part of the block on the D4 Berkeley site also commences at lower ground floor level with the bottom floors of duplex units which continue above. Finally, returning to face towards Shelbourne Road is the ground floor of a healthcare centre which also continues at the next floor level.

2.2 Ground Floor

Based on the applicant’s figures, at ground floor level, the footprint of the proposed development would take up 45.7% of the site area. At the southwestern end of the site, fronting onto Pembroke Road and set back 12.05 metres therefrom would be a hotel building with a frontage of about 50 metres towards Pembroke Road. At ground floor level, commencing at its southeastern end, the hotel building would contain a fire escape stairs followed by an access ramp to an underground car park, then a retail/commercial unit of 82.6 square metres, then an entrance lobby/reception area and finally a 137 square metres bar/café.

Behind (northeast of) the hotel building and also to its side (northwest) up to the corner of Pembroke Road and Lansdowne Road, there would be an open area, designated “Pembroke Plaza”. This would be largely a fully public open space, but limited areas, close to the hotel building, would also serve as an external seating area associated with the adjoining cafés/restaurants.

The bulk of the building on the site would commence at a distance of about 13 metres back from the hotel building. At the centre of the development, approximately in the position now occupied by the public areas of the Ballsbridge Inn there would be an anchor retail unit of 3,272.2 square metres. This would be located behind a series of frontage uses, commencing at the southeastern end of the building with a café/bar unit of 352 square metres. This would be followed by a bar/restaurant unit of 512.6 square metres. This, in turn, would be followed by the main entrance area and finally by a further café/restaurant unit of 536 square metres. The total frontage towards Pembroke Road would be about 119 metres. To the southeast and northeast of


the anchor retail unit and facing outwards towards an open passage separating the building from its site boundaries, there would be a series of seven retail/ commercial units varying in size from 54 square metres to 213 square metres as well as two café/restaurant units of 168 square metres and 210 square metres.

To the rear (northeast) of the main consolidated part of the development on the Ballsbridge Inn site, a residential block would extend towards Shelbourne Road and return, with the upper floor of the healthcare centre commencing at lower ground floor level to face towards Shelbourne Road. At the southern end of this return there would be a further vehicular access ramp to basementcar parking. The residential units extending out towards Shelbourne Road would be the upper floors of four-bedroom duplex units commencing at lower ground floor level.

To the northwest of both the main block on the Ballsbridge Inn site and the upper floors of the four bedroom duplex units extending towards Shelbourne Road, there would be five wings, described as “pavilions” projecting towards Lansdowne Road. The central wing and the two end wings would project closer to the road than the two intermediate wings, the former coming to within seven metres of the road boundary and the latter to within 14 metres of the road boundary. These wings would contain the café/restaurant of 536 square metres, already noted as fronting onto Pembroke Road, the upper floors of four-bedroom duplex units and in the case of the last, most northeasterly projection, a crèche of 470 square metres.

2.3 First Floor

At first floor level, the hotel building would contain 19 bedrooms. All of these would be double bedrooms, most of them with floor areas of 24.9 square metres, but there would be two larger, near triangular, rooms at the angled northwestern end of the building with floor areas of 32.6 square metres and 34.3 square metres.

The footprint of the two buildings on the Ballsbridge Inn site and that of the D4 Berkeley Apartments and the D4 Berkeley would be identical to that at ground floor level. There would be a central rectangular open space forming the roof of the anchor retail unit, below. This would measure 45 metres by 37 metres (0.166 hectares) clear of private balconies. This floor would otherwise consist of apartments, most of them dual aspect. All of the apartments would have enclosed (glazed) private balconies and some would have two such balconies.

2.4 Second, Third, Fourth and Fifth Floors

These would be repetitions of first floor level, with the exception of the central rectangular courtyard area, over which there would be a void.


2.5 Sixth Floor

This would be a repetition of the second to fifth floor levels, with the exception that the part of the building returning along Shelbourne Road would be roofed with a shared roof garden, so that there would be four less apartments at this floor level.

2.6 Seventh Floor

This would be a repetition of the sixth floor level, with the exception that there would be a void over the roof garden of the building returning along Shelbourne Road and there would be some variations to the wings extending towards Lansdowne Road. These would be reduced slightly in depth and lateral (northeast – southwest) extent.

2.7 Eighth Floor

This would be a repetition of seventh floor level, except that two areas of the wing projecting towards Shelbourne Road would be omitted, to become roof gardens reducing the number of apartments at this floor level.

2.8 Ninth Floor

At this floor level, the entire floor of the hotel would be given over to a dining room. On the two main buildings, there would be just two areas of accommodation, diagonally opposite each other at the northwestern and southeastern corners of the rectangular void above the first floor courtyard. These would be four bedroom apartments within a square footprint measuring 18.65 metres by 18.65 metres. The remainder of this floor level would be given over to shared gardens and roof terraces.

2.9 Tenth Floor

At this floor level the hotel would be roofed. Part of the roof would be a “green” roof, planted with sedum. There would, again, be four bedroom apartments to the northwest and southeast of the void above the central rectangular courtyard.

2.10 Eleventh to Fourteenth Floors

The four bedroom apartments at opposite corners of the void over the courtyard would be repeated at these levels to form towers.

2.11 Fifteenth Floor Level

At this floor level, the four bedroom apartments at opposite corners of the void above the courtyard at first floor level would be roofed over. The roofing would include a terrace surrounded by terrace planting and then by a sedum roof.


2.12 Basement Level -03

This floor level would be excavated beneath the area of the site occupied by the Ballsbridge Inn, only. The finished floor level would be -7.1metres (ground floor being + 4.0 metres). This floor level would contain 245 residential parking spaces.


This floor would be created over almost the entire area of the site. The finished floor level would be -3.9 metres (ground floor being + 4.0 metres). At this level there would be 268 residential parking spaces and 44 hotel parking spaces – 312 car parking spaces in all. There would also be a service zone, including an anchor service area and retail/commercial service areas and a health service area as well as a residents’ secure storage area. These non-parking areas would take up about one-third of the floor space at this level.


This floor level would be at a level of minus 0.9 metres (ground floor being +4.0 metres). At this level there would be 283 residential parking spaces, 86 public parking spaces and 18 reserved staff parking spaces, 387 car parking spaces in all. There would 856 bicycle spaces at this level. Apart from car parking and bicycle parking, a considerable area at this level would be taken up with hotel meeting rooms, a swimming pool, plunge pool and jacuzzi and there would also be a 52.551 metre by 32.947 metre void above the floor below.

The floor to floor height at ground level would be 5 metres. The remaining floor to floor heights would be 3.15 metres, except for the top floor of the hotel which would, again, be 5 metres.

3.0 THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Section 172 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, requires the submission of an Environmental Impact Statement in respect of a development or class of development referred to in regulations under section 176 of the Act. The said regulations are the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001. Schedule 5 of these regulations sets out developments for the purposes of Part 10 of the Act. Part 2 of Schedule 5, at Item 10, specifies under the heading “Infrastructure Projects”.

(b)(i) Construction of more than 500 dwelling units.

and

(iv) Urban development which would involve an area greater than two hectares in the case of a business district, a business district being defined as a district within a city of town in which the predominant land use is retail or


commercial use. While there might be doubt as to whether or not the proposed development would be located in a business district, as so defined, the development, as originally proposed with 568 residential units and as subsequently modified in response to the planning authority’s request for further information to 534 residential units clearly requires the submission of an Environmental Impact Statement. Accordingly, an EIS was submitted with this application.

The EIS is comprehensive. It consists of 19 chapters as follows: -

1. Introduction2. Site Location and Urban Context.3. Description of Proposed Development.4. Examination of Alternatives.5. Human Beings – Population, Employment and Community Aspects.6. Fauna and Flora.7. Soils, Geology and Hydrogeology.8. Water and Hydrology.9. Air Quality.10. Climatic Factors.11. Noise and Vibration. 12. Landscape and Visual Impact.13. Material Assets – Site Services.14. Material Assets – Traffic and Transportation.15. Waste Management.16. Archaeological Heritage.17. Architectural Heritage.18. Inter-Relationship between Factors.19. Difficulties encountered in compiling any specified information.

Apart from the main volume of the Environmental Impact Statement, a separate volume containing a non-technical was submitted with the application. In response to the planning authority’s request for additional information, a revised Chapter 12 on landscape and visual impact was submitted.

Chapter 4 of the EIS on examination of alternatives considers alternative locations, alternative uses and alternative designs. An alternative location is rejected on the basis that given the circumstances of the current application and the presence of the existing structures on site, the scale of the site, the zoning of the lands, its proximity to public transport infrastructure and the lack of similar strategically located sites in Ballsbridge that have frontage onto several road intersections, it was not considered viable to examine alternative locations. The first alternative consisted of the construction of a linear block behind the boundary trees at the northeastern end of Lansdowne Road and similar block set back from the street at the southwestern end of Lansdowne Road. Behind these linear blocks there would have been a series of “pavilion” buildings. There would have been a smaller block in front of the linear block at the southwestern end of Lansdowne Road and between the block and the road. This seems to be the “modest landmark element offset from the vista


along Pembroke Road, set within the public space”. (EIS, page 4-7). This alternative was rejected as it was felt that the linear block closer to Lansdowne Road would have jeopardized the future of the boundary trees. The long blocks would have created a monolithic appearance around the edges of the site. The creation of many smaller courtyards spaces was felt to reduce the potential quality and amenity of these spaces and the opportunity to create unique spaces and places integrating the site characteristics was undeveloped. The modest landmark element set within the public space, while accounting for the vista along Pembroke Road would have been located on the edge of the site on Lansdowne Road at a visually prominent location.

The second alternative layout consisted of a series of four longer “pavilion blocks” projecting towards Lansdowne Road. The development on the Ballsbridge Inn/Ballsbridge Towers part of the site would have consisted of a quadrangle of four blocks surrounding a large rectangular courtyard. While this too was felt to have certain specified advantages, it was rejected on the grounds that the scale of the elongated pavilion buildings would have needed refinement and modulation to allow the creation of a unique character area corresponding to the existing trees and boundary treatment and existing residential character. The creation of character areas within the layout would be undeveloped. The incorporation of other uses (hotel) would have been constrained by the layout. The opportunity to develop further street linkages and enhance permeability was constrained by the location of terrace buildings about the edge of the site and the need to achieve a balance with the protection of residential amenity.

The applicants then opted for the third option which was the present layout, prior to the modifications in response to the planning authority’s request for additional information.

In terms of alternative uses, it seems that a number of different types of development were considered, including a major town centre type development. However, the applicants had regard to the Board’s previous refusal of permission the present scheme evolved. All of the uses now proposed are either “permitted in principle” or “open for consideration” under the Dublin City Development Plan 2005-2011.

In terms of the difficulties encountered in compiling any specified information, Chapter 19 of the EIS is very brief. It notes that in general, no significant difficulties, in terms of technical deficiencies or lack of sources of information were encountered in compiling the specified information contained in the statement. Where appropriate, surveys and references are identified, as are the relevant sub-consultants who prepared specialist reports on the proposed development. References to public sources of information are acknowledged and, in addition, studies commissioned specifically for the purposes of the EIS are also referenced. It is noted that, as the proposed development would not require the use of natural resources that are in short supply, nor would it result in the emission of pollutants that would create a nuisance or hazard, the matters referred to in Schedule 6(2)(c) of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, do not apply.


Overall, I consider that the EIS meets the requirements on content set out in Schedule 6 of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001. As noted previously, revised Chapter 12, specifically described as such has been submitted in response to the planning authority’s request for additional information. Other aspects of the proposal e.g. sunlight and daylight, and wind turbulence would also be affected by the revised submission. These have been fully covered in the documentation submitted as additional information and I consider that this should be accepted, rather than seeking a fully revised EIS.

4.0 THE PLANNING AUTHORITY’S DECISION

On 5th August 2010, Dublin City Council decided to grant permission for this development subject to 28 conditions. Most of these conditions appear to be of standard type, appropriate to a development of the type and scale proposed.

Condition 1 of the planning authority’s decision requires that the development should be carried out in accordance with the documentation lodged originally with the application, as modified by the submission of further information.

Condition 2 of the planning authority’s decision requires, inter alia, that the “permeable public routes”, as illustrated on the lodged plans, should remain open to the public, 24 hours a day.

Condition 10 of the planning authority’s decision relates to drainage. Apart from normal detailed requirements, the condition requires, due to the extent of the proposed basement structure that a suitably qualified Hydrogeologist should be engaged to draw up a report on the effects of the proposed development on groundwater levels and flow patterns in the area. The report should be lodged with the Drainage Division for written approval and agreement on proposed remediation works, if required, prior to commencement of any work on site. The condition notes the existence of a public sewer running adjacent to the site on Pembroke Road. The exact location of this pipeline should be accurately determined on site prior to construction work commencing. Foundation details, in relation to the sewer are to be submitted to the Drainage Division prior to commencement of construction. No load is to be placed on the sewer and any damage to the sewer should be rectified at the developer’s expense.

Condition 16 of the planning authority’s decision requires that all major elements of the hotel, such as lounge and bar areas, dining areas and function areas, should not exceed the area shown on the lodged drawings, except with a prior grant of planning permission. Similarly, the number of bedrooms is not to exceed 151.

Condition 23 of the planning authority’s decision requires that certain items be submitted for the written agreement of the planning authority, prior to commencement of development. These include a tree survey document by a


named surveyor, confirmation of the total number of existing trees and those to be removed and those to be planted, submission of a site plan with all existing trees shown and those to be retained or removed, submission of an intended methodology for retaining the existing trees during construction, clarification of the type/quality of play experience to made available and, in relation to Pembroke Plaza measures for the enhancement of the identity of this space through appropriate landscape architectural design, beyond the basic functional provision of surfaces, lights etc.

Condition 25 of the planning authority’s decision requires that apartment 132, located at ground floor level and lower ground floor level on the pedestrian street should used as a retail unit or café/restaurant.

Although the planning authority’s decision order does not contain reasons or considerations, the conditions are identical to those recommended in the planner’s report. This report includes reasons and considerations. The planner had regard to the provisions of the city development plan, the provisions of the DEGW Report “Managing Intensification and Change: A Strategy for Dublin Building Height” (2000), the provisions of the Sustainable Residential Development in Urban Areas Guidelines for Planning Authorities, the provisions of the Sustainable Urban Housing: Design Standards for New Apartments, the proximity of public transport corridors and the emerging pattern of development in the area. He considered that the proposed development, as amended and subject to compliance with the conditions, would constitute an appropriate mix of land uses at this location, would not seriously injure the amenities of the area or properties in the vicinity and would be acceptable in terms of urban design, height, quantum of development and traffic safety and convenience.

5.0 RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY OF THE SITE AND ADJOINING AND ADJACENT SITES

Under its Reg. Ref. 5051/07, the planning authority issued a split decision in respect of an 188,102 square metres residential, office, retail, embassy and hotel development on the Ballsbridge Inn and Berkeley Court hotel and apartments site. The heights generally ranged from 11 – 13, 15 and 18 storeys, but Block A, was designed as a 37 storey residential landmark building. The planning authority refused permission for Block A and the office building and decided to grant permission for the remainder of the development.

The planning authority’s decision was appealed to the Board under PL 29S.228512. The Board refused permission for the entire development for the following reasons: -

1. “Having regard to the provisions of the Dublin City Development Plan, 2005-2011 and to the existing pattern of development in the area, it is considered that the proposed development, by reason of its scale, massing and height (notwithstanding the high quality of the architectural treatment of the


individual buildings), would constitute gross overdevelopment and over-intensification of use of the site, would be highly obtrusive, would seriously injure the visual amenity of the area and would constitute an inappropriate design response to the existing context of the site, making a radical change in the urban form of the area, at odds with the established character of Ballsbridge. Such change is not supported by any local or strategic objective in the development plan. The proposed development would, therefore, be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

2. Having regard to the established scale and pattern of development in the environs of the site, it is considered that the proposed buildings, by reason of scale, massing, height, proximity to the site boundaries and loss of mature vegetation, would have a significant adverse impact on the streetscape and on the setting and amenity of existing buildings in the vicinity, which include many protected structures. The proposed development would, therefore, seriously injure the amenities of the area and of property in the vicinity and be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

3. The site of the proposed development is designated with the land use zoning objective ‘Z1’ – to protect, provide and improve residential amenities – in the Dublin City Development Plan, 2005-2011. It is considered that the quantum of retail development contained in the proposed development is excessive and would thereby militate against achievement of the residential land use zoning objective and would divert retail investment and activity away from areas designated for such use (including the city centre). The proposed development would, therefore, materially contravene the land use zoning objective of the development plan and be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

4. The site of the proposed development is located in the Ballsbridge area of Dublin on land designated with the zoning objective ‘Z1’ – to protect, provide and improve residential amenities – in the Dublin City Development Plan, 2005-2011. Under the provisions of the development plan, large scale office use is neither permitted nor open for consideration on such lands and it is the policy of the planning authority to facilitate such development in other areas, with appropriate land use zoning designation. It is considered that the proposed large scale office development, including the building described as “embassy”, would militate against this policy, would materially contravene the land use zoning objective of the development plan and be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

5. Having regard to the scale, massing and layout of the proposed buildings, to the prevailing climate and latitude of the Dublin area and to the submissions made in connection with the planning application and the appeal, including the environmental impact statement and associated documentation, the Board is not satisfied that the proposed development would bring about a high quality environment for future occupants, having regard to considerations of


micro-climate, including wind turbulence, availability of daylight and penetration of sunlight. The proposed development would, therefore, be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.”

Under PL29S.228224, on the adjoining site to the south, formerly occupied by the UCD Veterinary College and now vacant, the planning authority’s decision, to grant permission, under its Reg. Ref. 4798/07 for a mixed use development in three blocks, eight storeys, nine storeys and up to fifteen storeys in height, was upheld on appeal. On this adjoining site, immediately adjoining the appeal site, there would be the other half (seven metres) of a new pedestrian street, “New Pembroke Street”, complementing the seven metre width to be provided on the appeal site.

Under PL 29S.236211, the planning authority’s decision, under its Reg. Ref. 448/09, to grant permission on the adjoining site but one to the southeast of the appeal site, now occupied by Hume House, was upheld on appeal. Permission was granted for a six, eight and nine storey office block over three levels of basement. This proposed development would be Y-shaped in plan with the “head” of the Y forking towards Pembroke Road. The highest, nine storey, part of the building would be at the “foot” of the Y, well set back from the road. This 16,080 metre gross floor area office development plus 3,359 square metres gross floor area at Basement Levels -02 and -03 would achieve a plot ratio of 3.88:1, by comparison with a plot ratio of 2.6:1 for the existing Hume House (applicants’ figures). Its site area is about 0.35 hectares.

6.0 DEVELOPMENT PLAN PROVISIONS

6.1 The Dublin City Development Plan, 2011-2017

The site lies within the functional area of Dublin City Council. It is thus affected by the provisions of the Dublin City Development Plan, 2011-2017. This development plan was adopted at a meeting of Dublin City Council on the 24th November 2010. It thus became effective on 22nd December 2010.

Under this development plan, the site is located in an area zoned objective Z1, “To protect, provide and improve residential amenities”. The same zoning objective applies to the rear (Shelbourne Road end) of the former Veterinary College site, while the Hume House site and the front portion of the former Veterinary College site are zoned objective Z6, “To provide for the creation and protection of enterprise and facilitate opportunities for employment creation”. On the opposite side of Lansdowne Road, the land occupied by Lansdowne House and the adjoining three-storey modern office block is zoned objective Z6, while the sites of the Victorian houses are zoned objective Z2, “To protect and/or improve the amenities of residential conservation areas”. The houses themselves are shown to be Protected Structures. The same Z2 zoning objective applies to the lands and houses on the opposite side of Shelbourne Road.


Under the Z1 zoning objective residential use, childcare facilities, medical and related consultants and shops (local) are permissible uses. Section 15.5 of the development plan explains that a permissible use is one which is generally acceptable in principle in the relevant zone, but which is subject to normal planning considerations, including policies and objectives outlined in the plan. No other uses of relevance to the proposed development are included under the “permissible uses” or “open for consideration uses” categories. Section 15.4 explains that uses not specified in either of these categories in zones Z1, Z2, Z8, Z9, Z11 and Z15 are deemed to be not permissible in principle, whereas in other specified zones they will be considered on their merits . This would include shops (district) and shops (major comparison). The rationale behind the Z1, Z2 and Z6 zoning objectives is explained at Sections 15.10.1, 15.10.2 and 15.10.6 of the development plan, respectively. These sections are copied at the end of this report.

Section 15.9 of the development plan refers to Transitional Zone Areas. It is noted that the land use zoning objectives and control standards show the boundaries between zones. While the zoning objectives and development control standards indicate the different uses permitted in each zone, it is important to avoid abrupt transitions in scale and use zones. In dealing with development proposals in these contiguous transitional zonal areas, it is necessary to avoid developments which would be detrimental to the amenities of the more environmentally sensitive zone. For instance, in zones abutting residential areas or abutting residential development within predominantly mixed use zones, particular attention must be paid to the use, scale, density and design of development proposals and to landscaping and screening proposals, in order to protect the amenities of residential properties.

Chapter 2 of the development plan sets its context. At Section 2.2 six themes are enunciated. These are economic, social, cultural, urban form and spatial, movement and environmental. “Social” consists of developing a compact city with a network of sustainable neighbourhoods which have a range of facilities and a choice of tenure and house types, promoting social inclusion and integration of all ethnic communities. “Urban form and spatial” consists of creating a connected legible city based on active streets and quality public spaces with a distinctive sense of place.

Chapter 3 of the development plan sets out a strategy to 2017. Section 3.1 sets out a vision for the city. This sets out a three stranded approach to achieving the six fundamental themes set out in Chapter 2, as follows.

• A compact, quality, green, well connected city, which generates a dynamic mixed use environment for living, working, social and cultural interaction.

• A smart city creating real long term economic recovery

and

• A city of sustainable neighbourhoods and socially inclusive communities.


Priorities are set out for each strand. The core strategy for the first strand, set out at Section 3.2.1, includes the identification of eight key district centres. However, Ballsbridge is not among them. In relation to achieving the third strand, Section 3.2.3.1, on promoting quality homes, notes that the provision of quality housing within the city, that is suitable for citizens throughout their lives and adaptable to people’s changing circumstances is fundamental in creating a compact city with sustainable neighbourhoods. Requiring apartment schemes to have good local facilities and that large schemes are phased to ensure support infrastructure is provided in tandem with residential development will assist in achieving this key strategy. In terms of delivering the core strategy, Section 3.3.1 includes a schedule of local area plans/statutory plans. Again, Ballsbridge is not included.

Section 3.2.4 sets out a retail strategy. This is to consolidate the city centre retail core as the premier retail destination in the state, to promote an upper tier of retail development in the Key District Centres and a lower tier of district centres to cater for surrounding communities. Below this tier, the strategy provides for daily shopping needs and local services of a residential community in neighbourhood centres. This approach is noted to reflect the settlement strategy for the city and to be consistent with the Retail Strategy for the Greater Dublin Area, 2008-2016 set out in Appendix 4 of the development plan.

Chapter 4 of the development plan is entitled “Shaping the City”. It includes Section 4.4.2.1 setting out an approach to the inner suburbs and outer city. A three level suburban hierarchy is proposed consisting of Key District Centres, District Centres and Neighbourhood Centres. Policy SC9 is to develop and support the hierarchy of suburban centres. Policy SC12 is to promote the distinctive character and sense of place in the suburban hierarchy. Section 4.4.3 of the development plan refers to making a more compact sustainable city. It is noted that both the National Spatial Strategy, 2002-2010 and the Regional Planning Guidelines for the Greater Dublin Area, 2004-2016 refer to the need for greater densities in the interest of sustainable development. It is noted that the previous development plan set out a spatial strategy to steer growth in both the inner and outer city in order to achieve sustainable densities. It produced an average density of 135 units per hectare, mostly in apartment schemes. It cites recent examples of good quality higher density developments including Docklands (247 uph), Temple Bar West, Mayor Street, Environs, Charlotte Quay (388 uph), Herbert Park Lane (245uph) and Clancy Barracks (143 uph). Higher densities will be promoted in the city centre, within Key District Centres, Key Developing Areas and within the catchment of high capacity public transport. The density standards set out in the plan will promote the development of high quality sustainable densities and the consolidation of urban form. Policy SC13 is to promote sustainable density, particularly in public transport corridors, which will enhance the urban form and spatial structure of the city. It should be appropriate to their context and supported by a full range of community infrastructure such as schools, shops and recreational areas. The sustainable densities will include due consideration for the protection of surrounding residents, households and communities. Policy SC14 is to promote a variety of housing types of


apartments which will create both a distinctive sense of place in particular character areas and neighbourhoods and coherent streets and open spaces. Policy SC15 is that significant residential/commercial schemes (over 100 units/10,000 square metres…) will be accompanied by an Urban Design Statement showing how the scheme would contribute to place making and the identity of the locality and that schemes over 200 units/20,000 square metres will be accompanied by a Community Infrastructure Statement showing how the scheme can contribute to the community infrastructure of an area.

Section 4.4.4 of the development plan is entitled “Taller buildings as part of the Urban Form and Spatial Structure of Dublin”. It notes that the development plan updates and refines the DEGW study of 2000 to take into account the Core Strategy, including the emphasis on public transport accessibility in Transport 21. Section 4.4.1, setting out an approach to taller buildings, acknowledges that Dublin should predominantly remain as a low rise city. However, there is scope for taller or landmark buildings in a very limited number of locations for economic and identity reasons. Such locations include Docklands, Heuston and the larger Key Development Areas with good public transport links and sites of sufficient size to create their own character. The limited locations are identified on Figure 21, later in the development plan. Policy SC17 is to protect and enhance the intrinsic quality of Dublin as a predominantly low rise city and to provide for taller buildings in the designated limited locations shown in Figure 21. Policy SC19 is to promote a co-ordinated approach to the provision of taller buildings through Local Area Plans in order to prevent visual clutter or cumulative negative visual disruption of the skyline.

Chapter 5 of the development plan is entitled “Connecting and Sustaining the City’s Infrastructure”. Policy SI2 is to continue to promote the modal shift from private car use towards increased use of more sustainable forms of transport. Section 5.1.4.6 refers to mobility management and travel planning. Policy SI12 is to promote best practice mobility management and travel planning to balance car use to capacity and provide for necessary mobility via sustainable transport modes. Objective SIO30 is to require travel plans and transport assessments for all relevant new developments and or extensions or alterations to existing developments as outlined in Appendices 5 and 6.

Section 5.1.4.7 of the development plan refers to car parking. Policy SI16 is to provide for sustainable levels of car parking and car storage in residential schemes in accordance with the development plan parking standards so as to promote apartment living for all age groups and family types. Policy SI18 is to safeguard the residential parking component in mixed use developments.

Chapter 11 of the development plan is entitled “Providing Quality Homes in a Compact City”. Section 11.3 of the development plan sets out a strategic approach to such provision. It should build on the policies of the last development plan and implement the Core Strategy through a five point programme, including making provision for a variety of housing typologies and tenures which are adaptable, flexible and meet family needs and the changing needs of people throughout their lives and by making provision for


the creation of attractive mixed use sustainable neighbourhoods which benefit from the phased delivery of supporting infrastructure. Policy QH4 is to promote residential development at sustainable urban densities throughout the city in accordance with the core strategy, having regard to the need for high standards of urban design and architecture and to successfully integrate with the character of the surrounding area. Policy QH9 is to ensure that gated residential developments will be discouraged and in most cases prohibited as they negate against the planning authority’s vision of a permeable connected and linked city that encourages integration. Policy QH15 is to promote the provision of high quality apartments within sustainable neighbourhoods by achieving suitable levels of amenity within individual apartments, achieving appropriate Target Average Floor Areas and levels of amenity within each apartment development and ensuring that suitable social infrastructure and other support facilities are available in the neighbourhood. Policy QH16 is to promote the optimum quality and supply of apartments for a range of housing needs and aspirations. Policy QH25 is to secure the implementation of the Dublin City Council Housing Strategy. In this regard 20% of lands zoned for residential use or for a mixture of residential and other uses shall be reserved for the provision of social and affordable housing.

Chapter 16 of the development plan is entitled “Guiding Principles”. Section 16.1 refers to the public realm, urban form and architecture. Public spaces should be designed so that they are memorable and can be easily navigated by the people using them in a similar manner to the city’s traditional streets and squares. Proposals should demonstrate how they connect to the surrounding network of streets and spaces. Public spaces should be accessible and inclusive. They should be wheelchair accessible and should not create barriers for those with mobility impairment. They should aim to deter crime by promoting natural activity and passive surveillance. Active frontages should be used as far as possible and blank walls avoided. Section 16.1.4, onproportions and enclosure, states it to be an objective to promote streets and public spaces which are of human scale, are memorable as places and have a high standard of amenity. The relationship of Dublin street facades to the human scale is recognised as a major attraction of the city and it is policy that new buildings should be designed and sited with a view to maintaining this important characteristic. The height of buildings relative to the width of a space is an important consideration affecting sunlighting and also the sense of being in a traditional street. Where large developments (e.g. occupying more than 20 metres of street frontage) are proposed, the height of buildings and how they positively relate to the scale of other buildings along the whole length of the street must be demonstrated. The degree of continuity of street enclosures is also an important consideration and frontages with very irregular planned forms should be avoided.

Section 16.1.7 is on materials and detailed design. Where contemporary interventions are proposed, materials should have a consistent design rationale for their specification. The design and specification of street furniture should be in accordance with the planning authority’s forthcoming Public Realm Strategy. Trees should be incorporated in the design of streets wherever


possible, with species selection appropriate to the scale and character of the street.

Section 16.1.8 of the development plan, on urban form and architecture, notes that urban blocks should be designed to promote permeability and walkability. Their lengths should not exceed 100 metres.

Section 16.1.9 and 16.1.10 of the development plan refers to Architectural Design and Issues for Building Design Assessment criteria, respectively. These sections are copied at the end of this report.

Section 16.1.11 of the development plan, on Sustainable Urban Form, notes that the orientation of streets and blocks and the heights of their enclosures should be adequately considered in order to aid passive solar design. Building height should be designed to minimise overshadowing of adjacent properties and public spaces, for example by avoiding taller buildings on the south side of an east - west street.

Section 16.2 of the development plan sets out guiding principles for green infrastructure. The relevant parts of this section from 16.2.1 to 16.2.6 are copied at the end of this report.

Section 16.4 of the development plan sets out principles for building height in a sustainable city. This section and Section 16.4.1, are copied at the end of this report.

Chapter 17 of the development plan is entitled “Development Standards”. The relevant sections of this chapter, from 17.1 to 17.91 are copied at the end of this report.

Section 17.40 of the development plan refers to car parking standards. For the purposes of parking control, the city is divided into three areas as shown on Map J. On this map, the appeal site is located in Zone 2. Car parking standards for various land uses are specified in Table 17.1. This indicates that in Zone 2, car parking is required at the rate of one space per dwelling, one space per 150 square metres of seating area for restaurants, cafes and take-aways, one space per three bedrooms for hotels and guesthouses, one space per 100 square metres of gross floor area for retail supermarkets, one space per 275 square metres gross floor area for other retail and financial offices, one space per 300 square metres net floor area for public houses and two spaces per consulting room for clinics and group medical practices. For bicycle parking, the city is again subdivided into the same three zones and cycle spaces are required at the rate of one space per unit for residential, one per ten bedrooms for hotels and one space per 150 square metres for restaurants and cafes, public houses and shops and main street financial offices and one space per two consulting rooms for clinics and group medical practices.

Appendix 4 of the development plan consists of a retail strategy.


The strategy bases its retail hierarchy on that in the Retail Strategy for the Greater Dublin Area 2008-2016 as follows:

Retail Centres HierarchyLevel GDA Classification Dublin City

ClassificationLevel 1 Metropolitan Centre City Centre Retail CoreLevel 2 Major Town Centres & County

TownsNone

Level 3 Town/District Centres & Sub-CountyTown Centres

District Centres

Level 4 Neighbourhood Centres Neighbourhood CentresLevel 5 Corner Shops Local/Corner Shops

At the lower levels, neighbourhood centres are noted to generally provide for one supermarket or discount foodstore ranging in size from 1,000 to 2,500 square metres with a limited range of supporting shops and retail services. Local shops are noted to meet the basic day to day needs of surrounding residents. Typically they comprise one or two small convenience stores or a newsagents and potential other tertiary services such as butcher/vegetable shops with a public house, hairdressers and other similar basic retail services. The retail element in total ranges from 500-1500 square metres. Projected floorspace needs for the city up to 2,016 including a 20-25% flexibility factor are given as 58,000 square metres gross lettable floorspace for convenience shopping and between 217,500 and 370,000 square metres for comparison goods.

The strategy contains guidance on the scale and location of retail development. It is explained that neighbourhood centres are defined by zoning objective Z3.

The strategy includes a section on assessing new retail development. It notes that all applications for large scale or significant retail development will be assessed against the criteria specified in the Retail Planning Guidelines for Planning Authorities and the recommendations for retail development management as set out in the Retail Strategy for the Greater Dublin Area. Significant retail development is interpreted as exceeding 2,500 square metres gross floor area within a district centre or neighbourhood centre or outside such centres, where no site of sufficient size is available within such centres. The sequential test is advocated to ensure that retail development takes place as close possible to the centre of District Centres. Such a test is considered appropriate where a retail development of over 2,000 square metres is proposed outside a Z3 (neighbourhood), Z4(district), Z5(city centre), Z10(mixed use), or Z13/14(regeneration areas) zone. The section on assessing new retail development includes advice on retail impact assessment. This is copied at the end of this report.

Under the development plan, Nos. 14 to 44 (even nos.) Lansdowne Road are protected structures, (Draft RPS 4284 to 4299).


6.2 The Dublin City Development Plan 2005-2011

At the time of application the Dublin City Development Plan, 2005-2011 was the effective plan for the city. This development plan was published in three volumes. Volume 1 was the main text. Volume 2 consisted of the maps. Volume 3 was the Record of Protected Structures.

Under this now superseded development plan, the site is located in an area zoned objective Z1, “To protect, provide and improve residential amenities”. The same zoning objective applies to the rear (Shelbourne Road end) of the former Veterinary College site, while the Hume House site and the front portion of the former Veterinary College site are zoned objective Z6, “To provide for the creation and protection of enterprise and facilitate opportunities for employment creation”. On the opposite side of Lansdowne Road, the land occupied by Lansdowne House and the adjoining three-storey modern office block is zoned objective Z6 while the sites of the Victorian houses are zoned objective Z2, “To protect and/or improve the amenities of residential conservation areas”. The houses themselves are shown to be Protected Structures. The same Z2 zoning objective applies to the lands and houses on the opposite side of Shelbourne Road.

Under the Z1 zoning objective residential use, childcare facilities, medical and related consultants and shops (neighbourhood) are permissible uses. Section 14.5.1 of the development plan explains that a permissible use is one which is generally acceptable in principle in the relevant zone, but which is subject to normal planning consideration, including policies and objectives outlined in the plan. No other uses of relevance to the proposed development are included under the “permissible uses” or “open for consideration uses” categories. Section 14.5.0 explains that uses not specified in either of these categories aredeemed to be not permissible in principle. This would include shops (district) and shops (major comparison). The rationale behind the Z1, Z2 and Z6 zoning objectives is explained at Sections 14.4.1, 14.4.2 and 14.4.6 of the development plan, respectively. These sections are copied at the end of this report.

Section 14.8.0 of the development plan refers to Transitional Zone Areas. It is noted that the land use zoning objectives and control standards show the boundaries between zones. While the zoning objectives and development control standards indicate the different uses permitted in each zone, it is important to avoid abrupt transitions in scale and use zones. In dealing with development proposals in these contiguous transitional zonal areas, it is necessary to avoid developments which would be detrimental to the amenities of the more environmentally sensitive zone. For instance, in zones abutting residential areas or abutting residential development within predominantly mixed use zones, particular attention must be paid to the use, scale, density and design of development proposals and to landscaping and screening proposals, in order to protect the amenities of residential properties.


Chapter 2 of the development plan is entitled “Expanding Dublin’s Horizons to meet the Critical Challenges”. Section 2.3.0 sets out key strategies. Amongst these are those on urban structure, character areas, public space and sustainable density. It is a strategy to develop a coherent urban structure through the civic framework in the inner city and suburbs. The character area concept will be developed as a dynamic tool to assist urban management and the planning process at the local level and to integrate economic and cultural cluster thinking into the spatial and landscape. The provision, design and maintenance of quality public space will be made central in the urban development and regeneration programme. The planning authority will rise to the challenge of achieving sustainable density within development frameworks and in response to transport infrastructure.

Chapter 3 of the development plan is entitled “Civic and Urban Framework”.

Section 3.0.0 consists of an introduction, wherein it is noted that the spatial framework and fabric of Dublin, in both the city centre and outer city is evolving in response to the economic and cultural energies and needs of its population. The ability of the planning authority to harness these energies and to direct change in a way that creates attractive and dynamic urban places is claimed to be dependent largely on making a commitment to urban values.

Section 3.2.0, on the outer city, notes that the current and projected population increases for the Dublin Metropolitan Area and the consequent accommodation needs of the resident population demand that a more sustainable development model be developed for the suburbs. Section 3.2.2 sets out a strategy to identify a hierarchy of urban centres which will sit at the heart of coherent planning areas from the district to the local level, which are capable of responding to the challenge of sustainable development and good urban place making. The development plan proposes three types of centre namely, the Prime Urban Centre, the village centre and the neighbourhood centre. Prime Urban Centres are identified as Finglas, Ballymun, North Fringe, Northside, Phibsborough, Rathmines, Crumlin Shopping Centre and Ballyfermot. Village centres are noted to comprise the larger of the remaining centres that are capable of fulfilling many of the functions of the Prime Urban Centres, but have a smaller scale, play a less dynamic functional role and have limited growth potential. Neighbourhood centres support the other centres in the hierarchy by providing for a level of service within reasonable walking distance of the surrounding residential population. They are extremely important to local communities for day-to-day needs and social interaction.

Section 3.3.1 refers to urban design, both strategic and local. Urban design at the local level is noted to be concerned with the street or urban space and in particular with the relationship between buildings, uses and the public domain. Buildings consist of both the built heritage and new development. The potential of protected structures and other buildings of architectural/historical merit to contribute to the cultural character and identity of a place should be maintained and enhanced. New development should establish the highest standards of contemporary architecture and should create a strong visual connection with adjoining buildings in the streetscape. It should complement


the established pattern of development in the immediate environs, especially in terms of the established grain, scale, massing, materials and colour of the built fabric. New development should have an appropriate height, scale and massing to define the street or space. All designs for new buildings, including housing, should be founded on a sustainable ethos, manifest and measurable in the use of solar and other energy sources. There should be flexibility in the design of buildings to encourage adaptation for a range of uses over time, particularly at ground level where a generous floor to ceiling height should be provided. There should be a diversity of accommodation types to attract different types and tenure. Buildings, especially their ground floors, should be occupied by uses that directly relate and animate the adjoining street or space. In terms of the public domain, an identifiable network of safe and pedestrian friendly interconnected streets and spaces should be reinforced or created. Spaces should be defined by buildings of an appropriate height, scale and form.

Chapter 4 of the development plan is on residential development.

Section 4.1.0 sets out a vision for such development. A wide range of accommodation should be available and set within sustainable communities where residents are within easy reach of services and facilities such as shops, education, leisure, community facilities and amenities on foot and by public transport and where adequate public transport provides good access to employment, the city centre and Prime Urban Centres. The planning authority is opposed to the creation of gated communities.

Section 4.3.0 sets out challenges. Amongst these are the provision of a high quality sustainable living environment, the promotion of balanced and sustainable communities and provision of community facilities services of a high standard in the most appropriate locations and in tandem with developing communities. Other challenges are to provide for increased housing densities, while maintaining a sustainable and good quality of life, and to provide for sufficient accommodation of a high standard to satisfy the diverse range of housing needs.

Policy RES 1 is to have regard to the Residential Density Guidelines for Planning Authorities. Policy RES 2 is to promote high density development in the inner city, Prime Urban Centres, close to transport routes and within the Framework Development Areas, while integrating the design of the new developments into the existing character of the present and historic urban and suburban landscapes and incorporating the highest standard of urban design and architecture. Policy RES 7 is to encourage the establishment of sustainable residential communities by ensuring that a mix of housing and apartment type, size and tenure is provided. Policy RES 9 is to seek to achieve sustainable, low maintenance construction of buildings and the efficient use of energy in residential development by encouraging sustainable methods and active and passive solar design principles of construction. Objective RES 1 is to ensure that a commitment to a sustainable ethos is tangible and evident in all designs for new buildings, including housing.


Policy RES 16 is to promote the principle of lifetime adaptable and fully accessible homes in all new residential developments.

Chapter 7 of the development plan is on transportation. Section 7.6.0 refers to mobility management plans and transport impact assessments. Transport impact assessment will be required in the case of developments with significant car trip generation potential. Policy T 6 is to require Mobility Management Plans and Transport Impact Assessments. The content of such plans and assessments is specified in Appendices 4 and 5.

Chapter 8 of the development plan is on retail.

Section 8.2.1, on the implications of retail guidance, notes that the Retail Planning Strategy for the Greater Dublin Area sets out a retail hierarchy and guidelines on the approach and range of factors to be taken into account in the assessment of applications for retail developments. The strategy is based on the National Retail Planning Guidelines for Planning Authorities and adopts a five tier hierarchy of retail centres based on the guidelines. The Retail Strategy, as it applies to the city, is included in Appendix 7 of the development plan. Level 4 of the hierarchy consists of neighbourhood centres and Appendix 7 notes that these are defined by the zoning objective Z3. The strategy recognises the dominant role of the Central Shopping Area and proposes that this dominant position should be protected in terms of comparison goods and especially higher order comparison goods. It is noted that, under the terms of the strategy, demand for additional convenience goods floorspace to 2011 is projected to be very small. It is considered that there is sufficient land zoned to cater for the projected retail floorspace demand. There is a projected demand for a considerable area of additional comparison goods floorspace in the suburbs. This would be met primarily in the existing district centres and particularly in the identified Prime Urban Centres.

Section 8.4.0 sets out policy. Policy S 1 is to have regard to the National Retail Planning Guidelines and the Retail Planning Strategy for the Greater Dublin Area in preparing plans and in the assessment of planning applications for retail developments. Policy S 2 is to adopt the hierarchy contained in Appendix 7. Policy S 5 is to seek to maintain and strengthen the existing district and neighbourhood centres. Where such centres are in close proximity to residential areas, 24 hour shopping shall not be permitted. Policy S 21 is that new shopping facilities should be located adjacent to public transport routes.

Chapter 10 of the development plan is on heritage. Section 10.2.0 sets out policies for conservation areas. In setting the context for these policies, it is recognised that the special value of conservation areas lies in the architectural design and scale of these areas and is of sufficient importance to require special care in dealing with development proposals and works by the private and public sector alike. The planning authority will thus seek to ensure that development proposals within all conservation areas complement the character of the area, including the setting of protected structures, and comply with development standards.


Policy H 13 is to protect and enhance the character and historic fabric of conservation areas in the control of development. Policy H 15 is to ensure that new buildings in conservation areas should complement the character of the existing architecture in design, materials and scale.

Chapter 11 of the development plan is on recreational amenity and open space.

Section 11.2.2, on play facilities, notes that in new residential developments provision should be made for children to play. In larger developments i.e. over 75 units, this should include the provision of playgrounds. Levels of provision should depend on the size and scale of the development, but small areas designed for young children, (aged 0-5) should generally be provided within easy walking distance of homes or within the curtilage of apartment blocks. Older children should have access to larger equipped areas within 5 minutes walk of homes.

Chapter 15 of the development plan sets out general site development standards. The chapter is divided into 3 key sections, namely, qualitative standards, quantitative standards and development control standards. In relation to qualitative standards, the philosophy set out in Chapter 2 is reiterated, i.e. the development of a planning approach that values urbanism and the creation of vibrant and attractive urban places. All new developments should contribute positively to the enhancement of the urban qualities of the city. A high standard of design is considered essential to this process. The layout of buildings and spaces should be designed to ensure that areas are permeable, legible and safe. Main routes should be distinguished by exploiting vistas, key buildings and landmarks, with the activities and functions of the places made visible, thus bringing a sense of liveliness to spaces.

It is noted that hard landscaping can

• provide a visual link to the surroundings,• define and enclose space and delineate public from private space,• provide security to private areas,• distinguish between pedestrian, cycle and vehicle movement,• provide suitable play space for children.

Materials should be appropriate, durable and of good quality.

On soft landscaping, it is noted that all developments should respect the environment in which they are situated and every effort should be made to retain existing trees and vegetation, where possible.

On quantitative standards, section 15.3.0 notes that density is a measure of the relationship between buildings and their surrounding space. It is noted that Dublin is, in general, a low density city with an overall figure of approximately 42 persons per hectare. Low suburban density is being further compounded by falling household sizes. The standards set out in the plan aim


to promote the development of higher densities and the consolidation of the urban form of the city. Achieving a high quality design and layout will be paramount in the acceptability of planning applications for high density schemes. High densities will be promoted throughout the city area and, in particular, will be sought within walking catchment of public transport infrastructure, i.e. 500 metres from a QBC route and 800 metres from a rail terminal, as well as at major centres of employment, Prime Urban Centres, neighbourhood centres and areas in need of regeneration.

Appropriate density levels are determined both by the design of the development and the use of the building and by the character and scale of the receiving environment. This is noted to be a result of the different requirements for sunlight/daylight, access and privacy for commercial and residential space. In order to provide some guidance to developers, indicative densities are suggested. In the outer city, densities in excess of 50 dwellings per hectare will be encouraged, subject to appropriate qualitative safeguards. In city centre locations, higher densities will be allowed. Recent examples are quoted, including Custom House Docks (178 units per hectare), Herbert Park Apartments (245 units per hectare), Charlotte Quay (388 units per hectare) and Wolfe Tone Close (198 units per hectare). It is claimed that these developments demonstrate that high density apartment schemes can be achieved without either loss of residential amenity or environmental quality.

Plot ratio is noted to be a tool to help control the bulk and mass of buildings. Indicative standards of plot ratio are specified for certain zones of the city. Although the Z2 zoning objective is not included, the specified indicative plot ratio standards are as follows:-

Zone 4 (mixed services) – 2

Zone 10 (inner suburban mixed use) – 2 to 2.5

Zone 5 (central area) – 2.5 to 3

Zone 8 (inner city, primarily Georgian conservation areas) – 1.5

Zone 14 (north and south dockland rejuvenation areas) – 2.5 to 3

In certain circumstances, it is noted that higher plot ratios may be permitted.

• Adjoining major public transport termini and corridors, where an appropriate mix of residential and commercial uses is proposed,

• to facilitate comprehensive redevelopment in areas in need of urban renewal,

• to maintain existing streetscape profiles,

and


• where a site already has the benefit of a higher plot ratio.

Section 15.5.0 of the development plan is on site coverage. This is noted to be a control for the purpose of preventing the adverse effects of overdevelopment, thereby safeguarding sunlight and daylight within or adjoining a proposed layout of buildings. It is noted to be a tool particularly relevant in urban locations where open space and car parking standards may be relaxed. Recommended standards are specified for the city centre, district centres and the Georgian core as follows:-

Zone 4 – 80%

Zone 5 – 80% – 100%

Zone 8 – 50%

Again, in the same circumstances that apply to plot ratio, higher site coverage standards may be permitted.

Section 15.6.0 of the development plan is on building height. This section commences with a quotation from “Managing Intensification and Change: A Strategy for Dublin Building Height, DEGW, 2000”, as follows. “The definition of appropriate building height in context is relative and relates not only to the prevailing or dominant heights, but also to the grain and its consistency or diversity within an existing character area”. It is noted that Dublin has many different character areas reflecting histories, communities and various opportunities for change. These will require different approaches to the issue of building height. There is a recognised need to protect conservation areas and the architectural character of existing buildings, streets and spaces of artistic, civic or historic importance. The DEGW study, commissioned by the City Council, identified character areas and locations within the city that would allow for large scale growth and innovation and building form. The potential siting of higher buildings or high intensity clusters within the city will be planned using the principles and criteria enunciated in the study.

The development plan sets out considerations which will be taken into account in considering proposals for high buildings. These are copied at the end of this report.

On development control, Section 15.9.0 of the development plan relates to residential development. This section is copied at the end of this report. The following sections, i.e. 15.9.1, 15.9.2, 15.9.3 and 15.9.4, as well as part of 15.9.6 have been replaced by Variation 21 of the development plan. This variation is copied at the end of this report.

Table 15.1 sets out car parking standards for various land uses. For the purpose of the standards, the city is divided into three parking zones. The appeal site is located in Zone 2. In this zone, retail supermarkets should provide parking at the rate of one space per 100 square metres gross floor area.


Other retail outlets should provide parking at the rate of one space per 275 square metres gross floor area. For residential development the parking requirement is one space per dwelling. For hotels and guesthouses the requirement is one space per three rooms. For restaurants, cafes and take-aways, the requirement is one space per 50 square metres seating area. For public houses, the requirement is one space per 300 square metres of net floor area.

Table 15.2 of the development plan sets out cycle parking standards. Again, the city is divided into the same three parking zones. For parking Zone 2, shops and main street financial offices should provide cycle spaces at the rate of one per 150 square metres. For hotels the requirement is one per 12 bedrooms. For restaurants, cafes and public houses, the requirement is one space per 150 square metres.

As noted previously, Appendix 7 of the development plan consists of a retail strategy. This adopts the five tier retail hierarchy from the Retail Planning Strategy for the Greater Dublin Area, applying a Dublin City classification to the hierarchy in that Strategy, as follows:-

Level GDA Classification Dublin City Classification/Areas

Level 1 Metropolitan Centre Central Shopping Area Level 2 Major Town Centre NoneLevel 3 Town/District Centres District Centre Category A

District Centre Category BDistrict Centre Category CMarket Streets

Level 4 Neighbourhood Centres Neighbourhood CentresLevel 5 Corner Shops Local/corner shops

The retail strategy in the development plan notes that the number of district centres within the Dublin City Council area necessitates a more refined breakdown within this level in the retail hierarchy. The fourfold breakdown of the district centre level is based on character, size, location, access by public transport, vitality and viability and potential for expansion. The classification breakdown is also relevant in providing guidance for the allocation of additional floorspace. Under the adopted breakdown of the district centre category, Category A Centres are noted to be those in the planned areas where a large population increase is anticipated or where, as part of the proposed development of an existing centre as a Prime Urban Centre incorporating a range of retail, community and employment uses, the retail element of the centre is expected to be significantly strengthened. Centres included in this category are Docklands, Ballsbridge and the Prime Urban Centres of Ballymun, North Fringe, Finglas, Northside Shopping Centre, Ballyfermot, Rathmines, Phibsborough and Crumlin Shopping Centre. The neighbourhood centre category, at level 4 is noted to be defined by the zoning objective Z3 on the landuse zoning maps in the development plan. The district centres located


in both the inner city and in the suburbs are noted to be defined by the zoning objective Z4.

Table 3 of Appendix 7 shows projected floorspace requirements for 2011, amended to take account of recent or proposed developments. These are broken down into the requirements for the city centre and those for the rest of the City Council area. For the rest of the City Council area, the low projection for convenience goods is just 181 square metres, while the high projection is just 1,775 square metres.

The retail strategy gives guidance on the scale and location of a retail development. It is noted to be essential that new retail floorspace should be appropriately located in order to maintain the vitality and viability of existing permitted centres, to avail of improved public transport access and to cater for population growth areas. Retail development should relate to the hierarchy and should locate within designated centres. It should be of a scale that is compatible with the function of the centre. In determining the allocation of the projected additional floorspace, the planning authority will take into account the following factors:-

• The availability of public transport to serve the retail centre,

• the current population catchment and areas of projected population growth,

• the current availability of retail floorspace in each part of the city,

• potential impact on the vitality and viability of existing and permitted retail centres,

• the sequential approach to site assessment, and

• relevant provisions of Action Area Plans, Integrated Area Plans and Planning Schemes.

In relation to the suburbs, the retail strategy notes that Table 3 takes account of proposed developments in Ballymun, North Fringe and other recently completed convenience goods outlets in suburban areas. The table shows that there would be a very small demand for additional convenience goods floorspace and consequently, it is not considered realistic or desirable to impose a definite cap on such floorspace. Where a significant increase in local population gives rise to a need for additional convenience floorspace in district, neighbourhood or local centres, proposals will be considered on their merits and in accordance with the assessment set out in the strategy.

The above mentioned assessment notes that as a general rule, significant retail development means 1,000 square metres gross of convenience development. Assessment will be based on the sequential approach, and will take into account retail impact and the design of the proposed development.


In Volume 3 of the development plan, Nos. 14 to 44 (even nos.) Lansdowne Road are protected structures, RPS 4362 to 4377.

7.0 THE RETAIL STRATEGY FOR THE GREATER DUBLIN AREA 2008-2016

Parts 1 and 2 of this document consist of an introduction and a review of the previous retail strategy, respectively. Part 3 consists of policy influences on the update of the retail strategy. Part 3 includes Table 3.3 which notes the zoning policies in each council relating to retail. In the case of the Dublin City Development Plan the relevant zoning objectives are noted to be Z3, Z4, Z5 and Z10

Part 4 of the Strategy consists of a Retail Market Review. In relation to convenience shopping, at Sections 4.41, 4.42 and 4.43, it is noted that in line with the principle of sustainability, it is desirable that “daily shopping” which encompasses convenience, speciality and retail service shopping such as supermarket, chemist, florist, news agency, dry cleaner, off licence/wine store and hairdresser, should be “walk to” or accessible by public transport. A number of improvements are required in the older suburbs where the convenience shopping is dated and the populations of these areas are driving unnecessary distances to more attractive shopping centres for their daily shopping needs. Section 4.44, on supermarket provision, notes a trend towards larger stores with a much greater range of products, including, in some cases, extension into some comparison shopping, such as clothing and electrical goods. A common feature of inner suburban centres and suburban high streets is that the existing supermarkets are too small to offer a full range of supermarket goods at low prices. This results in a significant proportion of the catchment population, regularly shopping some distance away.

Part 5 of the Strategy is entitled “Retail Market Analysis and Future Growth”. Table 5.9 specifies the projected convenience shopping need for the individual local authorities within the Greater Dublin Area and includes 20% to facilitate future demand. For Dublin City, the gross lettable floorspace need is 46,303 square metres.

Part 6 of the Strategy consists of the retail planning strategy, itself. Table 6.1 consists of a retail hierarchy. Level 3 town and/or district centres and sub-county town centres in Dublin City comprise Finglas, Northside Shopping Centre, Ballyfermot, Rathmines, Crumlin Shopping Centre, Donaghmede Shopping Centre, Omni, Ballymun, Point Village and Poolbeg. Level 4 of the hierarchy consists of neighbourhood centres, local centres – small towns and villages. Section 6.20 advises that planning authorities should seek to protect existing facilities which provide for people’s day-to-day shopping needs and seek to remedy deficiencies to avoid social exclusion and isolation. Table 6.2 of the Strategy consists of retail formats for hierarchy levels. The specified formats are higher order comparison, middle order comparison, lower order comparison, superstore and supermarket. At neighbourhood centre level it indicates that only lower order comparison and supermarkets are appropriate.


The centres generally provide for one supermarket or discount foodstore ranging in size from 1,000 to 2,500 square metres with a limited range of supported shops (one or two low range clothes shops with grocery, chemist etc.) and retail services (hairdressers, dry cleaners, DVD rental), cafés and possibly other services such as post offices or community facilities or health clinics.

At Section 6.33 the Strategy makes council-specific policy recommendations. In the case of Dublin City Council, among the recommendations is that the hierarchy of retail locations in the suburban areas should be supported. Within the hierarchy, support for the development and expansion of the functions of the Prime Urban Centres is of central importance.

8.0 MANAGING INTENSIFICATION AND CHANGE – A STRATEGY FOR DUBLIN BUILDING HEIGHT

This strategy was produced by DEGW in 2000. The strategy sub-divides the city into character areas. The appeal site is located within an area designated Character Area E1, described as a primarily two-storey residential area with pockets of mixed use outside the canal ring. It also falls within the “Zones for Change” shown in Exhibit 4. Six different types of area are specified within the zones for change. The appeal site is located within an area of diverse character noted to be a potential new character area with contextual constraints. Three areas are identified for high intensity clusters. These are centred on Connolly Station, Pearse Station and Heuston Station. In addition to these three potential cluster locations, further locations are identified as being suitable for landmark individual high buildings. These fall under three headings, namely, primary public transport nodes including the three stations already mentioned and, in addition, Docklands, termination points of long views along the river corridor shown immediately on the south side of the River Liffey and converging points of road structure. The appeal site is not among them.

9.0 SUSTAINABLE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN URBAN AREAS – GUIDELINES FOR PLANNING AUTHORITIES

These guidelines were published by the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government in 2009. They supersede the Residential Density Guidelines of 1999.

Chapter 2 of the guidelines sets out the role of development plans and local area plans. At Section 2.1, a plan-led approach is advocated. The scale, location and nature of major new residential development will be determined by the development plan, including both the settlement strategy and the housing strategy.


Chapter 3 of the guidelines is on the role of design. At Box 2 they adopt the criteria set out in the companion Best Practice Design Manual. This box is copied at the end of this report.

Chapter 5 of the guidelines is on cities and larger towns. Under the heading design safeguards, Section 5.1 advises that firm emphasis should be placed by planning authorities on the importance of qualitative standards in relation to design and layout in order to ensure that the highest quality of residential environment is achieved. The objective should be to achieve an efficient use of land appropriate to its context, while avoiding the problems of overdevelopment. The criteria to be considered in the design and assessment of higher density residential development are based on the detailed advice in the companion design manual. In summary, the factors are noted to include

• Acceptable building heights.• Avoidance of overlooking and overshadowing.• Provision of adequate private and public open space, including

landscaping where appropriate and safe play spaces.• Adequate internal space standards in apartments.• Suitable parking provision close to dwellings,• Provision of ancillary facilities, including childcare.

Section 5.3 advises that particular sensitivity is required in relation to the design and location of apartment blocks which are higher than existing adjacent residential development. As a general rule, where taller buildings are acceptable in principle, building heights should generally taper down towards the boundaries of a site within an established residential area.

The guidelines provide advice on appropriate locations for increased densities. In relation to “inner suburban/infill,” Section 5.9 notes that in infill residential development, potential sites may range from small gap infill, unused or derelict land and backland areas, up to larger residual sites or sites assembled from a multiplicity of ownerships. In residential areas whose character is established by their density or architectural form, a balance has to be struck between the reasonable protection of the amenities and privacy of adjoining dwellings, the protection of established character and the need to provide residential infill. The design approach should be based on recognition of the need to protect the amenities of directly adjoining neighbours and the general character of the area and its amenities, i.e. views, architectural quality, civic design, etc.

Chapter 7 of the guidelines is entitled “The Home and its Setting”. Section 7.1 notes that the orientation of the dwelling and its internal layout can affect levels of daylight and sunlight and will thus influence not only the amenity of the occupants, but the energy demand for heat and light. Overshadowing will generally only cause problems where buildings of significant height are involved or where new buildings are located very close to adjoining buildings. The recommendations of “Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight: A Guide to Good Practice” (B.R.E. 1991) or B.S. 8206 “Lighting for Buildings, Part 2 1992: Code of Practice for Daylight” should be followed. Section 7.9,


in relation to private and communal open space, notes that the provision of adequate and well-designed private open space for apartments is crucial in meeting the amenity needs of residents. In particular, usable outdoor space is a high priority for families. It can be provided in the form of rear gardens or patios for ground floor units and balconies at upper levels. It is important that, in the latter case, adequate semi-private or communal open space, in the form of landscaped areas should also be provided. Roof gardens may offer a satisfactory alternative to courtyards.

10.0 SUSTAINABLE URBAN HOUSING – DESIGN STANDARDS FOR NEW APARTMENTS

These guidelines for planning authorities were published by the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government in 2007. They provide recommended minimum standards for floor areas for different types of apartments, storage spaces, sizes for apartment balconies/patios and room dimensions for certain rooms. The guidelines recommend that development plans or local area plans should place an upper limit on the proportion of one bedroom units to be included in apartment schemes, owing to their inability to cater for families.

Chapter 5 of the guidelines covers overall design issues. Sections 5.5 to 5.7, under the heading “Daylight and Sunlight”, notes that dual aspect apartments are likely to maximise the availability of sunlight and should be the norm, but this solution may not always be possible, as in the case of corner units. Single aspect apartments should allow the main living rooms to face south, west or east. North-facing units should be excluded. Particular care is needed where windows are located on lower floors which may be over-shadowed by adjoining buildings. The orientation of apartment blocks to maximise sunlight and daylight also assist in minimising energy consumption and CO2 emissions. As many as possible of the elevations with most glazing (e.g. living rooms, main bedroom) should face within 30 degrees of south and should not be overshadowed by other buildings or trees. Floor to ceiling heights are noted to affect the internal amenities of apartments in terms of sunlight/daylight, storage space and ventilation. The potential for increasing the minimum height to 2.7 metres, generally, and to three metres on the ground floor of multi-storey buildings should be considered.

The final page of the guidelines consists of an appendix setting out recommended minimum floor areas and standards as follows: -

Recommended Minimum Floor Areas and Standards

Minimum overall apartment floor areasOne bedroom 45 sq m (38 sq m)*Two bedrooms 73 sq m (55 sq m)*Three bedrooms 90 sq m (70 sq m)*

*Figures in brackets refer to 1995 guidelines


Minimum aggregate floor areas for living/dining/kitchen rooms, andminimum widths for the main living/dining rooms

Apartment type Width of living/dining room

Aggregate floor area of living/dining/kitchen

area*One bedroom 3.3 m 23 sq mTwo bedrooms 3.6 m 30 sq mThree bedrooms 2.8 m 34sq m

*Note: An enclosed (separate) kitchen should have a minimum floor area of 6.5 sq.metres.In most cases, the kitchen should have an external window.

Minimum bedroom floor areas/widthsType Minimum width Minimum floor area

Single bedroom 2.1 m 7.1 sq mDouble bedroom 2.8 m 11.4 sq mTwin bedroom 2.8 m 13 sq m

*Note: Minimum floor areas exclude built-in storage presses.

Minimum aggregate bedroom floor areasOne bedroom 11.4 sq mTwo bedroom 11.4 + 13 sq m = 24.4 sq mThree bedrooms 11.4 + 13 + 7.1 sq m = 31.5 sq m

Minimum storage space requirementsOne bedroom 3 sq mTwo bedrooms 6 sq mThree or more bedrooms 9 sq m

Minimum floor areas for main apartment balconiesOne bedroom 5 sq mTwo bedroom 7 sq mThree bedroom 9 sq m

11.0 THE THIRD PARTY APPEALS

There are 21 third party appeals against the planning authority’s decision to grant permission for this development. All but one of the third party appeals that of the Doyle Collection, are fundamentally opposed to the proposed development. The appeal from the Doyle Collection, while supportive of the principle of the development, seeks amendments to the access and parking arrangements for the proposed hotel. The appellants consist, primarily, of individual local residents and residents’ associations, but also include An Taisce, an apartment management company, the Dublin South-East Green


Party and the Doyle Collection – hoteliers and successors to the former owners of Jury’s and the Berkeley Court and possible future owners/operators of the proposed hotel.

Overall, and in some cases, individually, the appeals cover a wide range of issues. I summarise these issues under the relevant side headings which follow.

11.1 Failure to meet the zoning objective

The proposed development would be contrary to the zoning objective insofar as it would fail to protect and/or improve residential amenity.

There is a lack of due regard to the transitional zone provisions of the development plan. There is a failure to acknowledge the provisions of paragraph 15.3.0 of the city development plan which holds that in cases such as schemes adjoining protected structures or in conservation areas, lower densities may be appropriate in order to preserve special characteristics of the area.

The development permitted on the former Veterinary College site is an inappropriate precedent, as it has a different zoning objective and adjoins the Z4 zone.

11.2 Excessive height

The proposed development would be overbearing and intimidatingly high. Its height, at 15 storeys or 58.25 metres far exceeds the existing height of Lansdowne House at 31.8 metres and the permitted development on the former Veterinary College site at 29.01 metres.

The height of the proposed development would make it unsuitable for family living. It would be too high for the area as a whole and unsympathetic to the surrounding developments.

The proposed development would have an excessive ratio of building height to street width. It would exceed the maximum of 1:1.5, a figure adopted in Washington D.C. and also specified in the Liberties Local Area Plan.

In deciding to grant permission for this development, the planning authority has ignored its development plan where it states that the potential siting of higher buildings or high intensity clusters within the city will be planned using the principles and criteria enunciated in the DEGW Report.

11.3 Overdevelopment

The proposed development would at an excessive scale, more appropriate to the Z10 zoning objective.


Its plot ratio and density would be too high. Its plot ratio at 3.59:1 would greatly exceed the maximum of 2:1 specified in the draft city development plan.

It is incorrect to describe the site as brownfield, as the existing hotels were trading profitably at the time of their acquisition by the applicant.

The Board’s first reason for refusal under PL 29S.228512 is still relevant.

The existing development on the site is not an appropriate precedent. The development at Shrewsbury Square (former Teagasc site on Sandymount Avenue) and 10 and 12 Lansdowne Road (IRFU headquarters) set an appropriate precedent.

The proposed development should not be regarded as simply the other half of the Veterinary College application.

11.4 Parking and Traffic

The proposed development would give rise to excessive traffic generation. It would exacerbate the nuisance already arising from the new Lansdowne Road Football Stadium.

It would give rise to traffic congestion and this would be especially the case with the proposed crèche.

There would be noise from large delivery trucks arriving at night on Shelbourne Road.

There would be an over-provision of car parking.

There would be inadequate parking provision for the proposed hotel and an unsuitably located access for the hotel.

11.5 Over-provision of retail floor space

The retail component would amount to a material contravention of the development plan.

There has been an inappropriate designation of Ballsbridge as a Category A district centre in the development plan. It is not a district centre in the Retail Planning Guidelines for the Greater Dublin Area.

The appeal site is not located in an area zoned Z4.

Under the Z1 zoning objective, only neighbourhood shops are permissible.

The proposed development would divert retail from established centres and undermine the objective to strengthen the retail core, especially the south inner city.


The proposed development would add to the considerable retail quantum already permitted on the Veterinary College site.

The Board’s third reason for refusal under PL 29S.228512 is equally applicable to the present case.

11.6 Impact on trees and railings

The existing trees on the site, formerly part of the Trinity College Botanic Gardens, would be unlikely to survive the proposed development and would not survive any transplanting.

There has been a failure to recognise the existence of trees of national significance in the tree survey, namely Eucommia ulmoides (the hardy rubber), an Irish Champion, Toona sinensis (the Chinese cedar), a reserve Irish Champion and Phellodendron japonicum (the Japanese cork), an Irish Champion.

30 healthy trees would be felled to accommodate the proposed development.

The proposed development would involve the loss of some of the Turner railings fronting the site on Pembroke Road and Lansdowne Road.

11.7 Overshadowing and loss of sunlight and daylight

There would be a loss of sunlight and daylight to the houses on the opposite side of Lansdowne Road, and the proposed development would therefore be injurious to residential amenity.

Within the development itself, the proposed areas of open space would be heavily overshadowed and of limited amenity value.

11.8 Inadequacy of open space

The provision of open space would be inadequate. It should be at the rate of 12 – 15 square metres per bed space.

The central open space, to be as known as Botanic Square, would be mean and overshadowed.

There would be little consolidated open space.

The communal open space would be of poor quality.

11.9 Out of context with its surroundings

The proposed development has no real architectural merit.


It would have no proper relationship with the Hume House development. It would fail to reinforce or be compatible with the existing residential development in the area.

It would fail to acknowledge the more sensitive conservation areas on the opposite sides of Lansdowne Road and Shelbourne Road. It would detract from the character of the protected structures on the opposite side of Lansdowne Road and from the character of the residential conservation areas on the opposite side of this road and Shelbourne Road.

The architecture would be unsuitable and jarring.

It would be of an unsuitable design for the area.

It would fail to meet the requirement at Section 17.10.8.1 of the draft city development plan which refers to development in conservation areas and stipulates that all new buildings should complement and enhance the character and setting of conservation areas.

It would cause overlooking of the properties on the opposite side of the Lansdowne Road.

11.10 The Ten-Year Planning Permission

The granting of a planning permission for a 10-year period would have an unacceptably adverse impact on residential amenity in the area with on-going construction traffic, noise, dust and other forms of pollution.

The proposed development, though extensive, is a straightforward residential development and does not warrant a ten year permission. The development at Clancy Barracks which was for 100,410 square metres comprising, inter alia, 959 apartments and a 194 bedroom hotel, received a standard five-year permission, only.

The proposed development would follow on from the recent construction of the new Lansdowne Road Stadium.

11.11 Water Supply, Drainage and Hydrology

The proposed development would give rise to overloading of the water and sewerage systems.

The hydrological implications of a development with such an extensive and deep basement remain unresolved.

There is a heightened risk resulting from the location of the site in a floodplain.


11.12 School Provision

The educational needs of this 534 residential unit development have not been assessed. It would be exacerbated by the additional residential content of the proposed development on the adjoining Veterinary College site.

The development is contrary to the advice, contained in the Planning Guidelines for Sustainable Residential Development in Urban Areas at Section 4.3, that no substantial residential development should proceed without an assessment of existing schools capacity or the provision of new school facilities in tandem with the development.

11.13 Childcare Provision

There would seem to be an under-provision of childcare facilities by reference to the guidelines on the provision of childcare facilities which recommend that one such facility be provided for every 75 dwelling units.

11.14 Absence of a Local Area Plan

The proposal would be premature pending the adoption of a local area plan for the Ballsbridge area.

11.15 Incorporation of part of the public road

The disposal of part of the public road to the developer would be ultra vires and would require a vote of the elected members. The sale of public footpaths and public road would set an undesirable precedent.

11.16 Air flow implications

The conditions stated in the wind study would be unsatisfactory in relation to the principal public open space for the development.

The wind effect created would not be conducive to play and the limited open space provided would be unusable.

The proposed Pembroke Plaza area would be unsuitable for outside seating due to the wind conditions at certain times of the year.

12.0 THE FIRST PARTY APPEAL

The applicants have appealed against Condition No. 28 of the planning authority’s decision to grant permission, only. This relates to the payment of a contribution under Section 48 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000. It is claimed that the contribution should have been €9,937,794.11 and not €17,540,515.99 as sought by the planning authority.


The appeal claims that the planning authority based its calculations on the application scheme, rather than on the floor area of the permitted scheme.

At Section 3.1 of the appeal, a table shows the planning authority’s calculation of the contribution sought, as follows: -

Commercial @ €127 per sq.m.

Area Proposed Area Granted Area Levied x €127

Total

59,563.78 sq.m.

59,563.78 sq.m 24,598.78 sq.m.

€3,124,045.06

Residential @ €152.62 per sq.m.

Area Proposed Area Granted Area Levied x €156.62

88,798.5 sq.m. 88,798.5 sq.m. 87,336.50 sq.m.

€13,678,642.63

Car Parking @ €63.50 per sq.m.

Area Proposed Area Granted Area Levied x €63.50

3,965.80 sq.m. 3,965.80 sq.m. 3,965.80 sq.m. €251,828.30

Total Contribution

€17,054,515.99

Notes: Allowed for 1,462 sq.m. of demolition off residential and 34,965 sq.m. of demolition off commercial/commercial area based on area as per proposal and plant and storage area in basement.

In calculating the commercial area proposed and granted, the planning authority added the remaining circulation areas in the basement car parking to the actual gross floor area originally proposed. The planning authority made no allowance for a reduction in respect of social/affordable housing, as it should have done under Section 10 of its contribution scheme.

At Section 4.1 of their appeal, the applicants present a schedule of areas as submitted with the revised further information scheme and amended to reflect the change from residential to commercial use of unit no. 132 as required by the planning authority’s Condition No. 25, as summarised below.

SUMMARYDescription Total SQ.M

Residential (Blocks 1-11) 85,692.0

Commercial 14,029.6

Total Development Floorspace above Ground 99,721.6Total Development Floorspace below Ground 52,301.0

Total Gross Development 152022.6


BASEMENT (HOTEL, PLANT AND ANCILLARY USES)Description Total SQ.M

Commercial 11,807

Residential Storage 1,479.0

Basement Circulation (includes ramps, stairs/lifts, bicycle parking, footpaths & drive aisles)

27,393.0

Hotel Parking Spaces (2 no. accessible @18sqm/each and 42 no. @12sqm/each)

540.0

Public/Staff Parking Spaces (10 no. accessible @18sqm/each and 94 no. @ 12sqm/each)

1,308.0

Residential Parking Spaces (37 no. accessible @ 18sqm/each and 759 no. @ 12 sq.m./each)

9,774.0

TOTAL BASEMENT/ANCILLARY 52,301.0

RESIDENTIAL Residential (Blocks 1-11 and Arcade) – Gross Floor Area 85,692.0Residential Units (Blocks 1-11) – Net Floor Area 71,783.0

CONDITION NO. 25 CHANGE OF USE OF UNIT NO. 132 FROM RESIDENTIAL TO COMMERCIAL

Residential (Duplex Unit) 223.4Commercial (Café/Restaurant)-Duplex Unit becomes double height commercial space

123.4

The total commercial floorspace for the scheme as permitted by the planning authority thus becomes 53,353 square metres. Subtracting the area allowed for demolition, i.e. 34,965 square metres, reduces the levy figure to 18,388 square metres. However, the basement circulation areas should not have been included in the commercial floorspace figures, as there is no reference in the planning authority’s development contribution scheme to the inclusion of such ancillary areas in the commercial floorspace figures. The calculation should have been 25,836.6 square metres plus 123.4 square metres minus 34,965 square metres equals - 9,005 square metres.

In relation to the residential component, the further information submission reduced the gross residential floorspace to 85,690 square metres. Allowing for the 1,462 square metres of demolition area and the change to unit no. 132 required by the planning authority, at 223.4 square metres, the residential figures becomes 84,006.6 square metres. However, the planning authority’s development contribution scheme bases its calculation on the net residential area and this is 71,783 square metres. The correct figure, on which to base the calculation of the contribution thus becomes 71,783 square metres minus 223.4 square metres minus 1,462 square metres equals 70,097.6 square metres by €156.62 equals €10,978,686.11.

In terms of car parking, the permitted scheme has 944 car parking spaces of which 796 are residential and therefore exempt from a contribution. There would thus be 148 non-residential spaces. 12 of these would be “accessible” at 18 square metres each and 106 (sic) at 12 square metres each would result


in a gross floor area of 1,848 square metres. At €63.50 per square metres, this results in a financial contribution of €117,348. However, there are already 23 existing basement car parking spaces serving the D4 Berkeley with an average area of 10 square metres each. These should be subtracted from the area of the 148 non-residential spaces proposed, resulting in an area of 1,618 square metres or €102,743. The calculation should thus be minus €1,143,635 plus €10,978,686.11 plus €102,743,000 equals €9,937,794.11. The social and affordable housing, which has yet to be determined, would then need to be subtracted from this amount.

13.0 THIRD PARTY OBSERVATIONS

Three observations have been received by the Board in relation to this appeal. They are from the Ringsend, Irishtown and Sandymount Environmental Group, the Ailesbury Road Residents’ Association and from Carmel O’Connor, a resident of Ballsbridge. The letters variously object to the proposed development on the grounds of overdevelopment, excessive height, unrelenting and unimaginative design, loss of trees and excessive retail content.

14.0 LETTERS TO THE PLANNING AUTHORITY

A large number of letters was received by the planning authority in relation to this application. The planning authority’s planner’s report records a total of 37, including those from prescribed bodies. The range of issues raised in these letters is similar to those raised in the appeals.

15.0 RESPONSE OF THE APPLICANTS

The applicants have responded to the third party grounds of appeal. Before dealing with the detailed grounds of appeal, the response notes that the proposed development has been formulated to take into account the Board’s decision on the earlier proposal on this site under PL 29S.228512. The Board is also requested to determine this appeal having regard to the current Dublin City Development Plan 2005-2011.

The response places the proposed development in context. It presents a table setting out the key site statistics as follows: -

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Areas as Permitted by Dublin City Council

Residential Units 534 no. unitsResidential Gross (Blocks 1-11) 85,468.60 square metres (Residential Net (Blocks 1-11)) (71,559.60 square metres)Retail/Commercial Uses 4,083.00 square metres Restaurant/Cafés/Bars 1,950.40 square metres Community Facilities (Crèche/Healthcare) 1,670.50 square metres Hotel (Block 12:151 no. rooms) 6,449.00 square metres


Gross Floor Space (above ground) 99,621.50 square metres

Basement and Ancillary Areas 50,613 square metres Hotel Leisure/Spa and Conference 1,688 square metres Total Area below ground 52,301 square metres Total Area (above and below ground) 151,922.50 square metres Site Area (i.e. excluding 0.2 hectares of Dublin City Council controlled lands)

27,800 square metres

The response continues by setting out the key statistics of the proposed development, as permitted in the planning authority’s decision, in compliance with development management criteria as follows: -

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT CRITERIA

Areas as Permitted by Dublin City Council

Plot Ratio 3.58:1Site Coverage 45.7%Residential Density 192 units per hectare Percentage of single aspect apartments (DCC max of 15%)

12.3%

Percentage of dual aspect apartments 87.7%

OPEN SPACE PROVISION

A: Private Open Space 18,426 square metres B: Semi-Private Open Space 10,836 square metres Total Private Open Space (A+B) 29,262 square metres DCC Requirement (@ 12 square metres per bed space)

27,144 square metres

DCC Standards Exceeded by: [Requirement @ 12 square metres per bed space]

+ 2,118 square metres (7.8%)

Total Public Open Space 6,232 square metres (22%)DCC Requirement (@ 10% of site) 2,780 square metres DCC Requirement Exceeded by: + 3,452 square metres % Increase Over DCC Requirement 124%

The response then goes on to deal with the issues raised in the third party appeals under the relevant side headings which follow: -

15.1 Compliance with zoning provisions

The proposed uses comply with the zoning objective, being either permissible or open for consideration, the latter category including the restaurant and hotel uses, as existing. The apartments all considerably exceed the minimum floor areas specified in Variation 21 of the city development plan. There is a complementary mix of uses.

The scheme would interact positively with its surrounding context providing urban spaces, new pedestrian streets and public plazas, along with a new high quality residential development. Active building frontages would contribute to the vibrancy, vitality and passive enjoyment of the area for existing and new residents and would help achieve the principal objective of the site’s zoning. It is submitted that the urban design and architectural treatment of the


“pavilion buildings” on Lansdowne Road would create a modulated intermittent edge and would achieve an effective integration with the existing landscape and surrounding built environment. The retention of existing mature trees and railings would minimise the visual impact on Lansdowne Road. A photomontage is submitted to demonstrate this point.

15.2 Building Height

It is submitted that the building heights of the proposed development have been designed with specific reference to previous decisions of the Board in this area as well as to the policies and objectives in the city development plan. The predominant height would be nine storeys. There would be two 15-storey feature elements. The pavilion buildings would step down from nine to seven storeys where they front Lansdowne Road. The block fronting Shelbourne Road would step down from seven to six storeys. The hotel would be ten storeys in height. The ground floor of all the buildings would have a floor to ceiling height of about five metres. The appeal site is located in an area of considerable variety in terms of height, urban grain and the quality and style of architecture. The proposed development would fit within its context and present a highly legible and permeable design.

The response quotes from the inspector’s assessment in the case of the proposed development on the adjoining Veterinary College site, under PL 29S.228224, wherein he noted that the planning authority, in the case of the earlier application on the present site, lowered those blocks fronting onto Lansdowne Road by two floors from eleven to nine. He considered that this represented a more appropriate scale for the perimeter of this triangular urban block. The proposed buildings on Lansdowne Road would have a shoulder height of seven storeys stepping up to nine storeys in line with the overall scale recognised by the Board inspector as suitable for this location. The response also quotes the planning authority’s planner’s report wherein it was considered that the proposed scale and height of the development had been reasonably carefully located and modulated to relate to both the internal character of the site and its environs. It is submitted that the proposed predominant seven to nine storey height is reflective of the permitted and established built form in the immediate vicinity and provides an appropriate transition to the adjacent Z2 conservation areas.

The two 15-storey feature elements would be located towards the centre of the site and would allow for an appropriate transition in scale to the road frontage, while being somewhat removed from the surrounding public streets. They acknowledge the common urban design principle of locating such features beside open spaces, overlooking Pembroke Square on the adjacent Veterinary College site and the new corner plaza. They would complement the other buildings, creating an elegant and interesting skyline and improving legibility in the landscape.

The proposed 10-storey hotel block would be 0.5 metres lower than the highest point on the adjoining permitted Veterinary College scheme. The hotel would provide an attractive slender building form, responding to the


axial alignment of Pembroke Road. The response quotes from the five point consideration and assessment of the 15-storey elements at pages 16 and 17 of the Dublin City Council’s planner’s report. The planning authority considered that the proposed development is consistent with Section 15.6 of its development plan in relation to the control of tall buildings.

The DEGW Report “Managing Intensification and Change – A Strategy for Dublin Building Height” identifies criteria for the location of high buildings. They should be at key focal or converging points within the road structure of the city-wide plan, at primarily public transport nodes acting as gateways for arrival into the city or at locations which capture continuous long views across city-wide corridors, the last often being rare in traditional cities. The appeal site is held to be located at a key convergence point at Pembroke Road, Shelbourne Road and Lansdowne Road, proximate to the Lansdowne Road DART station and a range of bus services and is situated at a location that captures a long view across part of the city, i.e. the junction of Pembroke Road and Lansdowne Road. The proposed 15-storey towers accord with the guidance on the form of tall/landmark buildings in the DEGW Study.

The Visual Impact Assessment in Section 12.7 of the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, submitted originally with this application and revised in response to the request for further information, concludes that the impact on visual amenity is relatively benign and that even where significant changes occur, the key elements of views are retained and/or enhanced by the proposed development.

15.3 Plot Ratio and Density

The response acknowledges that the plot ratio would be 3.58:1. It is submitted that having regard to the appeal sites’ zoning, its strategic urban location and its proximity to existing quality public transport infrastructure that this density is appropriate. It is noted that the current development plan does not stipulate an upper limit on residential density. The proposed residential blocks would not give rise to either a loss of residential amenity or environmental quality and the proposed density would, therefore, be appropriate and in accordance with the development plan. The response notes the plot ratios permitted on adjacent sites, namely the former Veterinary College site, under PL 29S.228224, at 3.96:1 and Hume House, under PL 29S.236211, at 3.88:1. The areas of these sites are 8,250 square metres and 3,500 square metres, respectively. The plot ratio would be balanced with a site coverage of 45.7% where extensive public realm would be provided through generous plazas, new streets and private open space in the form of courtyards and gardens.

It is submitted that the plot ratio is consistent with the policies and objectives of the development plan. The response notes the Dublin City Council’s planner’s report holds that the development is responsive to the existing built environment, having regard to the established pattern form of development in the vicinity of the site, i.e. an area roughly defined by Lansdowne Road, the River Dodder and Pembroke Road. It also holds that it is informed by an urban design strategy that is responsive to both the particular characteristics of


the site and the potential benefits to the wider area. The response also notes the quotation of a written objective of the city development plan in the planner’s report to “promote the development of higher densities and the consolidation of the urban form throughout the city”. It is noted that the planning authority considered that having regard to the strategic location of the site, the policy context and the particular challenges of the site, it is possible to deliver a plot ratio that keeps within an acceptable height envelope, while providing an opportunity to enhance and benefit the wider Ballsbridge area.

The response quotes the Sustainable Residential Development in Urban Areas – Guidelines for Planning Authorities in relation to their recognition that brownfield sites are particularly suited to the provision of high densities. They define such sites as “any land which has been subjected to building, engineering or other operations, excluding temporary uses or urban green spaces”, and hold that they generally comprise redundant industrial lands or docks, but may also include former barracks, hospitals or even, occasionally, obsolete housing areas. The guidelines go on to advise that where such significant sites exist and, in particular, are close to existing or future public transport corridors, the opportunity for their redevelopment to higher densities, subject to the safeguards expressed earlier in the guidelines, where in accordance with local area plans, should be promoted. This advice is felt to be relevant to the appeal site. It is pointed out that the subject proposal effectively links with and completes the public realm with the permitted development on the former veterinary college site.

It is contended that the plot ratio of 3.58:1 would be achieved without impacting negatively on other relevant development standards in the development plan. The proposed development would exceed sunlight and daylight standards, open space standards, size, aspect, layout, mix of residential units, etc. and would provide public permeable routes through an otherwise impenetrable block. It is submitted that appropriate density is achieved without either a loss of residential amenity or environmental quality.

15.4 Traffic and Parking

The Transportation Assessment submitted as part of the EIS showed a reduction in traffic levels in the area. It concluded that the proposed development would have a relatively small impact on traffic movements on the adjoining road network. Local junctions would operate within capacity or, where already experiencing localised congestion, would not be significantly worsened.

At the time of events in the Aviva Stadium the normal local traffic management restrictions would apply and this is accepted by the applicant. It is submitted that the retail component of the proposed development would play an important role in spreading the arrival and departure peaks for the stadium and RDS events and would thereby mitigate the associated traffic impacts.


The proposed development has taken into consideration the traffic which would be generated by other developments including the Montevetro office building in Barrow Street and the former Veterinary College site development. Permissions granted more recently, e.g. Hume House and AIB Merrion Road would have a negligible impact on the assessment results. The Transportation Assessment submitted with the Hume House application showed that there would be a decrease in traffic flows as a result of that development.

The mobility management approach would encourage residents of the proposed development to use modes of transport other than the private car. There would be 485 publically accessible bicycle spaces and 440 private bicycle spaces.

The majority of car parking in the proposed development would be for residents – 854 of the 963 spaces. Parking would be provided at the rate of 1.5 spaces per household unit, due to the large average size of the units. However, the parking spaces would be primarily for car storage and there would be a relatively low car usage during peak morning and evening periods. Such has been shown to be the case at nearby residential developments.

The new Samuel Beckett Bridge does not provide significant additional total vehicular capacity across the river, but rather allows local re-routing of traffic. It has minimal impact on traffic volumes further afield in areas such as Ballsbridge.

The DART and commuter trains have been lengthened to eight carriages and this means that while peak period trains are busy, there is considerable spare capacity immediately outside the peak periods. The construction of DART Underground will quadruple capacity in the Greater Dublin Area from 25 million passengers annually to 100 million passengers.

The applicant has been very conscious of the need to ensure that the residential nature of Lansdowne Road is retained. Access to the proposed development from this street would therefore be restricted to residential access only. There would be a higher capacity access to residential car parking on Shelbourne Road and the vast majority of non-residential traffic would use the Pembroke Road access. At Lansdowne Road, infrequently used residential,only, access would take the place of a hotel access with associated bus and servicing movements.

On Shelbourne Road, there is already a significant amount of commercial activity and the road also caters for local, commuter and commercial traffic. It is submitted, therefore, that the new development access and associated traffic would result in little practical change from current conditions. Servicing and waste collection would be carried out in the basement, a good distance away from Shelbourne Road, itself. A Servicing Management Plan would restrict the timing and servicing in order to avoid nuisance to local residents.


15.5 Retail

It is incorrect to hold that the proposed 3,329 square metres anchor store would come close to the 3,500 square metre cap for supermarket use in the Dublin area and would exceed the 3,000 square metre cap applying to areas outside Dublin. The caps stipulated in the Retail Planning Guidelines refer to net floor space, whereas the figure of 3,329 square metres refers to gross floor space. The actual net floor space of the anchor tenant would be 2,330 square metres.

Ballsbridge is designated a Level Three Category A District Centre in the current city development plan. The proposed development is well within the types of retail specified for district centres and would, indeed, also be acceptable in the lower Neighbourhood Centre designation.

In relation to the proposed retail component being unacceptable under the Z1 zoning objective, the response refers to Variation 21 of the city development plan wherein it is stated that “the definition of a neighbourhood shop shall be interpreted to allow for the provision of current supermarket/discount store floor plates and associated car parking”. The proposed development is wholly consistent with the explicit provisions of Variation 21.

In relation to the proposed retail component, together with the permitted development on the adjoining Veterinary College site bringing the total retail floor space in the two developments to 8,600 square metres, a household survey of persons living within a 10 minute drive time of Ballsbridge as part of the earlier application under PL 29S.228512, showed that in the absence of a modern format supermarket, Ballsbridge residents were travelling to a wide variety of alternative locations for their convenience shopping. Section 6 of the Retail Impact Statement, submitted with the application, concludes that the proposed development would have no negative convenience or comparison impact on any other centre due to the limited scale of the proposed retail floor space and the existing diffusion of shopping patterns around Ballsbridge and the subsequent diversion of trade to many other centres. None of the appeals provides any supportive quantative information reinforcing the argument of potential impacts on surrounding centres. It is submitted that the existing vacant units in inner suburban centres, cited by the appellants, are often a reflection of the older form or nature of the floor space and the susceptibility of these centres to declining sales in the absence of a thriving retail anchor.

The calculation of 8,600 square metres of retail floor space on the combined Veterinary College site and the appeal site refers to gross floor space. It also includes 1,940 square metres, gross, non-retail service floor space such ascafés, restaurants and banks. This is not retail floor space and is not treated as such in either the Retail Planning Guidelines or in the submitted Retail Impact Statement. Such floor space currently exists on the D4 hotel site, on a much larger scale. The response includes a comparison table of the net retail floor space for Ballsbridge, including the present proposal, and surrounding centres, as follows: -


Comparison of Ballsbridge and Surrounding Centres’ Retail Floor Space (square metres net)

Centre Total Retail Floor Space Rathmines 8,672Ballsbridge 5,302*Ranelagh 3,000**Merrion 2,942Baggot Street Upper 2,387Sandymount 1,510Note: *Includes existing and proposed developments.

**Approximate figure; includes Superquinn.

It is pointed out that the data does not include floor space associated with the non-retail services such as cafés, restaurants, banks and credit unions. It is submitted that this data clearly shows that the retail offer of Ballsbridge would be wholly consistent with the size of surrounding centres. It is pointed out that areas such as Ranelagh, Sandymount and Baggot Street, owing to their existing traditional urban built environment, find it increasingly difficult to increase their retail floor space quantums. The Board’s refusal of the enlargement of the Tesco supermarket in Sandymount is cited as an example (PL 29S.222602).

In relation to the potential retail impact on Dublin City Centre, it is pointed out that the combined retail offer for Ballsbridge of 5,302 square metres is just 1.2% of the total retail floor space identified in Dublin City Centre in the Retail Strategy for the Greater Dublin Area. It is incorrect to suggest that the proposed development would draw significant amounts of trade from Dublin City Centre, as shown in the Retail Impact Statement.

15.6 Conservation (Trees and Railings)

As shown Drawing No. 300 Rev 01, the majority of trees of good quality along the site boundary would be retained. At present there are 79 trees on site, of which three are located on the public footpath. 40 of these trees including one Emmenopterys, which is to be relocated, would be retained. All significant trees would be retained and of the 39 to be removed, nine are already in poor condition. Nine trees would be removed from the Lansdowne Road/Shelbourne Road boundary, but these would be replaced by 23 semi-mature trees. There would be 93 trees within the streets and gardens throughout the development.

Railings and stone piers from the perimeter of the site would be retained and, where necessary, reused, as in the case of the Shelbourne Road boundary where the existing boundary wall would be replaced by reclaimed railings on a low plinth wall.


15.7 Sunlight, Daylight and Overshadowing

A daylight/sunlight study was undertaken by Aurea Consulting and this was peer-reviewed. The study demonstrates that all of the existing buildings to the northwest along Lansdowne Road and to the northeast along Shelbourne Road would retain good skylight and sunlight following completion of the proposed development. In terms of skylight, the proposed development would meet the Building Research Establishment guidelines and in the case of sunlight, the guideline levels would be substantially exceeded. The main open spaces within the development would also meet or exceed the BRE guidelines in terms of sunlight as shown in the table which follows: -

Location Requirement (60% on 21st March)

Provision

Lansdowne Road Open Spaces

60% 60%

Central Courtyard Open Space 60% 61%Pembroke/Lansdowne Road Space

60% 90%

Pembroke/Veterinary College Diagonal Space

60% 75%

15.8 Open Space

Private open space would be provided at the rate of 12.9 square metres per bed space, by comparison with the development plan requirement of 12-15 square metres per bed space. Excluding the crèche play area, there would still be 12.5 square metres per bed space, consisting of winter gardens, balconies, roof terraces, a shared semi-private garden area along Shelbourne Road, the raised semi-private courtyard garden area and the semi-private roof terraces.

In terms of public open space, there would be high quality landscaped open spaces directly accessible to the public – 6,232 square metres in total. This would make up 22% of the site area, by comparison with the city development plan requirement of 10% minimum. This public open space would take the form of a public plaza, pedestrian streets and a raised garden adjacent to the proposed health centre on Shelbourne Road.

15.9 Architectural Design, Character, Context and Overlooking

The architects for the proposed development, O’Mahony Pike, were competitors in the original design competition and the design now proposed, follows quite closely on the competition entry, particularly in relation to the blocks along the Lansdowne Road frontage, the central core block and the tower where the hotel is now proposed. Public spaces and routes are also similar. It is submitted that the proposed five residential “pavilion buildings” along Lansdowne Road, set back behind the existing trees and separated by landscaped gardens, present an appropriate frontage to the large Victorian semi-detached or terraced houses on the opposite side of the road. Within the


proposed development, the pedestrian streets and public spaces would be animated by a mix of shops, cafés and restaurants. The two modest towers would relieve the even height of the buildings and reinforce key locations. The hotel, with its dramatic geometry and relationship to the vista down Pembroke Road and the adjacent public spaces would present a focal point, in scale with the generous proportions of this major city street. The external walls, with their screen of masonry and large openings of varying width (windows, recessed balconies or winter gardens) would produce a façade of considerable variety. The overall coherence would be offset by two storey penthouses with façades set back in a contrasting stone finish. The hotel would feature a variation of the same façade treatment, but would be more repetitious, reflecting the hotel bedrooms.

The elevational treatment is conceived as a strategy of flexible façade detailing using a simple palette of materials including stone, brick and glazing. This is set out in a pattern of solid and void in rhythms reflecting the Georgian façade, where the building form would be sculpted and modulated to create spaces.

It is submitted that the proposed development builds on and is responsive to the existing character of Ballsbridge. It would read well in the context of both permitted developments and existing structures in the vicinity of the site. The new pedestrian streets and public spaces can be integrated within the traditional street network of Ballsbridge. The pavilion treatment of the buildings along Lansdowne Road is proposed to avoid a continuous built form along the road and to allow alternative orientations to the proposed residential units away from the street and the existing houses opposite. The retention of the holm oaks along Lansdowne Road would preserve the character of the street and provide an effective screen or landscape buffer between the existing residences and the proposed development. The trees would protect the privacy of both the existing residences and that of the proposed development and its garden spaces. Most of the proposed apartments would not address the existing houses on Lansdowne Road, but rather would face into the inset garden spaces. Only some of the gable units would have limited windows towards Lansdowne Road and these would be 40-45 metres from the existing houses.

The building facing Shelbourne Road would be orientated to provide for an active and visually interesting street elevation and frontage. It would have a reduced height of six storeys with the upper level set back. The reduced height is out of consideration for the scale and character of this street and it is an appropriate response to the character and privacy requirements of the houses opposite. It is submitted that the heights and separation distances are consistent with the massing and separation distances permitted on the adjoining Veterinary College site.

15.10 The Impact of the Ten-Year Permission

It is pointed out that the granting of a ten-year permission would not extend the build period which would remain at five years. The development would be


carried out in two phases and, as noted in the further information response, a Project Monitoring Committee would be set up to ensure that the community would have an active input. Such a methodology was employed effectively during the construction of the Aviva Stadium.

15.11 Water Supply, Drainage and Hydrogeology

Discussions with the City Council’s Water Division have indicated that there is sufficient capacity in the existing water supply network to meet the increased demand which would arise from the proposed development. New trunk mains through Stillorgan and an upgrade of the local mains on Anglesea Road would improve the overall level of water supply to the Ballsbridge area. On site rainwater harvesting would be adopted for flushing to minimise the impact on water services in the area. The water conservation measures would include dual flush toilets and low flow rate fittings.

There is spare capacity in the Pembroke Road and Lansdowne Road combined sewers to accept foul sewage from the proposed development. Surface water runoff from the existing development would no longer flow to the combined sewer, thereby freeing up additional capacity. The site is 95% built over at present and all surface water discharges, unrestricted, to the combined sewers and to the Swan Culvert on Lansdowne Road. In the proposed development, surface water runoff would be restricted to greenfield runoff rates and on-site storm attenuation tanks would be provided to store surface runoff in excess of this rate.

On the issues of watertable, flooding and hydrogeology, it is noted that there is a number of “perched” watertables underlying the site, the shallowest being between 1.5 and 3.0 metres below ground level. These are restricted by less permeable layers and are unconnected to the regional watertable. The volumes of water to be pumped in these perched watertables would be minimised by using a secant pile cut-off wall around the site in the soils and the upper rock. Pre-condition surveys would be undertaken on neighbouring properties and stand pipes would be installed outside the wall to ensure the cut-off is functioning correctly. There would be no increased risk of flooding. When the basement is completed, the groundwater regime would return to a similar situation that exists today. There are limited flows within the underlying soils and bedrock and a more permeable material would be placed outside the constructed basement “box”. This would allow the water to flow around the basement, preventing a back-up.

15.12 Primary and Secondary School Capacity Study

In the Regional Planning Guidelines for the Greater Dublin Area, 2010-2022,household occupancy rates are predicted to drop from 2.27 in 2006 to 2.26 in 2016 and to 2.02 by 2022. Allowing for the construction time and the phasing of the development, demand for school places would not arise immediately. At 2.02 persons per household, the 534 apartments, as permitted by the planning authority, would accommodate 1,079 residents. Based on The Provision of Schools and the Planning System – A Code of Practice for


Planning Authorities, 12% of the population would present for primary education and 8.5% for secondary education, indicating a demand for 129 primary school places and 92 secondary school places. A study undertaken in connection with the previous application on this site indicated that while there might be a marginal shortfall in primary schools, there was ample capacity in the secondary schools. Proximity to DART and a QBC would mean that pupils could travel beyond the six kilometre catchment area, a travel pattern undertaken by 16% of pupils in the Dublin area at present.

15.13 Childcare Provision

The 470.5 square metre childcare facilities would be more than sufficient to cater for the demand of 143 childcare spaces which would arise from the proposed development, based on the Childcare Facilities Guidelines for Planning Authorities, 2001.

15.14 Absence of an overall plan for the area

The preparation of a local area plan is neither a statutory objective of the current development plan or the draft plan and is not a priority for the planning authority. The current Dublin City Development Plan is thus the relevant plan for the area.

15.15 Sale of part of the public footpath and road

There is no proposal by the applicant or the planning authority to purchase/sell part of the footpath and road. The drawings submitted to the planning authority show the extent of works suggested/proposed at these locations, subject to the agreement and the requirements of the planning authority. The additional area is not relied upon to establish a lower plot ratio.

15.16 Frascati Estates – No possibility of ever carrying out the development

The applicant has the consent of the freehold owners and Dublin City Council in respect of the footpaths at Lansdowne/Shelbourne Road junction and has sufficient legal interest and privity to make the application.

15.17 Wind Tunnelling

Following the detailed wind tunnel study submitted in response to the planning authority’s request for further information, a number of specific measures are proposed to mitigate the wind tunnelling effects. These include some temporary measures to be deployed on windy days. With these measures undertaken, there would be no exceedance of the “distress” criteria found in the further information response. Conditions in the winter would be in the “sitting” or “standing” range and would be similar to that existing and “acceptable for the intended use” of the area. Conditions in the summer months would be suitable for outdoor eating. These measures, together with the findings in relation to sunlight/daylight would afford a high quality environment of significant amenity value.


16.0 RESPONSE OF THE PLANNING AUTHORITY

The planning authority has responded to the grounds of appeal. The response, insofar as felt relevant, follows the approach taken by the planning authority in its submission to the oral hearing on the previous application on this site and quotes directly from this submission, where appropriate.

At the outset, Ballsbridge is placed in its physical context. It is one of the city’s best known districts, a hub for cultural, leisure and commercial institutions that dominate its core and act as major drivers of tourism and commerce in the city. It also performs an important function as a local centre and focal point for the established residential community. It is a place of physical diversity, as reflected in the contrast between its busy commercial core and its more residential hinterland. It is important to differentiate between the two distinct character areas and the present application was determined on this basis.

The National Development Plan, the National Spatial Strategy, the Regional Planning Guidelines for the Greater Dublin Area, the Dublin Transportation Office’s Transport Strategy all recognise land as a finite resource and that the sustained growth of the city requires an increased densification of development through the reuse and intensification of brownfield and major redevelopment sites. It is an objective of the planning authority to secure more efficient use of land to reduce urban sprawl and loss of productivity by providing high quality living and working environments, while minimising commuting times. The appeal site, at about 2.8 hectares presents such an opportunity. The site is just five minutes’ walk from the nearby DART Station at Lansdowne. Ballsbridge is also served by a Quality Bus Corridor and other bus services. The response continues by quoting the Development Strategy for the City, the Civic and Urban Framework, Economic Development Policies, and Development Standards, all as set out in Chapters 1, 2, 3, 6 and 15 of the city development plan and as quoted earlier in this report.

The response notes that motions for plans to be prepared for 19 specified areas within the city, including Ballsbridge, had been received. Responding to these motions from elected members, the City Council has stressed that priority should be given to implementing the objectives of its development plan and the focus of resources has thus been on developing plans for Prime Urban Centres, Framework Development Areas and other areas for which there are specific written objectives in the plan. A motion seeking the preparation of a draft local area plan was rejected by the elected members, but it was indicated that an integrated framework was needed and the members were advised that a draft framework would be developed.

All of the uses proposed are either permissible or open for consideration under the Z1 zoning objective. The proposed development does not constitute a material contravention of the city development plan.


It is recognised that the plot ratio permitted, at 3.5:1 is high. However, it can be justified on the grounds that the proposed development is responsive to the existing built environment, having regard to the established pattern and form of development in the vicinity of the site, i.e. an area roughly defined by Lansdowne Road, the River Dodder and Pembroke Road. The proposed development is also ably supported and underpinned by a proposed creative urban design strategy, responsive to both the particular characteristics of the site and the potential benefits to the wider area. The high plot ratio has facilitated a corresponding reduction in site coverage, allowing the creation of a network of new streets and public spaces which would contribute significantly to the character and amenity of the entire Ballsbridge area. Both the city development plan and the Residential Density Guidelines advise that plot ratio should not be used as a planning tool in isolation from other measures such as site coverage, building height, public and private open space, residential roads and parking standards. No indicative plot ratios are specified for lands zoned Z1.

The response notes that it is written objective of the development plan to promote the development of higher densities and the consolidation of the urban form throughout the city. In particular, higher densities will be promoted within 500 metres of QBCs and 800 metres from rail termini (Sections 15.3.0 and 15.4.0). This is highly relevant to the appeal site.

Whether the site is regarded as brownfield or inner suburban is held to be of little relevance. It is clearly a major redevelopment site with significant development potential, within a built-up and established area. The guidelines on Sustainable Residential Development in Urban Areas note the very substantial investment in public transport under Transport 21. They advise the maximisation of the return on this investment through the establishment of sustainable settlement patterns, including higher densities on lands within existing or planned transport corridors.

The response notes that the development of retail within the development, together with restaurant, cafés and bars opening onto new streets and spaces would create an active and lively quarter and ensure the provision of essential and complementary services to meet the requirements of existing and future residents. A retail strategy for Ballsbridge was prepared in parallel to the preparation of the draft local area plan. While this has no statutory significance, following the rejection of the draft local area plan by the elected members, it is interesting to note its findings. It identified a major shortfall in existing retail provision for the established residential population of Ballsbridge. At present there is little or no retail, other than small-scale convenience stores, so that residents in the area are required to travel to shop. It concluded that a district centre of between 10 and 12,000 square metres (net) would be supported by population increases and would not adversely impact on existing retail provision or conflict with the City Council strategy to promote the city centre as the primary shopping destination. The findings were taken into consideration in assessing the present proposal.


The response notes that neighbourhood shopping is a permissible use under the zoning objective. It notes the content of Section 15.26.0 of the development plan in relation to the creation of a vibrant city through the accommodation of a mix of uses. Section 14.4.1 of the development plan is quoted in relation to the fostering of the creation of new residential communities through the provision of ancillary facilities such as convenience shopping, crèches, schools, nursing homes, open space, recreation and amenity uses.

Section 15.9.4 of the development plan, on the neighbourhood, as introduced by Variation 21, advocates the provision of attractive mixed income mixed use neighbourhoods with all necessary social and other infrastructure and a high quality environment. The required qualities include good parks and play areas, good shopping and other commercial facilities, good schools, a public library, leisure facilities, safe and clean streets and efficient public transport. Policy RES 23 is to achieve successful, mixed income, mixed use neighbourhoods, requiring that a balanced planning approach should be taken in order to deliver local services. On balance, the planning authority considered that the proposed retail element of 4,083 square metres was in accordance with the zoning objective for the area.

In relation to conservation, the planning authority notes that the site is not designated for conservation protection. It contains no protected structures. It does not abut a conservation site and is separated from the Z2 zoned lands by Pembroke Road, Lansdowne Road and Shelbourne Road. It is currently occupied by modern structures of limited architectural value up to nine storeys in height. Existing use on site is non-residential, namely hotel and office use. The character of the area has been defined by its structures dating from the 1960’s, i.e. the hotels and the developments on the adjoining sites such as Carrisbrooke House, Lansdowne House and Hume House. By comparison with the existing hotels, which are of little architectural value, it is submitted that the proposed development is designed to a high architectural standard with a unified urban form which would greatly improve the character of the site and area as a whole. The principle of inserting modern structures on the site, significantly higher than the two to three storey period structures in the area is well established. The challenge of developing the city, while respecting its heritage is recognised in Section 10.0.0 of the city development plan. The planning authority consider that the proposed development would achieve an appropriate balance without creating any significant physical impact on any designated protected structures or conservation area, while at the same time improving the character of an existing out-dated development.

On public space, the response notes that the proposed development would open up an extensive and largely impermeable site to the neighbourhood with a series of streets leading in from the existing streets and with provision for further links to adjoining sites yet to undergo redevelopment. The internal streets would be generous, generally traffic-free and would allow people, including children to wander and enjoy themselves in safety and comfort. Of the site area, 22% would be devoted to public open space.


On housing quality assessment, the response notes that an assessment was submitted with the application. It is noted that a key measure is the average floor area and for this scheme it is 134 square metres compared to the target of 85 square metres specified in Variation 21. Overall, given the size, quality and choice of apartments, a high quality residential development would be provided.

On height, the response refers to the planner’s report.

The response from the planning authority includes, separately from the response from its planning department, a response from its Roads and Traffic Planning Division. This part of the response notes that the approach of the City Council is to encourage intensification in appropriate locations where a high proportion of trips can be accommodated by means other than the private car. At this location, close to DART and bus and close to the city centre, there is strong potential for use of public transport, walking and cycling. 89% of the parking spaces would be for residential use. The commercial parking would be subject to a progressive tariff structure to discourage commuter parking and encourage short-term use of spaces. The response notes that the previous application on this site was not refused on the ground of traffic generation.

The proposed development would be well served by existing public transport services and would not be reliant on future transport developments.

On the sale of public road space/inclusion of public space in the proposed development, it is pointed out that although shown within the red line boundary, this land would remain in the charge of the City Council and any alterations thereto would be subject to its written agreement.

The service/delivery entrance off Shelbourne Road would be subject to a management plan that would regulate delivery times to minimise the impact on adjacent residents. The service areas themselves would be located within the building at basement level at a distance from the residences on Shelbourne Road. Access to this entrance would be via a newly designed three-arm signal controlled junction. The Roads and Traffic Planning Division is satisfied that movements to and from the development would be adequately controlled. On hotel access and parking, owing to the bus lane along Pembroke Road, the City Council is only prepared to accept the provision of a modest layby for set-down to cater for cars and taxis. Bus set-down would take place on Lansdowne Road. Under the development plan, just 43 spaces should be provided for the hotel. All of the 89 public spaces accessed from Pembroke Road would potentially be available to patrons of the hotel. Hotel patrons could also avail of pay and display parking in the vicinity. A car park management plan would be required.

Residential car parking provision at the rate of 1.5 spaces per residential unit was accepted on the basis of the large size of the proposed apartments. It is likely that the car parking spaces would serve, primarily, for car storage at peak traffic times.


The response includes a lengthy passage attesting to the effectiveness of mobility management. The implication is that it would be successful in achieving a modal shift and reducing overall traffic levels.

In relation to the allegation that there would too many accesses, it is stated that in general, several access points are desirable as this would serve to distribute traffic around the network, rather than concentrating traffic on one street. In the present instance, the number of accesses also facilitates a separation of residential traffic from commercial traffic.

On the issue of the traffic implications of the crèche, it is considered that a large proportion of children could be dropped off on foot, having regard to the scale of the residential catchment immediately adjacent to the facility. It is felt that the applicant has demonstrated that there would be adequate on-street space to accommodate crèche drop-off.

The response from the planning authority’s Roads and Traffic Planning Division concludes by recommending that the roads and traffic conditions attached by the planning authority in its decision to grant permission should be supported and repeated in the event of permission being granted.

The planning report concludes by noting that the planning authority’s decision was influenced by a number of considerations as follows: -

• The area bounded by Pembroke Road, Lansdowne Road and Shelbourne Road is of sufficient size to generate its own unique character.

• The character of the site has already been established by the existing hotels and apartments.

• There are already some high rise structures in the vicinity such as Lansdowne House and Carrisbrooke House.

• Recent planning permissions in the vicinity include the redevelopments of the former Veterinary College and Hume House. The latter permission was granted by the Board, subsequent to its refusal of the previous application on the present site.

The planning authority considers that the proposal is an appropriate response in urban design and architectural terms to the scale and character of the site and area. It would lead to the creation of a new vibrant urban quarter.

On the issue of the scale of retail, the area is designated a Category A District Centre. The retail strategy at Appendix A of the city development plan gives guidance on the scale and location of retail development. The planning authority concluded that the retail component would be at an acceptable level having regard to the guidance contained in this strategy, including its sequential approach and also to the information contained in the Draft Ballsbridge Local Area Plan.


17.0 FURTHER SUBMISSIONS IN RELATION TO THE ORIGINAL APPEALS

The original appeals were cross-circulated and apart from the responses from the applicant and from the planning authority, further submissions have been received from An Taisce and Jane Lanigan.

17.1 Further comments from An Taisce

An Taisce notes the “aerial view” enclosed with the appeal from Anthony Harrison. It believes this to be inaccurate and reiterates its view that the highest building (Block 1) on the Veterinary College site would be 37.9 metres OD, that Block 2 would vary from 33.7 metres to 34.7 metres and Block 3 would be predominantly 32.7 metres. Only one building in the proposed development, namely Block 7 (fronting towards Shelbourne Road),would be lower than the Veterinary College buildings at 24.75 metres OD. The “aerial view” appears to show that the Veterinary College buildings would be higher than the appeal site and similar discrepancies are noted in the drawings submitted. An Taisce remains of the view that the height of the building should be scaled down towards the protected structures on the opposite side of Lansdowne Road. The appellant again quotes the city development plan which states “the potential siting of higher buildings or high intensity clusters within the city would be planned using the principles and criteria enunciated in the (DEGW) study. The appropriate reference in the DEGW study is that “in existing areas with a diversity of grain (e.g. Drumcondra) – appropriate height should range between three to five storeys.” (Page 43 paragraph 2).

The appellant reiterates its stance in relation to the retail component being greatly in excess of that permitted under the Z1 zoning objective, being more appropriate to the Z3 or, indeed, the Z4 zoning objectives. Section 14.5.0 of the city development plan notes that “uses not listed in any of the categories in Zones Z1, Z2, Z8, Z9, Z11 and Z15 are deemed not to be permissible uses in principle”. This section continues by stating that uses not specified in these categories in other zones will be dealt with on their merits. The appellant notes that all of the zoning objectives grouped with Z1 in this section are the most sensitive designations.

The appellant concurs with the other appellants in relation to the grossly excessive intensity of development proposed. With a plot ratio of approximately 3.6:1, the proposed development would be far in excess of the highest indicative plot ratios of 2.5 and 3:1 specified for the Z5 and Z14 zoning objectives in the city centre. A much lower intensity of development is called for in close proximity to Z2 residential conservation areas and protected structures. The inspector’s report in the case of PL29S.233816, a proposed residential development in place of St. Mary’s Secondary School and convent extending from Haddington Road to St. Mary’s Road, is quoted. In that case, the inspector held that the proposed development at 39 dwellings per hectare was considered to be appropriate to the site having regard to its location in


close proximity to good quality bus routes and DART. A development at six times this density cannot be appropriate for the present site.

The submission notes that the appeal from Dermot Desmond referred to his inability to obtain a City Architect’s report in relation to the proposed development. This report has now become available. In the report, the City Architect expresses concern that the east - west sequence of spaces from Lansdowne Road behind Block 8 would be narrow, overshadowed, uninviting and unsuccessful. He notes also that some of the open space i.e. that to the north of Block 8 and northeast of Block 9 would in fact be outside the site. He has the same concerns as the appellant in relation to the survival of the trees which it is proposed to retain and expresses concern that their loss would have serious implications in terms of wind mitigation.

The appellant quotes the six factors cited towards the end of the planner’s report as having been material to his recommendation, but considers that the planner cannot have had due regard to the documentation cited, as the proposed development materially contravenes the city development plan, fails to conform to the principles and criteria set out in the DEGW report and fails to comply with the Sustainable Residential Development in Urban Areas Guidelines as they relate to the subject site.

17.2 Comments from Jane Lanigan

The appellant concurs with the points raised in the other appeals and in particular, the very detailed appeals from An Taisce and the Lansdowne and District Residents’ Association. She asks that the Board consider all the issues raised, forensically, as she believes that many of the calculations set out in the applicant’s proposals are incorrect.

18.0 COMMENTS ON THE RESPONSE FROM THE APPLICANTS

The applicant’s response to the grounds of appeal was circulated to the appellants. Responses were received from Jane Lanigan, James O’Reilly, Anthony Harrison, Frank and Loretto Meagher, the Pembroke Road Association, Patrick Kennon, Lorraine Hickey and Robert Bastow, Ballsbridge Wood Management Company, the Doyle Collection, An Taisce, the Dublin South-East Green Party and the Lansdowne and District Residents’ Association. Much of the comments may be regarded as a reiteration of views already expressed, but some may be regarded as an elaboration or a new angle. Insofar as they fall under the latter category, the comments are grouped under the relevant sub-headings which follow.

18.1 The Draft Dublin City Development Plan, 2011-2017

It is held that it would be wrong to fail to take into account the provisions of the draft city development plan. Much of this proposed development plan has already been finalised. It is likely to be adopted before the expected latest date for a decision on this appeal. In the draft city development plan, Ballsbridge is


not a key developing area or key district centre. The appeal site remains located in an area zoned objective Z1. In the draft development plan, the Z1 zone is subject to an indicative plot ratio of 0.5 – 2 to 1, only.

18.2 Intensity of Development

The appeal site is not in a Prime Urban Centre and so has no special status in terms of being selected for higher density development. The site is of no strategic importance, either nationally or regionally.

18.3 Existing Character

It has been pointed out that the appeal site is not brownfield, but that of operational hotels. Neither is the appeal site that of the Irish Glass Bottle Company in Ringsend, but rather it is surrounded by a residential conservation area. Further safeguarding of conservation areas is provided in the draft city development plan at Section 17.10.8.1. The planner’s finding that the proposed development “effectively embraces and contributes to the existing character of Lansdowne Road” is felt to be beyond sensible argument and to amount to meaningless phraseology. The proposed development would give rise to excessive removal of Turner railings from the Lansdowne Road frontage. It is not acceptable to relocate these railing to Shelbourne Road.


It is submitted that the prevailing height on the opposite sides of Lansdowne Road and Shelbourne Road and the heights specified in the draft city development plan should set the benchmark for the height on the site. One comment suggests that an appropriate height would be three-storey on Lansdowne Road, that the hotel should be omitted and that the remainder of the site should be developed to a height no greater than that at present on site. Policies SC15 and SC17 of the draft city development plan are quoted. These are to protect and enhance the intrinsic quality of Dublin as a predominantly low to medium rise city and to provide for taller buildings in designated limited locations shown at Figure 21 and to promote a co-ordinated approach to the provision of taller buildings through local areas plans and schematic master plans in order to prevent visual clutter or cumulative negative visual disruption of the skyline. The draft development plan sets a maximum height of six storeys or 19 metres for residential development and greater height should be regarded as premature pending the adoption of a local area plan allowing greater height. The site should not be regarded as analogous to the Veterinary College site or that of Hume House, as the zonings of these two sites largely differ from that of the appeal site and they are not contiguous to Z2 conservation zones. The two 15-storey towers are not “modest” but, on the contrary, they are designed to be seen.


The appellants still hold that traffic generation will be problematic, particularly on the occasions of events at the Aviva Stadium. The claims in


relation to the traffic impact in combination with the permitted developmentson nearby sites such as Hume House and AIB Merrion Road are not substantiated. The same can be said of the impact in combination with the diverted traffic travelling via the Samuel Beckwith Bridge. Two vehicular accesses to the appeal site should be sufficient and there is no need for a vehicular access onto Lansdowne Road with its attendant traffic and noise generation on this predominantly residential street. The proposed development would be over provided with residential car parking. The provision of 1.5 spaces per apartment is excessive for, while the apartments are larger than average in terms of floorspace, they are, nevertheless, predominantly (over two thirds) one or two-bedroomed, and so do not require additional car parking.

18.6 Retail Provision

It continues to be held that the designation of Ballsbridge as a district centre was in error. This is not repeated in the draft city development plan. In any case, the District Centre designation could only possibly apply to that part of Ballsbridge with the zoning objective Z4. It is still noted that the proposed retail development, together with that on the Veterinary College site would raise the retail provision in Ballsbridge way beyond that of established nearby retail centres. It would also shift the retail centre of gravity of Ballsbridge away from the existing village. In the draft city development plan, the term shop (neighbourhood) has been modified, following an amendment, to shop (local). This is clearly to have its conventional understanding.

18.7 The Vista Down Pembroke Road

It is submitted that the existing vista down Pembroke Road should be respected. It should not be wiped out with “a wall of concrete”.

18.8 The 10 Year Planning Permission

It is submitted that the power to grant permission for a period longer than the normal 5 years, as provided for under Section 41 of the Planning Development Act, 2000 should not be exercised. The proposed development, though large, is relatively straight forward and there is ample precedent for larger schemes having been granted, subject to the normal five year duration of planning permission. To grant permission for a longer period would simply mean that the area would suffer uncertainty for a longer period and ongoing nuisance from construction works.

18.9 School Needs

It is unsatisfactory that the assessment of school needs is based on a survey undertaken in connection with the earlier application on this site. The alleged lack of need for a new school or schools was confirmed, only by a telephone conversation with the Department of Education. There is no written documentation from the Department to this effect. The proposed development is in breach of the guidelines on Sustainable Residential Development in


Urban Areas (Section 4.3) which states that “no substantial residential development should proceed without an assessment of existing schools capacity or the provision of new school facilities in tandem with the development”. The Board cannot properly assess whether or not a school should form part of the application.

18.10 Private Amenity Open Space

The applicant’s figures for private amenity open space take the development as a whole. It is likely that individual apartments suffer from a shortfall in private amenity open space provision by the standards of the development plan. The figures also include winter gardens. These are not mentioned among the types of private amenity open space which would be deemed acceptable in either the current development plan or the draft city development plan.

19.0 COMMENTS FROM THE APPLICANT

The submission from An Taisce in relation to the other third party appeals was circulated. The applicant has lodged a submission in relation to this submission.

The architectural drawings have been checked and rechecked. The heights indicated for the adjoining Veterinary College scheme are accurate and reflect the scheme as permitted by the Board. An Taisce have omitted to mention some of the higher levels permitted by the Board. In the case of Block 2 the predominant level would be 38.7 metres OD with a pop-up of 39.7 metres OD. Block 3 would rise up to 33.7 metres OD. The drawings have also been corroborated by the architects for the Veterinary College scheme, Horan, Keoghan Ryan.

The aerial view copied with the appeal from Anthony Harrison is a computer generated image, rather than a verifiable photomontage. It was included to provide an understanding of the massing and detailing of the proposed scheme, beside a simple block form of the permitted Veterinary College scheme. A revised aerial view showing the proposed development, as permitted by the planning authority’s decision, is submitted with the comments. Its purpose remains the same. It is the photomontages which provide an accurate picture of the proposed development. It should be noted also that the aerial view omits the Hume House redevelopment, as permitted by the Board, and this would give a further impression of the height and massing permitted in the area.

The comments include a figure showing key heights on the proposed development in relation to those permitted on the Veterinary College and Hume House sites as well as those existing on the adjoining Shelbourne House and Department of Justice sites. It is pointed out that, apart from the two 15-storey elements, the height of the remaining D4 hotel site blocks would be predominantly lower than the neighbouring blocks on the Veterinary College


site. The permitted development on the Hume House site is comparable to or higher than the majority of blocks proposed on the appeal site.

The applicant again quotes from the inspector’s assessment in the case of the Veterinary College proposal under PL 29S.228224 in which he considered that the reduction in height from 11 to 9 storeys along the Lansdowne frontage on the present site represented a more appropriate scale for the perimeter of the triangular block formed by Pembroke Road, Lansdowne Road and Shelbourne Road. The applicant notes that the DEGW Strategy recognised the potential for new character to be developed, subject to contextual constraints. It is submitted that this triangular block has developed its own new character, as reflected in the permitted developments on the former Veterinary College and Hume House sites. It has the capacity to absorb higher density development. It is submitted that the proposed structures would achieve a more appropriate grain than is in existence at present, greatly improving the permeability of this currently impenetrable urban block and linking effectively with the permitted development on the former Veterinary College site.

On the issue of zoning and the scale of retailing proposed, the applicant reiterates the stance taken in the original application and subsequent submission in response to the third party appeals. Again Variation 21 of the city development plan is quoted as follows:

“Suitable sites large enough to accommodate a supermarket are a scarce resource in the city area. The provision of good supermarket and other shopping shall be encouraged in the interests of improving local facilities and employment, promoting regeneration, and enlivening the street and enhancing competition… The definition of a neighbourhood shop shall be interpreted to allow for the provision of current supermarkets/discount store floor plates and associated car parking”. It is submitted that the proposed development is wholly consistent with the explicit provision of Variation 21.

On the issues of density and plot ratio, the applicants consider that the comparison with the development permitted at Haddington Road under PL29S.233816 is not relevant to the present case, as the zoning objective in that case was Z15, relating to institutional lands. The applicants hold that this was a materially different development for a materially different purpose under a materially different zoning designation. It is a more restrictive zoning objective requiring 25% of a site to be set aside for public open space and residential use is only in the “open for consideration” category.

Referring to the report of the Deputy City Architect, the applicants state that it was never the intention that lands outside their control would be incorporated with the appeal site. They were not used for the purposes of open space calculation. This was clearly stated in their response to the planning authority’s request for further information (pages 19 and 20). The link street and potential future public open space would significantly exceed the minimum recommendations of the BRE Guidelines. This has been confirmed in an additional study undertaken by the applicant’s consultants Aurea Consulting and a copy of their report is attached as an appendix.


In relation to tree no. 3558, a holm oak, the applicant’s comments include a methodology for ensuring the retention of this tree and a figure (Figure 10) showing that the northernmost extent of this tree would be approximately 2.3 metres from the finished southern elevation of Block 5, rather than intruding into it.

In relation repeated references to perceived material contraventions of the city development plan, the applicants comment’s include a checklist of issues with which it is claimed the proposed development is compliant, as set out below.

• The site’s Z1 Zoning designation - Compliant• Private Open Space provision - Compliant• Public Open Space provision - Compliant• Sunlight and daylight access in Public Open Spaces - Compliant• Sunlight and daylight access in all apartment units - Compliant

• Shadowing/daylight access re existing properties to the north - Compliant

• Average size of apartment units (134.2 sq.m.) Compliant• Minimum floor areas for 1 and 2-bed apartments - Compliant• Percentage unit mix - Compliant• Percentage dual aspect apartments - Compliant• Percentage of units with kitchen windows - Compliant• Minimum storage provisions - Compliant• Floor-to-ceiling heights - Compliant• Minimum average balcony sizes - Compliant• Building heights in context of existing and

permitted development - Compliant• Plot ratio and density - Compliant• Traffic and Parking - Compliant• Retention of existing trees and railings - Compliant• Dublin City Development Plan, 2005-2011

overall compliance Compliant

20.0 ASSESSMENT

The new Dublin City Development Plan, 2011-2017 was adopted at a meeting of Dublin City Council on 24th November 2010. It came into effect on 22nd

December 2010. In accordance with is statutory obligations, the planning authority considered the proposed development under the Dublin City Development Plan, 2005-2011. The initial draft of the new city development plan was placed on public display from 21st December, 2009 to 12th March, 2010. The formal submissions were then considered and proposed amendments to the draft were placed on public display from 18th August 2010 to 15th September 2010. It follows that the initial draft and possible amendments were at an advanced stage at the time the planning authority reached its decision on the present development on 8th August 2010. Despite


this, it appears that the planning authority took little heed of the provisions of the draft development plan, even where these would have provided guidance as to what might have been regarded as the proper planning and sustainable development of the area, where the development plan of 2005-2011 lacked clarity or decisiveness.

The applicant has asked that the Board consider the present appeal in the light of the development plan of 2005-2011. However, I take the view that the Dublin City Development Plan, 2011-2017 is the relevant document. My assessment and recommendation gives precedence to the new development plan.

A number of key issues arise in considering this application and appeal. These issues are considered under the relevant side headings which follow:

20.1 The Quantum of Development

The existing development on the site is as set out in Section 1 of this report. Taking the figures presented in the planning application form, the Ballsbridge Inn and Ballsbridge Towers hotel complex has a floor area of 23,901 square metres and the D4 Berkeley has a floor area of 11,064 square metres. The D4Berkeley Apartments have a floor area of 1,462 square metres. The total floor area of the existing development on the site is thus 36,427 square metres. Taking the stated site area of 2.78 hectares exclusive of public footpath and road junction, the existing hotels and 16 apartments have a plot ratio of 1.31 to 1. I estimate the site coverage of these existing buildings to be about 40%. The existing hotels, the Ballsbridge Inn, the Ballsbridge Towers and the D4 Berkeley have a total of 580 bedrooms.

The proposed development, in accordance with the planning authority’s decision would have a gross floorspace, above ground, of 99,621.5 square metres (applicant’s figure). It would thus have a plot ratio of 3.58: 1. This does not take into account the additional floor area at basement levels, exclusive of car parking. In place of the three hotels with 580 bedrooms and, admittedly fairly extensive low rise (high single-storey) ancillary facilities and 16 apartments, it is now proposed to construct 534 residential units totalling 85,469 square metres gross floor area, plus 4,083 square metres of retail/commercial uses, 1,950 square metres of restaurant/café/bars, 1,670 square metres of community facilities (crèche/healthcare) and a 151 bedroomed hotel with a floor area of 6,449 square metres. Below ground level there would be a further 50,613 square metres, mostly car parking, but also including storage, servicing and hotel leisure/spa and conference facilities.

The two previous paragraphs give some idea of the intensification now proposed, by comparison with the existing development on the appeal site. Both the applicants and the planning authority attempt to reconcile this level of development with the Dublin City Development Plan, 2005-2011. The planning authority notes that it is a written objective of the development plan to promote the development of higher densities and the consolidation of the urban form throughout the city and that in particular, higher densities will be


promoted within 500 metres of QBCs and 800 metres of a rail terminal (sections 15.3.0 and 15.4.0). Furthermore it is an objective of the development plan to “promote the development of higher densities and the consolidation of the urban form throughout the city”. The planning authority takes the view that the high plot ratio can be justified on the grounds that the proposed development “is responsive to the existing built environment, having regard to the established pattern and form of development in the vicinity of the site i.e. an area roughly defined by Lansdowne Road, the River Dodder and Pembroke Road” and also because “it is ably supported and underpinned by a proposed creative urban design strategy responsive to both the particular characteristics of the site and the potential benefits to the wider area”. The planning authority points out that plot ratio is only one measurement of the area or volume of development on a site and while the proposed plot ratio is high, this has facilitated a corresponding reduction in the site coverage. While the planning authority’s thinking, as quoted, is almost a verbatim of its presentation to the oral hearing in the case of the earlier much more intensive proposal on this site under PL29S.228512, in that earlier case, it noted that the even higher plot ratio in that case had facilitated a corresponding reduction in the site coverage to 49%. The planning authority notes that both the Dublin City Development Plan, 2005-2011 and the Residential Density Guidelines state that plot ratio should not be used as a planning control in isolation from other measures, but rather in conjunction with other development control measures such as site coverage, building height, public and private open space and residential roads and parking standards.

In addition to an alleged compliance with the city development plan, the applicant’s response to the appeals notes the plot ratios which would be achieved by the developments permitted on the adjoining sites, namely the former Veterinary College site under PL29S.228224 at 3.96 : 1 and Hume House under PL 29S.236211 at 3.88 : 1. The response notes the areas of these adjoining sites at 8,250 square metres and 3,500 square metres, respectively.

In my view, while there is nothing specific in the Dublin City Development Plan, 2005-2011 which would rule out a plot ratio of 3.58 to 1, insofar as no indicative plot ratios are indicated for areas zoned objective Z1, “to protect, provide and improve residential amenities”, the proposed development is totally contrary to the thrust of the development plan in this regard. As noted previously, indicative plot ratio standards are specified in the developmentplan in relation to zones Z4, Z5, Z8, Z10 and Z14, only. The highest indicative plot ratios, in the range 2.5 to 3: 1 relate to zones Z5 and Z14. Zone Z5 relates to the city centre area and zone Z14 to rejuvenation areas in the docklands. Zone Z4, with an indicative plot ratio of 2: 1, relates primarily to pockets of land of limited depth fronting onto some of the major traffic arteries of the city e.g. Bolton Street, Dorset Street, Baggot Street Upper, Cork Street and Camden Street. Zone Z8, with a maximum indicative plot ratio of 1.5:1, relates primarily to the Georgian areas of the city. Zone Z10 with a maximum indicative plot ratio in the range 2 to 2.5: 1 relates to pockets of land, mostly, but not exclusively, outside the inner city, e.g. Clancy Barracks, Richmond Road, the former Smurfit Building in Phibsborough, Broadstone and, in close proximity to the appeal site, the site consisting of the former


Crampton’s headquarters, the former Swastika Laundry and Ballsbridge Motors. While the indicative plot ratios are subject to the proviso that in certain circumstances higher plot ratios may be permitted such as adjoining major public transport termini and corridors, notwithstanding the proximity of the appeal site to a quality bus corridor on Pembroke Road and within 300 metres of the DART station at Lansdowne Road, I do not consider that a plot ratio of 3.58 to 1, so far in excess of the maximum indicative plot ratio specified for the inner city, can reasonably be regarded as being in accordance with the development plan.

The planning authority refers to the established pattern and forms of development in the vicinity of the site, which it defines as an area bounded by the River Dodder, Pembroke Road and Lansdowne Road. While there is a strong precedent for modern multi-storey buildings to the southeast of the site and to the east of site on the former Crampton and Swastika Laundry sites, even if the former Veterinary College site and Hume House are not redeveloped, the area, as defined by the City Council is far from a cohesive whole. The same applies to the smaller triangle bounded by Pembroke Road, Lansdowne Road and Shelbourne Road. The several different zoning objectives in the Dublin City Development Plan, 2005-2011 are reflective of the diverse character of the larger and smaller area. In addition to the multi-storey modern buildings already mentioned and the part multi-storey and part low rise hotel buildings on the appeal site, the area also includes the low rise Victorian small plot size development on the east side of Pembroke Road and on either side of Shelbourne Road which might be regarded as making up the core of Ballsbridge Village. It also includes the Victorian houses on the east side of Shelbourne Road and south side of Lansdowne Road which enclose more modern residential development between them and the River Dodder.

In addition to failure to take due cognisance of the character of the northern part of the area bounded by Pembroke Road, Lansdowne Road and the River Dodder, I concur with the views expressed in the appeals in relation to transitional zones. The development plan (Section 14.8.0) advises that it is important to avoid abrupt transitions in scale and use zones. It advises that it is necessary to avoid developments which would be detrimental to the amenities of the more environmentally zones. It singles out as an example, zones abutting residential areas and states that particular attention should be paid to the use, scale, density and design of development proposals in order to protect the amenities of residential properties. In my view, this is of particular relevance to the northern part of the appeal site where it faces directly towards the predominantly residential Victorian houses on the opposite side of Lansdowne Road. In my view, the sheer intensity of development fails to take into account the sensitivity of these houses, which, unlike other roads in the vicinity, e.g. Northumberland Road, have remained substantially in residential use.

Whatever the interpretative latitude allowed by the Dublin City Development Plan, 2005-2011, the new development plan has much greater clarity and gives much greater direction in terms of plot ratio. Indicative plot ratios are specified for most zoning objectives in the city. Under the new development


plan, the appeal site remains subject to the zoning objective Z1, “to protect, provide and improve residential amenities”. This zoning objective is now subject to an indicative plot ratio in the range 0.5 to 2: 1. The Board should note that this range was revised from 1 to 2: 1, only, as a result of an amendment following the initial publication of the draft development plan. Notwithstanding the fact that the same proviso in relation to the possibility of higher plot ratios being allowed adjoining major public transport termini and corridors, I consider that had the proposed development been assessed under the new development plan, it would have been necessary for the planning authority to have invoked the material contravention procedure to allow the granting of this permission. The new development plan also specifies indicative site coverage standards for most zoning objectives. In the case of the Z1 zoning objective and indicative site coverage in the range 45-60% is specified. It appears, in this regard, that the proposed development would be acceptable.


The proposed development would range in height from seven storeys immediately along the building line with Lansdowne Road rising to a general height of nine storeys just 3 metres back from this building line to 15 storeys in the case of the two towers at the diagonal corners of the central quadrangle. The respective heights would be 23.9 metres, 30.8 metres and 49.7 metres. There would be many central access pavilions to the green roofs, adding a further 2.55 metres. The hotel building would be 10 storeys or 35.2 metres in height.

On building height, the Dublin City Development Plan, 2005-2011 (Section 15.6.0) quotes the study on “Managing Intensification and Change; A Strategy for Dublin Building Height”, DEGW, 2000, which stated “the definition of an appropriate building height in context is relative and relates not only to the prevailing dominant heights, but also to the grain and its consistency or diversity within an existing character area”. The developmentplan notes that different character areas will require different approaches to the issue of building heights, but recognises the need to protect conservation areas and the architectural character of existing buildings, streets and spaces of artistic, civic or historical importance. It also recognises the growth of Dublin as a significant world financial/commercial centre leading to a requirement for the development of high buildings at appropriate locations in order to promote investment, vitality and identity. The siting of higher buildings or high intensity clusters within the city would be planned using the principles and criteria enunciated in the DEGW study. The development plan sets out standards and criteria which should apply to medium and high rise buildings. These are as set out previously at Section 6.1.

In assessing the development, as originally lodged with the planning authority, the planner quotes the inspector in the case of the appeal on the adjoining Veterinary College site, under PL29S.228224. He noted the considerable variety to the height of the buildings found in the urban triangular shaped block formed by Pembroke Road, Lansdowne Road and Shelbourne Road. He


held that this block in terms of the height of the buildings, the urban grain, and the quality and style of the architecture lacks the consistency found elsewhere in Ballsbridge, specifically the Z2 residential conservation zoned 19th century and early 20th century areas. The planning authority noted that the inspector, while identifying a need for an appropriate transition and scale to prevent abrupt changes observed that the planning authority, in the case of the earlier application on the present site under PL29S.228512, had lowered the blocks fronting onto Lansdowne Road by two floors and considered that this did represent a more appropriate scale for the perimeter of this triangular urban block. The applicant’s response to the appeals also quotes the inspector’s opinion.

Also in support of the height of the proposed development, the applicant cites the precedent already established by the permission, on appeal, for the redevelopment of the Veterinary College site under PL29S.228224. This is shown to have a general height of 34.7 metres at parapet level fronting onto “New Pembroke Street”. The proposed development would have a general parapet level of 34.8 metres on the opposite side of this proposed pedestrian street.

In my view, while the development permitted on the adjoining Veterinary College Site undoubtedly establishes a marker for building height, it is not fully an appropriate precedent. The Veterinary College site is of much lesser area. The portion to be built up to the general height of 34.7 metres is zoned objective Z6, “To provide for the creation and protection of enterprise and facilitate opportunities for employment creation”. The Veterinary College site does not face across roads towards Victorian and early 20th century houses many in a conservation area and protected structures, but rather it adjoins the site of Hume House, a modern eight storey office development. Rather than marginally exceeding the height of the development permitted on the Veterinary College site, I consider that the proposed development should be markedly lower.

I do not consider that undue weight should be placed on the opinion of the planning inspector in the case of the Veterinary College site in expressing a view as to what might be an appropriate height to the perimeter of the triangular area bounded by Pembroke Road, Lansdowne Road and Shelbourne Road. I consider that the building line and height established by the existing hotels should represent the absolute maximum which should be regarded as acceptable along Lansdowne Road. By this I mean the main elevation of the Ballsbridge Inn and the main elevation, exclusive of the stairwell opposite nos. 30 and 32 Lansdowne Road in the case of the D4 Berkeley. The existing eight storey Ballsbridge Inn block facing towards Lansdowne Road appears to be at a slight angle to this road. As shown on a 1:250 drawing, submitted with the application, it varies from 18 metres back from the road boundary at its southwestern end to 16 metres back from the road boundary at its northeastern end. It has a general height of 25.8 metres (ground level being 4 metres). The seven storey bedroom wing of the D4 Berkeley is shown to be set back 21 metres from the boundary of Lansdowne Road. The stairwell and end of the northwest - southeast bedroom wing comes to within 13.4 metres of the road


boundary. The parapet height is 25.4 metres in the case of the bedroom block and 28.9 metres in the case of the part closest to the road. By comparison, the proposed Pavilion Blocks 1 and 2 in the general position of the Ballsbridge Inn bedroom block would be set back 10.8 metres and 16 metres from the road boundary, respectively. Pavilion Block 3 would be set back 9.2 metres from the road boundary and would be approximately in the position of the existing gap between the two hotels, occupied, well back from the road, by the lower D4 Berkeley Apartments building. Pavilion Block 4 would be 14.5 metres back from the road boundary and would be approximately in the position of the bedroom wing of the D4 Berkeley. Pavilion Block 5 would be an average of 7.4 metres back from the road boundary. It would largely be located in the open area between the hotel and the road boundary at the corner of Lansdowne Road and Shelbourne Road, but would also take up part of the area now occupied by the single storey part of the hotel. All of the pavilion blocks would have a height of 27.9 metres on their elevation facing Lansdowne Road, increasing to 34.8 metres, albeit with a somewhat lighter treatment, just 3 metres further back.

I take the same view in the case of that part of the proposed development facing towards Shelbourne Road. The existing seven and part eight storey (including mansard floor) northwest - southeast bedroom wing of the D4 Berkeley is orientated at right angles to Lansdowne Road. Accordingly, in a southeasterly direction it comes increasingly close to Shelbourne Road. At its southeastern end it comes to within about 24 metres of the boundary wall with this road. Again it has a parapet height of 25.4 metres. Supplanting this part of the existing hotel building, but more accurately described as being largely within the open area between the hotel and its road boundary and taking up part of the single storey portion of the hotel, would be Pavilion Block 5 and Block 7 facing towards Shelbourne Road. The former would be a minimum distance of about 13 metres from the road boundary, while the latter would be as little as 5 metres back from the road boundary. As already noted, the height of Pavilion Block 5 would be 27.9 metres, rising to 34.8 metres just 3 metres back from the main building line. The parapet level of Block 7 would be 24.75 metres. Additional information drawing PS(EL)15 Revision A shows the outline of the D4 Berkeley ghosted in on the elevation towards Shelbourne Road, but, of course, this does not show the much greater proximity of the proposed development to the road.

I consider that those buildings fronting onto Lansdowne Road and ShelbourneRoad would be excessively high and excessively close to both roads. They would be visually obtrusive and grossly at variance with the established character at this end of the appeal site. It is noted in the appeals that the proposed development would exceed the height to street width ratio of 1:1.5 adopted for Washington DC and for the Liberties Local Area Plan. The Deputy City Architect, reporting on the further information submission, noted a ratio of as low as 1:1.6 on Lansdowne Road, although he considered that this would be mitigated by the broken building line and the existing trees.

I can see little merit in the proposed tower blocks. They are insufficiently differentiated from the remainder of the proposed development to constitute


“landmark buildings”. Their prime purpose appears to be to provide premium four bedroomed apartment accommodation at each floor level with a view over the city and Dublin Bay. Much more so than the remainder of the development, they would be further in excess of the 6 storey standard set in the Dublin City Development Plan, 2011-2017. I consider that these towers are out of place in Ballsbridge and out of place in a development which, as I have already noted, should commence at a level markedly lower than that established by the development permitted on the adjoining Veterinary College site.

As in the case of development density, any vagueness in relation to height limitations in the Dublin City Development Plan, 2005-2011 has been superseded by much more prescriptive parameters in the new development plan. This development plan identifies areas suitable for high rise (regarded as 16 floors of residential or 12 floors of offices and over), and areas suitable for mid-rise (regarded as up to 16 floors of residential or 12 floors of offices). Outside the identified mid- to high rise areas, all proposed buildings are to be assessed against the qualitative and quantitative standards set out in the development plan, but in any case, the maximum height outside the identified areas is to be six storeys residential or six storeys of offices within 1 kilometre of existing and proposed mainline, DART and metro stations. This is subject to the proviso that where a site has a pre-existing height over this stipulated height, a building of the same number of storeys may be permitted (Section 17.6.1). It follows, and this is reinforced by Figure 21 of the development plan, on which Ballsbridge is named, that development in this area is now generally subject to a maximum height of six storeys and the appeal site, itself, to eight storeys. Again, as in the case of plot ratio, I consider that had the planning authority considered this application under its new development plan, a decision to grant permission would have required the invocation of the material contravention procedure.

20.3 Impact on the Residential Conservation Area

As noted in the previous section, I consider that the proposed development would be visually obtrusive and out of character. This would be particularly the case in relation to the houses on the opposite side of Lansdowne Road. These are protected structures and located in an area zoned Objective Z2 “to protect and/or improve the amenities of residential conservation areas”. The general building line would be brought forward along Lansdowne Road by distances varying from 9 metres in the case of the Ballsbridge Inn to 16 metres in the case of the bedroom wing of the D4 Berkeley. There would now be a building, “Pavilion Block 5”, near the corner of Lansdowne Road and Shelbourne Road just 6.875 metres back from the Lansdowne Road boundary where there is currently open space and a small part of the low rise section of the D4 Berkeley. The visual impact is illustrated in revised Photomontages 8, 12, 14 and 15, submitted as a revision to the EIS. It should be remembered that these are based on photographs taken at ground level along the streets. The visual impact would be even greater when viewed from hall and first floor levels of the houses opposite on Lansdowne Road. Although considerable screening is currently afforded by the holm oaks fronting the site at this


location, the screening effect would be considerably reduced by bringing the development forwards towards Lansdowne Road. This can already be seen in the case of the most northern portion of the existing development, i.e. the stairwell and northern termination of the northwest - southeast bedroom wing of the D4 Berkeley.

Apart from being domineering and visually obtrusive the proposed development would also cause an additional overshadowing effect on the houses on the opposite side of the road. It is difficult to quantify this effect, as overshadowing will also be affected by the existing trees, and it will vary according to whether or not there are existing multi-storey hotel buildings in the general positions of the proposed pavilion blocks or not. Nevertheless, taking nos. 18 and 20 Lansdowne Road as an example, I estimate that at present, the ground floors of these houses would be in full shadow from the Ballsbridge Inn at midday from about 15th November. With the proposed development, in this instance the slightly setback Pavilion Block 2, this date would move forward to about the 30th October. There would thus be a one month (autumn + spring) loss of solar gain to these houses. In the case of nos. 26 and 28 Lansdowne Road, the effect would be far worse as these would be affected by the fully forward Pavilion Block 3 where there is no building at present.

20.4 Retail

By comparison with the previous proposal on this site under PL 29S.228512, the proposed development entails a marked reduction in the retail component. Under the previous scheme there would have been 25,084 square metres gross floor area of retail, including retail units, a mall area and associated mall services. The net retail area would have been 14,015 square metres of which 3,500 square metres would have been a convenience supermarket, 3,070 square metres would have been a comparison anchor store and 7,455 square metres would have been for convenience and comparison shopping in 43 shop units (see inspector’s report). It is now proposed that there would be 4,083 square metres of retail/commercial uses. Of this 3,329 square metres gross would be for an anchor supermarket. The net floor area of this supermarket would be 2,330 square metres.

The appellants argue that the provision of an anchor supermarket is in material contravention of the development plan. Appendix 7 of the Dublin City Development Plan, 2005-2011 includes Ballsbridge as a Category A District Centre. The response of the planning authority notes that the submission by the planning authority at the oral hearing on the previous appeal under PL29S.228512 is relevant to some of the issues in relation to the current proposal. Much of the planning authority’s present submission is based, verbatim, on its earlier submission. In its earlier submission it noted that “the historic core of Ballsbridge abutting the bridge is a Category A Designated District Centre as defined by the Z4 zoning objective – “to provide for and improve mixed service facilities””. It is notable that this statement is not repeated in the present submission. Under the heading “Policy Context”, as in the earlier submission, it is noted that the development was assessed to


establish whether the extent and nature of retail proposed was in accordance with the zoning objective. Firstly it acknowledges that neighbourhood shopping is a permissible use in a Z1 zone. Secondly it notes certain policies providing supplementary support for the retail element and quotes from paragraphs 15.26.0 and 14.4.1. It goes on to quote from Variation 21 of the Dublin City Development Plan 2005-2011 and, in particular, section 15.9.4 on the neighbourhood and Policy Res 23. However, despite quoting from Variation 21, it does not quote that part of the variation mentioned in the response to the appeal namely that “the definition of a neighbourhood shop shall be interpreted to allow for the provision of current supermarket/discount store floor plates and associated car parking”. I consider that the planning authority’s acknowledgement that neighbourhood shopping is a permissible use under the zoning objective is no more than a statement of fact in relation to the uses listed as permissible at section 14.4.1. I do not consider it to be an acknowledgement of the widened definition in Variation 21. I find this widened definition quite extraordinary, buried as it is in a section on the neighbourhood in a variation largely concerned with apartment standards and layouts.

While the issue of whether or not a supermarket use is a permissible use under the Dublin City Development Plan, 2005-2011 is unclear, as in the case of building intensity and building height, the new city development plan gives much greater clarity. It adopts much the same range of permissible uses as in the earlier development plan (though “embassy” becomes “embassy residential”). Shop (neighbourhood) in the earlier plan becomes shop local. The unusually wide ranging definition in Variation 21 has been abandoned.

In its response to the appeals, the planning authority notes that it prepared a Retail Strategy for Ballsbridge as a parallel exercise to the preparation of a draft local area plan. The latter was rejected and, accordingly, it is recognised that the Strategy has no statutory basis. Nevertheless, the planning authority considers it useful to reflect on the findings and recommendations of the strategy. It identified a major shortfall in existing retail provision for the established residential population of Ballsbridge, based on the existing quantum and type of retail on offer, extant planning permissions and existing and projected population growth. It concluded that the development of a district centre of 10,000 to 12,000 square metres (net) would be supported by population increases and would not adversely impact on existing retail provision or conflict with the planning authority’s strategy to promote the city centre as the primary shopping destination.

The draft retail strategy was made available during the course of the oral hearing on the earlier application on this site under PL29S.228512. In my view, caution should be exercised in placing undue reliance on this draft document. I note, however, that in addition to its final paragraph suggesting the appropriateness of a district centre of between 10,000 and 12,000 square metres, it set out a five point development strategy. The first point was that the retail model should consist of street frontage retail offer on at least three levels – basement, ground and first floors. The second point was that the location of the new retail provision should be adjacent to the village to


strengthen the existing retail core, in particular along Shelbourne Road and link effectively with the existing centre so that there would be likely to be commercial synergy. The third point was that there should be a convenience food store of between 1,000 square metres and 3,500 square metres and that the development of large-scale convenience floorspace should be the subject of a needs-based assessment. The fourth point was that there could be a comparison department store of approximately 3,000 square metres and the final point that there could be a mix of lower to middle order comparison and convenience retail units and non-retail service outlets comprising smaller units of approximately 80 to 120 square metres and perhaps six to ten larger units of 250 to 300 square metres. Although a precedent has already been set with the granting of a retail component on the adjoining former Veterinary College site, it is notable that the proposed development would fail to meet the second point in the draft strategy.

The retail impact statement submitted with the application defines a reduced catchment area, by comparison with the earlier much more extensive retail proposal under PL29S.228512. This consists of six electoral districts approximately centred on the appeal site. The retail impact statement estimates current market shares of 16% for convenience expenditure and just 5% for comparison/bulky expenditure. It is submitted that with the present development, the market share would rise to 40% for convenience expenditure and 20% for comparison/bulky goods expenditure by 2016. The current marginal inflows of 5% for convenience goods and 2% for comparison/bulky goods are projected to rise to 12% and 4%, respectively. The retail impact statement estimates a net floorspace capacity as follows:

Convenience Comparison/BulkyPeriodLow High Low High

2009-2016 3,511m2 3,908m2 3,681m2 4,086m2

2016-2022 1,807m2 2,338m2 3,244m2 4.012m2

Total 2009-2022 5,318m2 6,246m2 6,925m2 8,098m2

It is concluded that the retail capacity identified in the catchment area highlights that the proposed development would not be constrained by any retail capacity issues.

Chapter 6 of the Retail Impact Statement refers to trade diversion, retail impact and cumulative retail impact. Retail impact is defined as occurring when a proposed new retail development drives the turnover of an established centre below its current (2009 at the time of compilation) trading levels. As part of the previous application, 750 household surveys where undertaken within a 10 minute drive of Ballsbridge. This helped identify existing retail patterns. The retail impact statement contends that the proposed modern format supermarket would provide residents with a viable location for undertaking their main food shopping requirements and would amend existing travel patterns, as a portion of shoppers would divert some of their convenience shopping trips from other locations. The study includes two tables – Table 6.1 and 6.2, showing the levels of convenience trade diversion


and retail impact by 2016 for both convenience and comparison goods. By the definition given, there would be no retail impact in either case.

Chapter 7 of the Retail Impact Statement consists of conclusions and retail assessment criteria. It compares Ballsbridge with Rathmines, Crumlin, Ballymun, Finglas, Ballyfermot and Phibsborough and concludes in this regard that Ballsbridge is not fulfilling its role as a Category A District Centre and is grossly underprovided in terms of both convenience and comparison floorspace. It is noted that over 2,000 square metres gross retail space has been permitted on the adjoining Veterinary College site. The inspector in that case accepted that there was limited convenience shopping around Ballsbridge, with very little comparison shopping on offer and that the retailing layout and distribution across the site would also facilitate retailing on the present adjoining site. The same inspector held that a quantum of retailing was justified on the present site in dealing with the earlier proposalunder PL29S.228512.

I note that the proposed retail floorspace is a marked reduction by comparison with the previous proposal on this site. The net retail floorspace is reduced from 14,015 square metres to 2,920 square metres. The Retail Impact Statement finds that Ballsbridge is not fulfilling its role as a Category A District Centre. However, the appellants question this designation and its inclusion in the Dublin City Development Plan, 2005-2011. The position now is that this designation has been dropped in the new development plan. The Board may also question whether it is really a serious inconvenience for the residents of the defined catchment area to have to travel to Sandymount (within the defined catchment) or to the Merrion Shopping Centre with its recently upgraded full size supermarket (just outside the defined catchment). The residents also have the option of using a smaller (1,067 square metre gross) supermarket at 26 to 30 Baggot Street Upper at a distance of about 700 metres from the appeal site. As noted earlier, the proposed development would fail to meet one of the key points identified as part of a development strategy for Ballsbridge District Centre in the draft Ballsbridge Retail Strategy insofar as it would fail to link effectively with the existing centre. However, this would also be true of the development already permitted on the adjoining Veterinary College site. Overall, notwithstanding this shortcoming, and the fact that the proposed development, together with that on the former Veterinary College site, would give rise to an overall retail floorspace greater than some established centres and the fact that retail provision is no longer underpinned by a Category A District Centre designation in the city development plan, I concur with the views of the inspector on this adjoining site and on the previous application on this site that there is scope for some retail development at this general location. I consider that the proposed supermarket and associated retail development would be acceptable and having regard to the fact that vehicular access to this component of the proposed development would be from Pembroke Road, only, I consider that it could be located, as proposed, without injury to established residential amenity.



Chapter 14 of the environmental impact statement lodged with the application is entitled “Material Assets – Traffic and Transportation”.

In order to assess the likely trip generation for the proposed development traffic counts were undertaken at similar developments. These were the Herbert Park Apartments, about 450 metres to the southeast of the appeal site, the Four Seasons Hotel, about 800 metres to the southeast of the appeal site, and the city centre St. Stephen’s Green Shopping Centre and Jervis Shopping Centre. The trip generation rate per parking space was calculated in each case. These trip generation rates were then assigned to the proposed development, as shown in the following table.

AM Peak PM Peak Weekend PeakLand Use In Out In Out In OutResidential 27 66 25 32 49 49Retail (including café) 7 1 11 17 24 20Hotel 7 7 10 10 10 10Health Centre* 3 0 5 8 11 9Crèche* 0 0 1 1 1 1Total 45 73 51 68 68 90* using same trip rate as retail

I note that traffic counts were also taken on the existing hotels and, discounting these from the predicted trip rates, would seem to result in net additional trips as follows:

AM Peak PM Peak Weekend PeakIn Out In Out In Out-5 33 2 -2 44 20

An assumed trip distribution is shown in Figure 14.17. This shows that the bulk of the residential traffic would enter and exit the underground car parking at the Shelbourne Road entrance (85% and 78%, respectively). The choice of the Shelbourne Road entrance over the Lansdowne Road entrance appears to be based on the likely ultimate destination of the driver. This is extrapolated from the existing trip distribution in the Sandymount area from the DTO's SATURN Traffic Model. In my view, the actual situation might also depend on the personal perception of the driver as to the relative ease of entering and exiting at either entrance. Whatever the actual situation, I consider that the traffic levels are such that they would be unlikely to give rise to any serious nuisance on Lansdowne Road or seriously impinge on its predominantly quiet residential nature. Similarly, the traffic levels are small in relation to the existing traffic levels on the general road network and should not be problematic.

The appellants note that that there would be 1.5 parking spaces per residential unit in the proposed development. They contend that this amounts to an overprovision of car parking. In estimating the trip generation, traffic counts


were taken at the Herbert Park Apartments which, according to the Environmental Impact Statement, contain 297 residential units served by 385 car parking spaces or 1.3 spaces per unit. The Dublin City Development Plan, 2005-2011 standard is one space per unit. The generous allotment of car parking is claimed, by the planning authority, to be based on the larger than normal floor areas of the proposed apartments. However, as noted by the appellants, the majority of the apartments are two bedroom types or smaller. Section 15.35.0 of the Dublin City Development Plan, 2005-2011 states that the car parking standards, set out in Table 15.1, should generally be regarded as the maximum parking provision. The same qualification is stated in Section 17.40 of the new development plan. I consider this overprovision of car parking to be unacceptable. It would either encourage residents to purchase additional cars, in which event, the parking spaces might well be used for car storage during peak traffic periods or, worse, it might encourage the subletting of parking spaces to commuters, something which would prove well nigh impossible to police.

20.6 Overshadowing

When this application was originally lodged with the planning authority, it had concerns in relation to the possible overshadowing impact of the proposed development. Its request for additional information sought an analysis of the impact of Blocks 2 to 5 on Lansdowne Road, having regard to the heights of the blocks and the established context. Its request for additional information expressed concern regarding the low level of sunlight in some of the proposed open spaces, i.e. at Lansdowne Road and the central square over the retail outlet at first floor level at Blocks 8 to 11. There was also concern regarding the overshadowing of properties to the northwest and northeast of the proposed development. The eighth item of its request for additional information considered that the location of the hotel block to the southwest of the new public open space would result in serious overshadowing of this space, thus reducing it to a cold and unpleasant place.

The response to the request for additional information included a small setback of Blocks 2 and 4 on Lansdowne Road and a redesign of the hotel. The response included a daylight/sunlight study for the revised development and two peer reviews attesting to the validity of this study.

A series of diagrams presented in the daylight/sunlight study, submitted in response to the request for additional information, gives a fair idea of the sunlight penetration both within the proposed development and as it would affect existing developments in the vicinity. A diagram of the open space areas to Lansdowne Road for the 21st March is annotated, “60% of the open space would receive some sunlight”. However, it is immediately obvious that the areas between these blocks at ground level would receive no sunlight on this date. The same diagram for mid-summer shows a considerable improvement, but even here, substantial parts of the areas between the blocks would receive no sunlight. The new open space at the corner of Pembroke Road and Lansdowne Road is shown to receive a high level of sunlight with the revised hotel to its southeast. In the case of the central quadrangle of open


space above the proposed supermarket it is noted on the diagram for the 21st

March that 61% of the open space would receive some sunlight, but it is notable that only the northernmost corner would receive a reasonable level of sunlight. By the 21st June, most of this area receives 4 or more hours of sunlight, but the southernmost extremity remains in shadow. Sunlight access diagrams are presented for the open space between the proposed development and the permitted development on the adjoining Veterinary College site. Although the diagram for the 21st March is annotated “over 75% of the area would have some sunlight access” the sunlight penetration would, in fact, be very low at generally less than 1 hour from a potential 12 hours. Even by mid-summer, while over 90% of this area would have sunlight access, in general, this would appear to be for just about 3 hours of a potential 17 hours. Similarly, though not at this stage proposed as an open space, pending a new development on the adjoining site to the northeast, the link road between Blocks 2 and 3 and to the rear of Block 8 also shows poor sunlight penetration on the diagram for the 21st March, shown in Figure 7 in the response to the appeals.

All of these areas are claimed to significantly exceed the 60% threshold recommended in the UK Building Research Establishment (BRE) Guidelines – “Site Layout Planning for Daylight/Sunlight – a Guide to Good Practice”. Despite exceeding these minimum standards, I do not consider that these areas would be attractive, warm, sheltered and well lit amenity areas. “New Pembroke Street” in particular, with its northeast - southwest orientation and just 14 metres wide between buildings almost 35 metres in height on either side, would seem likely to be an unattractive place to linger and is rightly described as a street.

At Section 20.3 above, I have already given my estimate of the overshadowing impact of the proposed development on some of the houses on the opposite side of Lansdowne Road. Appendix A of the daylight/sunlight study,submitted as additional information gives before and after shadow diagrams. To some extent, my estimate is corroborated by the diagrams for 10 am on the 21st March. The worst affected houses at this time are the terraced units at 18 to 22 Lansdowne Road and the semi-detached units at 34 and 36 Lansdowne Road, houses which currently have no buildings opposite them close to the road boundary. By mid-winter, the entire front elevations of some of the protected structures on the opposite side of Lansdowne Road are in full sun for some part of the day. Following completion of the proposed development, they would be in shadow for the entire day. While the applicant’s daylight and sunlight consultants conclude that all the surrounding buildings would retain good sunlight access following the development, fully complying with the BRE recommendations, in my view, the protected structures on the opposite side of Lansdowne Road would suffer a marked and noticeable loss of sunlight. I note also that the BRE Guidelines were drawn up in 1991, a time when passive solar heating would have been of lesser importance than it is today.


20.7 Open Space

The response to the appeals notes that 6,232 square metres of public open space would be provided within the proposed development. This would be in the form of a public plaza, pedestrian streets and a raised garden adjacent to the proposed health centre on Shelbourne Road. The response claims that this would amount to a provision of 22% of the site area, by comparison with the 10% requirement in the Dublin City Development Plan, 2005-2011. (This requirement remains in the new development plan). The public open space appears to coincide with the area marked public realm at Section 3.4.6 of the Environmental Impact Statement, although this would be modified somewhat by the revised hotel and would be exclusive of those parts of “New Pembroke Street” on the adjoining site. Of these spaces, the applicant’s calculation of 6,232 square metres of public open space or 22% of the site area appears to be correct. Even though considerable portions of this area would, as already noted, be largely overshadowed and other parts would function as outdoor seating areas, as designated on the ground floor plan, I consider, particularly having regard to the extensive plaza proposed at the corner of Pembroke Road and Lansdowne Road, that the public open space provision should be regarded as acceptable.

In relation to private open space, the response to the appeals notes that this would be provided in the form of winter gardens (22.7%), balconies (14.7%) and roof terraces (25.5%). Semi-private open space would be provided in the form of the shared garden along Shelbourne Road (20.8%), the raised courtyard garden area (7.3%), roof terraces (5.6%) and the crèche play area (3.3%). The reference to the shared garden area along Shelbourne Road is unclear. Even taking the shared roof garden above Block 7, together with the open space at the corner of Shelbourne Road and Lansdowne Road, it is not possible to reconcile the 20.8% contribution with the 7.3% contribution of the courtyard area, where the latter appears to be larger than the two Shelbourne Road spaces together. The area at ground level to the front of Block 7 beside Shelbourne Road has been deemed to be public open space.

An Taisce take exception to the inclusion of winter gardens in the calculation of the private amenity open space. While it is arguable that these could be regarded as substandard poorly insulated rooms or additional storage space, in my view, they are most likely to be used as year round amenity space. While they are not specifically mentioned in either the Dublin City Development Plan, 2005-2011 or the new development plan or in the guidelines on Sustainable Residential Development in Urban Areas, there are several references to winter gardens in the Best Practice Urban Design Manual as being appropriate for solar gain and sound insulation. On balance, I consider that winter gardens should be accepted as contributing towards the make-up of private amenity open space.


20.8 Trees and Railings

The response to the appeals notes that 40 of the existing 79 trees on the site would be retained. It claims that all significant trees would be retained and that of the 39 trees to be removed, nine are already in poor condition. Brady Shipman Martin Drawing 300-01 shows those trees which are to be retained and those which are to be removed. The majority of the trees along the perimeter of the site would be retained, with the exception of those beside Lansdowne Road, close to its junction with Shelbourne Road. These trees would be excessively close to proposed Pavilion Block 5. Four trees would be lost at this position, three holm oaks and one ash. Two holm oaks would be lost at the southernmost extremity of the Pembroke Road frontage to make way for the proposed hotel building. A road boundary holm oak would be lost at the position of proposed Pavilion Block 3. Trees of various types would be lost where they extend into the site in the space between the Ballsbridge Inn/Towers and the D4 Berkeley. The tree survey submitted with the application shows the trees to be lost on the perimeter are generally mature trees and are variously of either moderate quality and value or low quality and value. Their heights vary from 14 metres up to 18 metres. Their crown spreads are up to 16 metres. Their condition varies from fair to good and their life expectancy varies from 10 to 40 years.

I consider that with care, despite the proximity of the proposed development to many of the trees, it should be possible to secure their retention. Extensive new tree planting would be undertaken, often using semi-mature specimens. I consider in this regard that the critical concern on this site should be that the perimeter planting is retained as far as possible and such is the case with the proposed development. The precise locations of the trees identified in the appeals as Irish champions or reserve Irish champions and claimed to be of national significance are not indicated. I am unsure as to whether they are indeed of national significance, or whether they should, more properly, be regarded as exotic curiosities. The applicants do not respond to this claim.

In the case of the previous appeal on this site under PL 29S.228512, it was felt that there was a strong likelihood that the railings along Lansdowne Road are Turner Railings. Brady Shipman Martin Drawing 305-01 shows that most of these railings would be retained. The existing railing extending round onto Pembroke Road would be removed and reused on site. The drawing shows that the existing wall and gates along Shelbourne Road would be replaced by a plinth wall and railing. I consider that the situation in relation to the retention/relocation of the railings should be regarded as acceptable.

20.9 Hydrology and Hydrogeology

Chapter 7 of the Environmental Impact Statement is on soils, geology and hydrogeology. It is noted that construction phase dewatering would be required to construct the basement and that this would require disposal off site. The dewatering process has the potential to impact the hydrogeological regime of an area or impact on particular hydrogeological features. The dewatering can cause the groundwater flow regime to change by drawing water levels


towards the point of abstraction. It can change flow directions and levels and disrupt the base flow to groundwater dependent features. It is pointed out that there are no known abstractions in the area which would be impacted by the proposed development. The dewatering phase could result in a drawdown of the watertable in the immediate area which could potentially affect structures within the surrounding neighbourhood. To mitigate the potential for the disruption of the groundwater regime in the area during the construction dewatering, a secant pile wall would be installed around the excavation and this would finish in the bedrock. This would prevent the inflow of water from the over-burden and maintain groundwater levels in the surrounding area. Groundwater might enter the excavation through the bedrock and this would be disposed of in a suitable manner. The groundwater regime in the over-burden and that in the bedrock are separate, so lowering the groundwater in the bedrock would not reduce the groundwater level in the over-burden during the construction period.

Following construction, the presence of the basement would have a permanent impact on the hydrogeological regime of the area as it would act as a barrier to flow. Potential impacts include groundwater flooding or a disruption of the groundwater regime in the area. The EIS notes that the majority of neighbouring structures are likely to be founded on the thick and highly competent glacial deposits in the area. Settlement in the over-burden resulting from the downward movement of water during the construction phase dewatering would be negligible.

Chapter 8 of the environmental impact statement is on water and hydrology. The site is noted to be near the tidal reach of the River Dodder. The appeal site may be subject to flooding due to high water levels in the river from fluvial or tidal sources or a combination of the two. The Greater Dublin Strategic Drainage Strategy identifies a level of four metres OD as being an appropriate protection level for long-term strategic development. Accordingly, the proposed development would be protected to a level of four metres OD. The EIS also notes that as a result of the Dodder Catchment Flood Risk Assessment Management Study, a series of flood defence recommendations are likely to be implemented over the next four years. These would address both fluvial and tidal flood risk from the Dodder, with a design return period of 200 years.

In terms of drainage of the site itself, surface water attenuation would be provided to ensure the rate of discharge would be limited to a greenfield run-off rate of two litres per second per hectare. Surface water run-off would be reduced to the Swan River culvert, thereby reducing the risk of surcharging and flooding in the system. There would now be a separate foul and surface water drainage system in place of the existing combined system.

Notwithstanding the confidence of the Environmental Impact Statement in relation to the impact of the proposed development on groundwater flows and the fact that the proposed development would have a much reduced basement by comparison with the previous proposal under PL 29S.228512 – three floors, rather than five floors, having regard to the substantial excavation


involved and the fact that this would be the third recently granted permission with a substantial basement, I concur with the inspectors in the case of the previous application on this site and on the adjoining Veterinary College and Hume House sites, that should the Board be disposed to grant permission for this development, it may wish to engage an independent hydrogeologist to advise on this aspect of the proposed development. I note also the requirement at condition 10 of the planning authority’s decision that a report from a suitably qualified hydrogeologist should be submitted and agreed in writing, prior to commencement of development.

20.10 The 10-Year Planning Permission

While the proposed development would be carried out in two phases, the first phase being on the D4 Berkeley portion of the site and the second phase being on the remainder of the site, the response to the appeals notes that the total construction time would be five years. The appellants object to the concept of an extended duration of planning permission claiming that this would result in on-going nuisance and disruption. They hold that the proposed development is not of such complexity as to warrant such an extended period. On this issue, I concur with the view of the third party appellants. In the event that the construction is commenced well into the normal five year period of the planning permission, the applicant would be entitled to an extension of duration of permission, but at least this would then be subject to a time limitation which should ensure that there would be no further delays.

20.11 The First Party Appeal

The basis of the first party appeal is summarised at Section 12 above.

Even though, unlike some other development contribution schemes, the Dublin City Council Development Contribution Scheme, 2010-2017 does not contain a specific reference to an allowance being made for demolition, in calculating the contribution applicable in the present case, it appears that the planning authority has made an allowance for the floorspace which would be lost in the existing hotel buildings.

As noted in the appeal, the contribution sought should, of course, have been based on the floor areas which would have resulted from the planning authority’s decision to grant permission. It appears also that the applicants are correct in their assertion that the development contribution should have been based on the net residential area rather than the gross residential area, assuming that this means the same as the note to Article 9 of the planning authority’s Development Contribution Scheme which, inter alia, reads “in the case of multi-unit residential buildings, only the gross floor area of each residential unit will be included”. The applicants’ calculation of the net floor space of the residential component at 71,783 square metres may not be fully accurate as the deduction for the D4 Berkeley Apartments appears to be based on gross floor space The bicycle parking at basement level -1 might also need to be added to the residential floor space as there is no specified allowance for this in the Development Contribution Scheme, unlike “residential ancillary


non-surface car parking” (Article 10). It is unclear from the Development Contribution Scheme whether or not the residential storage at basement level (1,479 square metres) should also be added to the net residential area.

In relation to the commercial component, the planning authority included basement circulation (including ramps, stair/lifts, bicycle parking, footpaths and drive aisles). The applicants claim that this should not have been the case,as no reference is made in the Development Contribution Scheme for the inclusion of such ancillary areas in the commercial floor space figures. In my view, there is nothing in the Development Contribution Scheme to suggest that such areas should be excluded from the commercial floor space. It is not among the exemptions and reductions specified in Article 10 of the contribution scheme. Note 2 to Article 9 of the contribution scheme states, inter alia, that “with the exception of ancillary non-residential surface car parking, the floor area of proposed development shall be calculated as the gross floor area. This means the area ascertained by the internal measurement of the floor space on each floor of a building (including internal walls and partitions) and including mezzanine floors”. However, I consider that the drive aisles should be excluded as these properly constitute part of the car parking area which is counted as a separate component.

The appeal notes that there would be 148 non-residential car parking spaces in the proposed development. It is submitted that the 23 existing basement car parking spaces serving the D4 Berkeley should be deducted from the area of these 148 non-residential spaces. As in the case of the demolition floor space, I can see no basis for such a deduction in the planning authority’s Development Contribution Scheme, but I consider that the planning authority should adopt a consistent approach and if making allowance for the demolition floor space, it should likewise make an allowance for the lost car parking spaces. In addition, I consider that the area of the car parking should include the associated circulation aisles.

The appellant deducts the floor area of the demolished hotels from the commercial floor area of the proposed development to show that there would be reduction in the commercial floor space on the site and hence a negative contribution. I do not consider this to be a reasonable approach. Rather I consider that a zero contribution should be payable for the commercial component on this basis.

I concur with the view of the appellants that an allowance also needs to be made for social and affordable housing units which have yet to be agreed with the planning authority.

In conclusion, in relation to the contribution under Condition 25 of the planning authority’s decision, I consider that should the Board be disposed to grant permission for this development or a version of this development modified by condition, it should specify that a contribution should be paid in accordance with the terms of the Development Contribution Scheme. However, it might wish to consider detailing some of the critical parameters of this scheme including the calculation of the floor area being based on the gross


floor area and in the case of multi-unit residential buildings, only the gross floor area of each residential unit being included.

21.0 CONCLUSION

In framing this application, the applicants claim to have had full regard to the refusal of permission issued by An Bord Pleanála in the case of the previous proposal on this site under PL 29S.228512. Insofar as the retail component has been greatly reduced and the office component eliminated, I consider that the proposed development has overcome the Board’s previous objections. Reasons 3 and 4 its earlier decision cannot be regarded as applying to the present proposal. However, notwithstanding the substantial reduction in the proposed development, by comparison with the earlier scheme, I consider that the proposed development still represents a gross over-development and over-intensification of use of this site. Like the previous scheme, the present proposal would still have a significant adverse impact on the streetscape and on the setting and amenity of existing buildings in the vicinity, including many protected structures. Notwithstanding it exceedance of minimal standards in terms of sunlight and wind turbulence, there are still serious doubts about the real level of amenity which would be available to occupants of the proposed apartments and visitors to the commercial elements of the proposed development.

It appears that at no stage did the planning authority question the fundamentals of this proposed development. It appears to have accepted that this site issuitable in principle for a development which is way in excess of any reasonable interpretation of the Dublin City Development Plan, 2005-2011. A pre-application consultation in relation to this proposal took place on 14th

August 2009. The planning authority’s record of this meeting shows the identification of four key issues, namely public open space, permeability, set down area for the hotel and building heights. In relation to building height, it appears to have advised that this should drop down where adjoining residential areas to a shoulder height of 6/7 storeys, but that elsewhere it could rise to nine storeys to reflect the decision on the Veterinary College site. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion, as implied in some of the appeals, that this application, like its predecessor, still amounts to developer-led planning.

In my view, any redevelopment of the D4 Hotels site should be markedly reduced from the present proposal. The building lines and parapet heights established by the existing multi-storey hotel blocks as they face Lansdowne Road and Shelbourne Road should be regarded as establishing the absolute limit of multi-storey development as it faces these roads. The building height could increase to the southeast, but it should still show a noticeable reduction from that permitted on the Veterinary College site. In terms of intensity of development, having regard to the proximity of the site to the Lansdowne Road DART Station I consider that this could be at the upper end of the range now specified in the Dublin City Development Plan, 2011-2017, i.e. 2:1. Simplistically, by omitting the upward projecting portions of the two towers and adopting the same footprint, this reduced plot ratio would imply a general


height of five storeys, only. Overall, I consider that reasons 1, 2 and 5 of the Board’s decision on the earlier even more intensive development on this site under PL 29S.228512 remain largely applicable to the proposed development.

22.0 RECOMMENDATION

Having regard to the foregoing, I recommend that the planning authority’s decision be reversed in this instance and that permission be refused for this development for the reasons and considerations set out below.

REASONS AND CONSIDERATIONS

1. Having regard to the provisions of the Dublin City Development Plan, 2011-2017 and the existing pattern of development in the area, it is considered that the proposed development by reason of its scale, massing and height, would constitute gross over-development and over-intensification of use of the site, would be highly obtrusive, would seriously injure the visual amenity of the area and would constitute an inappropriate design response to the existing context of the site, making a radical change in the urban form of the area, at odds with the established character of Ballsbridge. Such change is not supported by any local or strategic objective in the development plan. The proposed development would, therefore, be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

2. Having regard to the established scale and pattern of development in the environs of the site, it is considered that the proposed buildings, by reason of scale, massing, height and proximity to the site boundaries would have a significant adverse impact on the streetscape and on the setting and amenity of existing buildings in the vicinity which include many protected structures. The proposed development would, therefore, seriously injure the amenities of the area and of property in the vicinity and be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.


3. Having regard to the scale, massing and layout of the proposed buildings, to the prevailing climate and latitude of the Dublin area and to the submissions made in connection with the planning application and the appeal, including the Environmental Impact Statement and associated documentation, the Board is not satisfied that the proposed development would bring about a high quality environment for future occupants, having regard to considerations of micro climate, including wind turbulence, availability of daylight and penetration of sunlight. The proposed development would, therefore, be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

_______________________Andrew C. Boyle,Senior Planning Inspector.

22nd December, 2010.

ym/rk

Date post:	08-Jun-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	lamnhi
View:	241 times
Download:	0 times

An Bord Pleanála (Jury’s Site), Lansdowne Road, Ballsbridge, Dublin 4 (Ten year permission...

Documents