Making Ireland Fairer
Detailed submissions
Extract from a recent Submission I drafted for a local community worried a developer was trying to knock down part of a protected structure:
"...We are appealing this decision by Dublin City Council on the following grounds:
1. Permission Invalid: Removal of Protected Status a Reserved Function.
Section 54 of the Planning and Development Act 2000 states that: "A planning authority may ... delete from its record of protected structures ... a specified part of a structure or a specified feature of the attendant grounds of a structure ..., where-(a) the authority considers that- ... (ii) in the case of a deletion, the protection of the structure or part is no longer warranted, and (b) the addition or deletion is made when making a development plan under Part II or in accordance with Section 55 ...(2) The making of an addition to, or a deletion from, a record of protected structures shall be a reserved function."
Dublin City Council's Record of Protected Structures includes, under reference number 5898, 55 Naas Road, Dublin 12 described as "Business premises". All of the grounds comprising 55 Naas Road are currently being used as a business premises. On Dublin City Development Plan 2005-2011 [DCDP] Map D a star signifies that the site of 55 Naas Road is on the Record of Protected Structures. The structures visible within the curtilege of 55 Naas Road on Map D are not in any way subdivided. No distinction on Map D is visible between what the applicant refers to as "Hollybrook House" and the rest of 55 Naas Road, or between the two storey part of 55 Naas Road and the one storey part(s) of 55 Naas Road, or the grounds of 55 Naas Road.
In its decision notice dated 20 February 2007 under 'description' it is stated: "... the development will consist of demolition of existing single storey (not protected) structures to the side and rear of Hollybrook House (55 Naas Road). The notice also states that: "it has been decided to grant permission for this proposal". For the avoidance of doubt: the existing single storey parts of 55 Naas Road are included within the curtilege of 55 Naas Road as it appears on Map D of DCDP.
No evidence is contained in the application or the decision notice or the planning file for this proposal that this alleged deletion from the Record of Protected Structures of the, as the planning authority puts it in their decision notice, "existing single storey (not protected) structures to the side and rear of Hollybrook House" has been made in conformity with Section 54(1)(b) of the Planning and Development Act 2000.
There is also no evidence that Dublin City Council has voted, as is the requirement under Section 54(2) of the Planning and Development Act 2000 to remove all or any part of any structure within the curtilege of 55 Naas Road from the record of Protected Structures.
In the absence of the lawful deletion of any part of 55 Naas Road, which is on the Record of Protected Structures from that Record, it is respectfully submitted that it is not legally possible to grant permission to demolish this protected structure unless the statutory requirements of Section 57(10)(a)(i) Section 57(10)(b) Planning and Development Act 2000 are fulfilled. I shall show below that these requirements have not been met. I would therefore be grateful if you would allow this appeal.
2. Permission Invalid: Section 57(10)(a)(i) PDA 2000 requirements not conformed with.
Section 57(10)(a)(i) of the Planning and Development Act 2000 stipulates that "for the avoidance of doubt, it is hereby declared that a planning authority or the Board on appeal in considering any application for permission in relation to a protected structure, shall have regard to the protected status of the structure".
The planners report states that "the house at No.55, a two-storey detached house currently in office use is excluded from the application ... No. 55 is a detached double fronted redbrick house of late Victorian or early twentieth century origin ... the archway [and]... A further single storey flat roofed extension to the side and rear is included in the application" (pp 1 of the Planners Report). Further on, the planners report states that "The proposal includes demolition of the existing side extension to No. 55, a protected structure ... It is understood that no alterations would be made to the house itself although the side extension would be demolished ... the method statement identifies the side extension as having been constructed in the 1950's. It is unclear why the main house has been excluded from the application site".
There is no evidence on planning file that any structures on the site of 55 Naas Road were not there when 55 Naas Road became a protected structure. Indeed, the visual, documentary, and testimonial evidence (see appendix 1) available to me suggests that, in particular, the one-storey north side part of 55 Naas Road and the one storey rear of 55 Naas Road have always been part of 55 Naas Road and are therefore part of a protected structure.
The planners report states that "it is unclear why the main house has been excluded from the application site". It is unclear to me upon what basis the planning authority agrees with the applicant that the protected status of 55 Naas Road would not be shared by any part of that address into which it might be subdivided. Yet in the Notification of Decision to Grant Permission dated 16 February 2007, on foot of the planners report, Dublin City Council has given permission for the "demolition of existing single storey (not protected) structures to the side and rear of Hollybrook House (55 Naas Road)". And nowhere can I find any reference by the planning authority to the protected status of that part of 55 Naas Road it has given permission to demolish. This contravenes Section 57(10)(a)(i) PDA 2000. Until such time as the one storey part(s) of 55 Naas Road, which is on the Record of Protected Structures, is(are) acknowledged as being on that record and any proposal for their demolition is considered within the legal context statute demnands for structures on the Record of Protected Structuyures, then any decision to give permission for any demolition at 55 Naas Road would be prematurre. I would ask, therefore, that you allow this appeal on the grounds that the provision of Section 57(10)(a)(i) of the Planning and Development Act 2000 has not been adhered to.
3. Section 57(10)(b) PDA 2000 requirements not conformed with.
Section 57(10)(b) of the Planning and Development Act 2000 states that "a planning authority, or the Board on appeal, shall not grant permission for the demolition of a protected structure or proposed protected structure, save in exceptional circumstances".
Dublin City Council has granted permission for the demolition of part of a protected structure (the one storey part(s) of 55 Naas Road, which is on the Record of Protected Structures). No reference to any exceptional circumstances has been made in its grant of permission or the planners report. It is therefore submitted that even if such exceptional circumstances obtained in this case that as no reference is made to them by the planning authority it would be premature for the planning authority to grant permission to demolish a protected structure until such time as such exceptional circumstances are adduced and considered. Therefore I would ask that you would allow this appeal until such time as the requirements of Section 57(10)(b) Planning and Development Act 2000 have been observed.
4. Application Invalid: provision of Section 18(iii) of the PDR 2001 not conformed with.
Section 18(1) (d)(iii) of the Planning and Development Regulations 2001 states that "A [newspaper] notice [of a proposed development] must state ... the nature and extent of the development, including- ... where the application relates to development which would consist of or comprise the carrying out of works to a protected structure or proposed protected structure, an indication of that fact".
The newspaper notice appended to the planning application form does not indicate the fact that the proposed development relates to development which would consist of or comprise the carrying out of works to a protected structure. It, in fact, indicates explicitly the opposite: "works proposed do no [sic] include any alterations to Hollybrook House, a protected structure".
Confusingly, the applicant's answer to question 10 on the planning application form suggests that the applicant considers that the application does involve a protected structure.
The plans submitted with the application make it clear that the proposal includes the demolition of parts of 55 Naas Road, which is a protected structure.
Appendix 2 shows that Dublin City Council considers these works, at some level, to involve a protected structure.
The newspaper advertisement appended to the planning application mentions protected structure only twice: 1. "Works proposed do no [sic] include any alterations to Hollybrook House, a protected structure" and 2: "The development will consist of emolition [sic] of existing single storey (not protected) structures to the side..."
In neither place does the newspaper notice acknowledge what is acknowledged in the applicant's answer to Question 10 on the application form, namely, that this development would "consist of or comprise the carrying out of works to a protected structure". Nor does the newspaper notice mention what the planning authority clearly seems to acknowledge in Appendix 2 (though to their discredit, nowhere else). In fact, the newspaper notice gives precisely the opposite indication to that given in the answer to Question 10 on the application form.
It is also worth noting that the newspaper advertisement gives an erroneous impression where it implies that a Hollybrook House is on the Record of Protected Structures. It is clear from the record of Protected Structures that 55 Naas Road is protected, not any specific part or structure at that address.
Until such time as a newspaper notice fulfilling the requirements of Section 18(iii) of the Planning and Development Regulation 2001, then, it would be premature for permission for the demolition of part of a protected structure to be granted. Therefore I would be grateful if you would allow this appeal...xxxx
