Making Ireland Fairer
Significant victories
Recently I helped some residents of the Liberties in Dublin oppose an attempt by a developer to demolish a Georgian building thereby interfering with the medieval street pattern of old Dublin. The reasons Dublin City Council gave for refusing permission coincided with the reasons I drafted as to why permission should be refused. The following is an extract from the submission I drafted:
"The applicant's site notice states that permission for "reconstruction of the existing façade [sic] of No. 30 and 31" and the demolition of 29 The Coombe is being applied for. The "Samples of proposed materials" dated "Jan 2007" submitted with the application shows the separate façades (including separate shopfronts) of 30 and 31 The Coombe (but, curiously, not 29 The Coombe) as they are today, and how 30 and 31 The Coombe (with a new single shopfront), as well as a completely new 29 The Coombe, would appear, were permission granted for the demolition, "reconstruction" and amalgamation of two of the buildings and the demolition of the third."
It is not clear from the application why the demolition of these three existing buildings would be consistent today with Dublin City Development Plan 2005-2011 [hereafter ‘DCDP’] or “the long term sustainable regeneration of this historic part of the Dublin city”, when similar plans were not, in 2005 when the same development plan was in operation.
Nor is it clearly argued why the three façades ought to be demolished, “reconstructed” and, those of 30 and 31 The Coombe, amalgamated. The current differences in the brick work of 30 and 31 The Coombe would be lost should permission be given, unconditionally, to demolish and then “reconstruct” the façades. I believe the differences in brickwork today visible on those façades represent a valuable addition to the architectural heritage of the Liberties and indeed the city. I also believe that the existing separate shopfronts of 30 and 31 The Coombe should be maintained because they are a valuable part of the commercial heritage of the area. I would be grateful, should you decide to permit the proposed development in some form, if you would, at the very least, stipulate detailed conditions about how the three facades and separate shopfronts must be retained as they are, together with any important architectural features within the three properties themselves (if any)...."
Too Many One-Bed Apartments
Paragraph 15.9.1 of Dublin City Development Plan 2005-2011 states that “no more than 45% of the units in a development be of the one-bedroom type”. The applicant proposes to construct 5 one-bedroom apartments which out of 11 apartments planned would make slightly less than half the proposed apartments one-beds. This would contravene the aforementioned paragraph of DCDP.
Excessive Number of Single Aspect Apartments
Paragraph 15.9.4 of DCDP states that “Single aspect dwellings will only be acceptable where it is not possible to accommodate dual aspect dwellings.” Yet two of the proposed one-bed apartments, according to the letter dated 9th January accompanying the application, would be single aspect. Particularly given the excessive density of this proposed development referred to above and the size of the site, it is unclear why it is not possible for every dwelling in the proposal to be in conformity with this requirement. In any event, this application discloses no justification for single aspect apartments.
Insufficient Private Open Space
Paragraph 15.9.6 of DCDP states that in the Inner City the minimum private open space per bedspace is 5-8 sq.m. It appears that the applicant believes the balconies of each individual apartment would constitute sufficient private open space (see letter accompanying application under heading “Private Open Space” where it is written: “Provision of Private Open Space in a form [sic] of balconies and terraces of area not less than required 4sqm is indicated on the enclosed drawings”. If this is so (and there is nothing in the drawings to indicate otherwise), only Apartments 4 and 10 meet the minimum criteria for private open space provision in the inner city. While all the balconies are at or over the minimum size required for balconies. Only the balconies of Apartment 4 and 10 are adequately proportioned relative to the number of bedspaces in the proposed apartments. The 33 bedspaces in the proposed development multiplied by 5 (sq.m) means that for the proposed development to be in accordance with the minimum private open space provision on DCDP 165 sq.m of private open space would have to be provided. Whereas only 115.2 sq.m of private open space is provided for..."
