󠇯󠇯󠇯󠇯󠇯󠇯󠇯󠇯
Terenure,
Dublin 6w,
The Secretary
An Bord Pleanála,
10th
April 2019
Observation in relation to Appeal No. 29S/303996 -
Dublin City Planning Application No.
4702/18, 1-13 Templeogue Road, 2-6
Terenure Road West. Dublin 6w
Demolition
of Existing Buildings and Construction
of 55 Unit Apartment Block
Dear
Sir/Madam,
This proposal is for the demolition
of existing buildings at the above location and the construction of a six
storey block containing 40 one bedroomed and fifteen two bedroomed apartments. It would also contain three shops, a café and
37 underground car parking spaces. The developers
have appealed against Dublin City Council’s decision to refuse permission
Terenure Residents Association represents about
750 households in the area south, east and southwest of Terenure Cross, including
those in the vicinity of the above site. We wish to submit an observation on the
developers’ appeal. The required fee of
€50 is enclosed.
We were astounded that the decision of the
City Council has been appealed considering that it so comprehensively refused
permission for the development. The proposal
had generated an enormous amount of concern among Terenure residents which is
evidenced by the 180 letters of objection that were sent to the City Council
and an attendance of over 150 at a public meeting. On the understanding that An Bord Pleanála will
have sight of these letters and because of the €50 fee required, it would not be
logical to expect the same volume of observations on the appeal.
We note that the developer has submitted a
revised design as an alternative which reduces the building by one storey. This would be a major change which we feel
should have been the subject of a new application. We query the validity of this procedure
unless An Bord Pleanála requests a revision.
Apart from the height reduction, the alternative design does nothing to reduce
the negative impact the building would have on the character of the area.
Our
comments on the developer’s appeal are as follows
Visually
Intrusive and Overbearing
The
design of the building is very much a block which is slab like in appearance. That
applies to the five storey version as much as the six storey one. Its design and materials are not in any way
compatible with the neighbouring buildings.
The appeal has not in any way addressed the criticism of the position of
the building on the site, flush with the pavement. This is very much forward of the building
line of Templeogue Road and will present a very unfavourable looking “gateway”
to Terenure. It will have a domineering effect
on the road and surrounding properties. The
appellant disagrees with the City Council’s designation of the development as “infill”. We would support the Council’s view on this
as the site is effectively a vacant one at the end of a road with two storey
houses. The appellant claims that the
street is devoid of character and, by implication, that there is no need for a
sympathetic building. This assumption completely ignores the red
brick buildings on Terenure Place and across the road on Terenure Road West. A building or buildings in harmony with these
set back from the road, would be much more acceptable. The statements in the appeal about the
present use of the site are nonsense. It
has, for a long time been an “opportunity” site, in use on a temporary basis as
a car sales area. This site is very much
part of the Village of Terenure. It is
in a very prominent location at one end of the junction complex of five main
roads around which the village has developed. This is very much an opportunity site, and one
which’ because of its location, should be treated in a way that will produce an
iconic landmark development that will enhance the fabric of Terenure Village
and become a focal point. We submit that
this proposal does not, in any way, fulfil this requirement and would disagree
with the appellant’s claim that it does. In fact,
it would have the opposite impact.
Height
of Building
The proposed building is 21 metres high or
18m. if they go for the alternative plan.
The Dublin City Development Plan allows a maximum height of 16 metres. The appellant makes use of the December 2018 document “Guidelines on Urban
Development and Building Height” which does take precedence over Development Plans, However, we submit that this location is a
totally inappropriate place to invoke the new guidelines, It is
really a suburban centre rather that an urban one. Paragraphs. 2.7 and 2.8 of the above document
state that the Planning Authority must determine if increased building height is
an appropriate typology, or not, in a particular setting, and that environmental
sensitivities of the receiving environment must be considered. No building in the immediate vicinity is more
than two storeys and most of these are of redbrick, historical design. The site is too small and constrained by the
surrounding environment to be considered suitable for this type of development
as described in Section 2.11. For these
reasons we agree with City Council’s decision on this one. It is an area which is never going to develop
into a higher rise location with any more similar tall buildings, so the
proposed building, at either height, if allowed, will stand out, as the
proverbial sore thumb, for ever. It is
obvious that the developers originally intended the five storey version of the building
but altered their plans at the last minute to take advantage of the new
guidelines. Surely it is unreasonable to
apply these guidelines in such a sensitive area and before the City Council has
issued any local interpretation of them
Inadequate
Transition in Scale
We disagree with the appellant’s claim that
“the building will successfully integrate with the surrounding environment”. Overlooking of houses on the south east side
of Templeogue Road has not been dealt with and the domineering impact of the
development on No, 15 Templeogue Road. is not in any way mitigated with the 5
storey alternative. No mention is made
of impact on Olney Crescent. There is
still an abrupt transition in scale when viewed north-eastward from Templeogue Road,
both by virtue of the increase from 2 to 5 or six storeys and the position on
site of the building flush with the pavement… The photographic montage view position on Templeogue Road in the original
submission is so far away that it does not in any way show the impact of the proposed
building on Terenure Place.
Other Points – Car Parking
No attempt has been made in the appeal to come to terms with City
council’s views on the inadequate provision for car parking. We are very concerned about cars owned by
apartment residents which are not allocated one of the 37 parking places
provided. This applies even in the
context of the reduced height building. Most
of the surrounding residential roads have metered parking and many houses have
no off street parking. There is almost
no space available for overspill from the proposed development.
There is no provision for a pull in area
for the proposed shops. This would need
to be somewhat off street or with a turn back possibility if the Busconnects
plan is implemented as presently proposed.
Heritage
The proposal calls for the destruction of the last
remaining section of the circle of houses which date from 1801 and gave Terenure
its old name of Roundtown. A similar situation
arose when Aldi was building a supermarket on the old tramway depot nearby. They acceded to a request to preserve the outline
and materials of the old building, While we appreciate that the round house is
not a listed building it should be preserved as part of the heritage of
Terenure. The
City Council planner’s report refers to this.
Proposed use of Building
Terenure is an area where there are many big old
houses. A lot of these have only one or
two elderly people living in them. There
is a major requirement for suitable “step down” accommodation to which these
people could move without having to leave the area. Also, Terenure is very much a family-oriented
area with plenty of schools etc. The proposed
mix of accommodation will not cater for either of these needs as it would be directed
at single working people. While there is
an undoubted need for such accommodation, we submit that a more settled
population would make a much better contribution to community life in Terenure.
Precedent
While as noted above, there is unlikely to be a
similar building proposed for Terenure Village, permission for the above proposal
would set a very bad precedent and encourage unsuitable developments in the immediate
area.
Conclusion
Because of its size, height and general incompatibility
with the heritage ambience of Terenure, we request that the proposal be refused
planning permission.
Yours sincerely,
Jim Dowling, Committee Member in charge of Planning