Harrolds Cross

.3

2020

Residential Development at 153-155 Harold’s Cross Road, Dublin 6W. Grounds of Appeal Planning Appeal Statement lodged with An Bord Pleanala on behalf of the appellant MG Motors Ltd seeking to overturn the Decision of Dublin City Council to refuse permission. This application seeks permission for a residential development on a site at 153-155 Harold’s Cross Road, Dublin 6W.

Manahan Planners 38 Dawson Street, Dublin 2 15/05/2020

Introduction This planning appeal has been prepared in connection with a planning application refused by Dublin City Council for a 43 unit residential development at 153-155 Harold’s Cross Road, Dublin 6W. See location below.

Figure 1: Site Location Map, subject site hightlighted in red.

In summary the proposal provides a 43 apartment residential development. It consists of a six-storey setback residential development with a naturally ventilated basement, communal areas (rooftop terrace), landscaped green roof and bicycle parking stores, car parking and refuse storage facilities at basement level.

Site Context The site is to the east of Harold’s Cross Road and north of Leinster Road and has a stated area of 0.0747ha.

The front of the site traverses Harold’s Cross Road, a road used by cars, cycling and buses in both directions with bus stops located close to the site. Harold’s Cross Park is located across the road.

The former Harold’s Cross Greyhound Stadium is located to the rear of the site with an entrance drive directly adjacent to the site. To the north of the site lies a row with a mix of residential two-and tree-storey buildings and a crèche, Leinster Park Montessori. To the south of the site the car park for a two and three storey building hosting a public house and off-licenses Peggy Kelly’s with an out-door seating area is located. The row of houses further south comprises two and three storey residential houses. The site is located in a densely built up area with a large mix of uses including residential, commercial, recreational, educational and employment.

Harold's Cross Appeal May 2020

Page 2

The site has an area of approximately 0.747 ha, and the existing building on the site proposed to be demolished comprise a total gross area of 835.86 sq.m. While the building has 100% coverage of its site, it is bounded on each side by open area.

Figure 2: Map Aerial image of the subject site, hightlighted in red.

Figure 3: Street view of existing structure and surrounding area fronting the subject site.

The site is partly located within a zone of Archaeological Interest according to Map H of the current Development Plan, which comprise the part fronting the Harold's Cross Park.

Harold's Cross Appeal May 2020

Page 3

The Proposal The Statutory Notices lodged with the application states the proposal involves the following.

“The proposed development will involve the demolition of the existing building previously in use as a garage and car showroom and the construction of a residential development consisting of six floors over basement (seven floors in total) with a set-back at top floor at 153-155 Harold’s Cross Road, Dublin 6W. The new building (with a total floor area of 3,970.64 sq. m) will include a total of 43 units (8 studio apartments, 12 one-bed apartments and 23 twobed apartments). There will be communal landscaped rooftop terrace, green roof. A total of 11 No. car parking and 88 No. bicycle spaces will be provided at basement level. The proposed development will also comprise of refuse storage, excavation and all other ancillary works.

The proposed development represents a densification of the area providing additional housing, comprising the following apartment mix; • • •

8 studio apartments; 12 one-bed apartments; and, 23 two-bed apartments.

In addition, the proposed development proposed to include; • • • • • •

Communal amenity (roof terrace) = 259 sq.m; Landscaped green roof = 167 sq.m; 88 bicycle spaces; 11 car parking spaces; External storage; and, Refuse storage.

Development Plan Provisions Zoning The subject site is zoned Z1: Sustainable Residential Neighbourhoods in the Dublin City Development Plan 2016-2022, which seeks to “protect, provide and improve residential amenities”. See image overleaf.

Thus a residential development is entirely consistent with the use zoning objective for the site.

Harold's Cross Appeal May 2020

Page 4

Figure 4: Extract of zoning map from Dublin City Development Plan 2016-2022 identifying the Z1 zoning of the subject site (outlined in red).

Sites under this zoning designation are subject to the following Vision: “The vision for residential development in the city is one where a wide range of accommodation is available within sustainable communities where residents are within easy reach of services, open space 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 the key district centres.�

The Planning Report lodged with this application argued that the proposal complied with Planning Policy, (National, Regional and Local), relevant Guidelines relating to housing density, Apartment size and layouts, and was consistent with the provisions of the Dublin City Development Plan.

Nevertheless the Planning Authority decided to refuse permission for the following reasons.

Harold's Cross Appeal May 2020

Page 5

Having regard to the design, scale, mass and bulk of the proposal and the proximity of the development to adjoining properties, it is considered that the proposed development would constitute overdevelopment of the site and would have an excessively overbearing, overshadowing and overlooking effect on adjoining properties. The proposed development fails to integrate or be compatible with the design and scale of the adjoining buildings and as a result, would seriously injure the visual amenities of the streetscape and would have an adverse impact on the character of the area. The proposed development would, therefore, by itself and by the precedent it would set for other development, seriously injure the amenities of property in the vicinity, would be contrary to the provisions of the Development Plan and would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

It is considered that a number of apartments in the development would fail to provide for a sufficient level of amenity for proposed residents as set out in the Sustainable Urban Housing: Design Standards for New Apartments Guidelines for Planning Authorities 2018 and would therefore be contrary to the stated provisions of Dublin City Development Plan 2016-2022 and proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

Assessment by the Planning Authority The Planners report first dealt with the Pre-Application meeting and reported the following contents of that meeting.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

Principle of residential acceptable; Concerns raised regarding bulk, scale and massing; Pedestrian safety issues arising from access adjoining the basement; Roof terrace may result in overlooking; Adequate sun lighting should be providing to those apartments on the northfacing elevation.

Car parking justification necessary.

Finishes should soften the appearance of the building; Consideration should be given to the historic plot widths along Harold’s Cross.

Development Plan should be adhered to with regards to height.

At the meeting we noted that new Height Guidelines were coming into force which would have an impact on this Decision. The response was that they were only a Draft and until approved, DCC must abide by its Development Plan policy on height. We responded that the Guidelines would most likely be in force by the time the application was made. They are now in force and so it is disappointing that the Planning Authority (see later) faults this proposal on the grounds of not complying with the Development Plan in terms of height.

In response to the issue of parking and access, we engaged the services of Transport Consultants and sought to address the remaining issues.

Harold's Cross Appeal May 2020

Page 6

In relation to Site Coverage, the planner noted, “ it is noted that the site has always been occupied in its entirety by the car sales showroom building which is now proposed to be removed and replaced with high density apartments. Given the site’s urban context and city location, the principle of 100% site coverage is generally acceptable.”

In relation to height, the planner assessed the building in terms of the Development Plan, rather than the new DOE Height Guidelines.

“The overall height is 20.8m. The subject site is located in the outer city where building heights are permissible up to 16m for commercial and residential developments.”

“The applicant was advised during pre-application discussions that the development was too high and extensive and will likely impact on the amenities of both the adjoining properties and the wider area. The building’s form has not however, been altered to the extent required to address these issues and it is still considered that the structure is too bulky and will be overbearing to the streetscape and adjoining properties.”

This is not accepted. Additional height is acceptable here given that the building is a detached building on a detached site, faces a public park on a busy traffic artery into the city centre, backs onto a stadium to be used in future a school campus, with its open space, and adjoins an access road into that stadium on one side and a surface car park on its other side. The opportunity for increased height is clearly an option here. It is submitted that the proposal in terms of height proposed is consistent with the criteria in the DOE Height Guidelines.

At the pre planning meeting we informed the planners that the immediate building to the north (across the access road to the stadium/school site) had been bought by the Department of Education and Skills and would be demolished so as to provide a suitably wide access to the school site. This will reinforce the island nature of the applicant site, thereby making the height and bulk of the building more acceptable.

The Planner stated that the application has been assessed against the policies set out in Section 16.10.10 on infill development which requires developments to: 1. Take consideration of the character of the street by paying attention to the established proportion, heights and materials of surrounding buildings 2. Comply with the appropriate minimum habitable room sizes 3. Has a safe means of access to and egress from the site which does not result in the creation of a traffic hazard.

In response to these points the planner says, -

The design of the front façade has not had any regard to the plot widths along Harold Cross Road.

It is submitted that there is no obligation to comply with plot widths elsewhere Harold's Cross Appeal May 2020

Page 7

along Harolds Cross Road. The site and existing building present a narrow width elevation to the public street, relative to the depth of the site and building. There would be no design rational in dividing the front elevation into two or even three bays. The existing building is a single unit on a detached site and its replacement should equally be of that design.

In relation to point 2, the development complies with the minimum habitable room sizes (see below) and in terms of point 3, a safe access, this has been achieved.

There has been no objection on that account from the Transportation Division.

In terms of Residential Quality/ Compliance with Standards, the proposal was assessed as follows.

• • •

“The application is accompanied by a Housing Quality Assessment, which outlines compliance with relevant development standards.

The proposed development accords with the requirements of SPPR 1.

It is noted that all apartments would meet or exceed planning policy requirements from the SUHDSNAGPA.

•

SPPR4 requires that a minimum of 33% of all units shall be provided as dual aspect. The applicant has indicated that 52% of the units are dual aspect.

•

The proposed Development accords with the requirements of the SUHDSNAGPA, in respect of dual aspect and north- facing apartments.

•

In respect of private open space, whilst the quantum to be provided for each apartment meets or exceeds minimum requirements, there are concerns with the proposed layout and configuration of the same.

It is considered that the quantum of public open space proposed complies with the requirements of the Apartment Guidelines.”

•

The DCC Traffic report is generally favourable in terms of access, footpath width, car parking, access to public transport etc. It states, “Existing footpath provision in front of the subject site is excellent as the existing as well as the proposed building line is setback approximately 5.2 to 6.8m from the existing kerb line which provides a very wide footpath.

The existing footpath width will allow a vehicle to park temporarily off the main road without overly impacting on pedestrian movements and will be able to access the car park once the exiting vehicle has cleared.

The nearest bus stop is 130m south on Harold’s Cross Road which is served by frequent Bus Routes 16, 16d and 49. The nearest Dublin bikes station is located on Portobello Road which is 1.2km from the proposed development but there are two bike sharing parking locations associated with bike sharing company Bleeperbike nearby the proposed development. It is noted within the submission that a public car sharing service is available in close proximity to the proposed development which is operated by private company GoCar. The low number of car spaces will provide limited capacity for the development and will serve a very low percentage of the residents. Due to this limited capacity of allocated car Harold's Cross Appeal May 2020

Page 8

parking spaces for residents a minimum of 2no. on-site car share scheme should be provided. The overall numbers of car spaces for the development is acceptable in this instance due to the location of good quality public transport including the proposed improvements to the Core Bus Corridor as well as the potential to provide onsite of car share spaces.

The applicant has proposed 88 no. secure cycle parking spaces located at basement level which is accessed from Harold’s Cross Road. The proposed combined resident and visitor cycle parking is considered acceptable to Transportation Division in terms of quantity and design.

The Transportation Assessment Report (lodged with the application) confirms that there is an absolutely negligible traffic impact associated with the opening of the proposed subject development and that it can be accommodated without any noticeable or adverse traffic impact arising.”

This Planning and Transportation Division is generally satisfied with the general scope and content of the TAR, and is satisfied that the proposed development will result in a small increase in trips generated from site during peak hours when compared with previous use and that there will be no adverse impact on the operational capacity of the junction. The retention of the existing vehicular entrance in the proposed development is also welcomed.”

In terms of impact on properties to the north, the report states, “It is considered the residential amenities of adjoining properties to the north has in large not been effectively considered by the subject application.”

This is not accepted. The impact on the properties to the north was considered. It was noted the site was separated from these houses by a wide access road, which will be made wider, the nearest unit is to be demolished thereby increasing the distance, the houses in question present a blank gable to the applicant site and high boundary walls that make overlooking into these gardens difficult if not impossible.

It is submitted the proposal will therefore have no adverse overlooking or overbearing implications for these houses.

Notwithstanding this the planner states, “No daylight or sunlight assessment has been submitted to demonstrate that there will be no impact on the adjoining residential areas to the north given the orientation of the site, the impact will likely to be acute”. We disagree.

In support of our point, the Google Earth image below shows the back yards of these properties to the North. They consist of car parking and other uses. Only one has a garden. It is occupied by mature trees which will provide screening and privacy to the garden, which as we say is at a distance from the development.

Harold's Cross Appeal May 2020

Page 9

The planning report goes on to say. “At ground floor level, the proposal presents the entrance, the car park entrance and a ground floor apartment with its private balcony area occupying a corner location. It is considered that the design of the ground floor level would result in a poor relationship and would not actively engage with this locally important street�.

There is validity in this point. However this can be resolved by the Board imposing a condition, that the two apartments in this location be omitted from the proposal and that a planning application be lodged in future seeking an alternative more active use of this area that better addresses the street and footpath. Such a use could be a cafĂŠ, regular retail unit or a retail service such as a hair salon. We enclose with this appeal a drawing showing the elimination of these two apartments. See red X below. It is considered that such a condition would resolve this issue and result in an improved for of development.

Harold's Cross Appeal May 2020

Page 10

The planner further objects as follows.

“With up to 6 storeys, adjacent to 2-3 storey residential development, the proposed structure will be overbearing and the floor to ceiling windows and balconies on the northern and southern elevation would result in overlooking.”

We have dealt with overlooking to the north above. In response to overlooking to the south, over a car park to a pub, the architects have proposed a design solution that addresses this issue. See drawings submitted. We note that this design approach was proposed in the case of a development for 74 apartments by Briargate Developments at 280/288 Harold’s Cross Road (Reg. Ref. 4729/18). This approach was devised in order to avoid overlooking of residential houses. It was accepted by Dublin City Council as preventing overlooking and providing sufficient amenity for future residents. No appeal was lodged.

The planner concluded, “There is no objection in principle to the development of the site for residential purposes. However the proposal appears to result in an overdevelopment of the site as it cannot be accommodated without adversely impacting on the residential amenities of adjoining properties as well as being unable to provide for adequate amenity for future occupants. It is considered that a more appropriately and sensitively designed development could be accommodated on the site however in its current form, the proposed development is not supported.

It is considered that an appropriately designed building which respects and considers the amenities of adjoining properties as well as providing an appropriate transition in scale to the adjoining development can be accommodated on the site.”

We believe the proposal provides adequate internal amenity for future residents as well as external amenity being located on a public transport route opposite a park; it will not have the adverse impact on adjoining properties as claimed and its height is not as objectionable as contended.

Consistency of Proposal with Planning Policy and Guidelines National Policy It is submitted that the proposal is clearly consistent with National policy.

The National Planning Framework 2040 was adopted on the 29th May 2018 and seeks compact urban growth, with the associated objective that at least half of the future housing growth of the main cities will be delivered within their existing builtup areas through infill and brownfield development and 40% in other key towns.

In March 2018 the Department of the Environment Heritage and Local Government published “Sustainable Urban Housing: Design Standards for New Apartments – Guidelines for Planning Authorities”. These Guidelines build on the content of the 2015 Apartment Guidelines but it notes that there is balance in setting out planning Harold's Cross Appeal May 2020

Page 11

guidance to achieve both high quality apartment development and a significant increased level of apartment output. The key policies which have relevance in this scheme are: • • • •

•

50% can be one bed or studio (no more than 20-25% can be studio) with no min requirement on three bed units, A max of 12 units per core from previous 8 units.

Studio type 1 person units at 37sq.m, 1 bed (2 person) 45sq.m, 2 bed (3 person) 63sq.m, 2 bed (4 person) 73sq.m, 3 bed (5 person) at 90sq.m.

The requirement for more than half of the apartments in relevant schemes to generate additional floor space that would exceed the minimum floor area standard by at least 10% may be applied differently to schemes of 10 to 99 units, in such schemes it is acceptable to distribute the minimum 10% additional floor space throughout the scheme.

Dual aspect – 33% -in central and accessible locations – restricted sites, but in larger schemes on Greenfield or standalone ‘brownfield’ sites where requirements like street frontage are less onerous, it should be a min of 50%.

They note north facing units are units that face predominately north with a 45 degree which includes north east and North West.

The Urban Development and Building Height Guidelines 2018 (Now adopted) Circular FPS 08-2018 was issued on the 7th December 2018 advising of new Guidelines for Planning Authorities on Urban Development and Building Heights 2018 under Section 28 of the Planning and Development Act 2000 (as amended).

The new height guidelines set a clear direction for developing our cities and towns upwards, rather than ever outwards. In particular, Section 2 of the height guidelines sets out advice and information requirements for planning applications.

Section 3 of the guidelines sets out development management assessment criteria to consider when assessing height. Relevant excerpts are set out below.

Section 3.2 “In the event of making a planning application, the applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority/ An Bord Pleanála, that the proposed development satisfies the following criteria: At the scale of the relevant city/town • •

The site is well served by public transport with high capacity, frequent service and good links to other modes of public transport.

Development proposals incorporating increased building height, including proposals within architecturally sensitive areas, should successfully integrate into/ enhance the character and public realm of the area, having regard to topography, its cultural context, setting of key landmarks,

Harold's Cross Appeal May 2020

Page 12

•

protection of key views.3 Such development proposals shall undertake a landscape and visual assessment, by a suitably qualified practitioner such as a chartered landscape architect.

On larger urban redevelopment sites, proposed developments should make a positive contribution to place-making, incorporating new streets and public spaces, using massing and height to achieve the required densities but with sufficient variety in scale and form to respond to the scale of adjoining developments and create visual interest in the Streetscape.

At the scale of district/ neighbourhood/ street • •

•

The proposal responds to its overall natural and built environment and makes a positive contribution to the urban neighbourhood and streetscape The proposal is not monolithic and avoids long, uninterrupted walls of building in the form of slab blocks with materials / building fabric well considered.

The proposal enhances the urban design context for public spaces and key thoroughfares and inland waterway/ marine frontage, thereby enabling additional height in development form to be favourably considered in terms of enhancing a sense of scale and enclosure while being in line with the requirements of “The Planning System and Flood

Risk Management – Guidelines for Planning Authorities” (2009).

•

•

The proposal makes a positive contribution to the improvement of legibility through the site or wider urban area within which the development is situated and integrates in a cohesive manner.

The proposal positively contributes to the mix of uses and/ or building/ dwelling typologies available in the neighbourhood.

At the scale of the site/building •

•

The form, massing and height of proposed developments should be carefully modulated so as to maximise access to natural daylight, ventilation and views and minimise overshadowing and loss of light.

Appropriate and reasonable regard should be taken of quantitative performance approaches to daylight provision outlined in guides like the Building Research Establishment’s ‘Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight’ (2nd edition) or BS 8206-2: 2008 – ‘Lighting for Buildings – Part 2

Code of Practice for Daylighting •

Where a proposal may not be able to fully meet all the requirements of the daylight provisions above, this must be clearly identified and a rationale for any alternative, compensatory design solutions must be set out, in respect of which the planning authority or An Bord Pleanála should apply their

Harold's Cross Appeal May 2020

Page 13

discretion, having regard to local factors including specific site constraints and the balancing of that assessment against the desirability of achieving wider planning objectives. Such objectives might include securing comprehensive urban regeneration and or an effective urban design and streetscape solution.

Where the relevant planning authority or An Bord PleanĂĄla considers that such criteria are appropriately incorporated into development proposals, the relevant authority shall apply the following Strategic Planning Policy Requirement under Section 28 (1C) of the Planning and Development Act 2000 (as amended).

SPRR3 It is a specific planning policy requirement that where; 1. An applicant for planning permission sets out how a development proposal complies with the criteria above; and 2. the assessment of the planning authority concurs, taking account of the wider strategic and national policy parameters set out in the National Planning Framework and these guidelines; Then the planning authority may approve such development, even where specific objectives of the relevant development plan or local area plan may indicate otherwise.

(B) In the case of an adopted planning scheme the Development Agency in conjunction with the relevant planning authority (where different) shall, upon the coming into force of these guidelines, undertake a review of the planning scheme, utilising the relevant mechanisms as set out in the Planning and Development Act 2000 (as amended) to ensure that the criteria above are fully reflected in the planning scheme. In particular the Government policy that building heights be generally increased in appropriate urban locations shall be articulated in any amendment(s) to the planning scheme.

In addition to the Department’s Guidelines on apartments and height, the Guidelines for Sustainable Residential Development in Urban Areas and the policies and targets in the Regional Planning Guidelines 2010–2022 are also relevant and have been considered in this assessment. Within centrally located sites, densities of 30-40+ dwellings per hectare for mainly residential schemes may be appropriate.

Local (City Development Plan) Policy The Planning report accepts that the proposal complies generally with the relevant policies, standards and guidelines of the Dublin City Development Plan 2016-2022.

We have shown the proposal complies with National Policy. The Planning Authority

Harold's Cross Appeal May 2020

Page 14

is unhappy, however, with the height, bulk, massing and scale of the proposed building. We will address this below.

Building Height The now adopted new height guidelines, The Urban Development and Building Height Guidelines 2018 set a clear direction for developing our cities and towns upwards, rather than ever outwards.

In addition to these Guidelines, Section 16.7.2 of the current Development Plan includes an assessment criterion for higher buildings. All proposals for mid-rise and taller buildings must have regard to this assessment as set out below: •

Relationship to context, including topography, built form, and skyline having regard to the need to protect important views, landmarks, prospects and vistas

The buildings in the area are generally one to three storeys in height, with the exception of the Russian Orthodox Church located on the other side of Harold's Cross Park. The development is proposing a 6 storey building with a set-back roof which will blend in with the existing environment. The proposed development is 20.8 metres at ridge level.

The site is not in close proximity to important views, landmarks, prospects or vistas. The proposed design and height of the building has been considered in order to effects in regard to heights of surrounding buildings and skyline.

Figure 6: Drawing of proposed development.

Harold's Cross Appeal May 2020

Page 15

•

Effect on the historic environment at a city-wide and local level

The architectural response provides a modern style building in an area comprising a mixed historic heritage in the area. The building proposed has been carefully designed to utilise the full size of the plot and providing an appropriate number of units and an architectural response which will have a positive effect on the existing environment. A red brick finish which is typical to this area of Dublin is proposed, which would have to be agreed upon by the Local Authority prior to commencement.

•

Relationship to transport infrastructure, particularly public transport provision

Public transportation including cycling infrastructure is in reach of the subject site providing good access to the city centre and key district centres in the city.

The site is also located on one of the proposed main routes within the Busconnects Plan.

•

Contribution to public spaces and facilities, including the mix of uses

The current building on site has not been in use over a number of years and its structure detracts from the attractive building in its vicinity. The proposed development will accommodate new residents which will boost the local retail offerings in the area.

In light of this, the proposed development will be in the form of a 6-storey building.

It is submitted that the density, scale and height of proposal accords with the current Development Plan and recent policy on building height, in particular Section 3.2 of The Urban Development and Building Height Guidelines 2018.

The proposed development includes a pedestrian entrance to the front of the proposed building on Harold’s Cross Road.

The proposal has incorporated a slightly recessed ground floor into the design to allow for wider footpaths. This will provide a more generous footpath along the street and create a more comfortable public realm.

The presence of windows and balconies at upper levels also provides passive surveillance of the public realm thus increasing the sense of security to pedestrians below.

The proposal is a context-appropriate architectural response to the site’s conditions with the aim to support and enhance its surroundings. Harold’s Cross has experienced much change in the years and decades gone by. The buildings have differing materials and colours with varying heights exhibiting different architectural Harold's Cross Appeal May 2020

Page 16

typologies and styles. It is submitted that the emerging character of the area is extremely varied and inconsistent.

The proposed scheme presents as a 6-storey building with setback top floor. The overall proposed ridge height of the block is 20.8 meters.

By setting the upper storey back, the uppermost level is visually recessed and subservient to the main body of the building below. Further, the uppermost level is predominantly only visible to passers-by from oblique angles.

The proposed facade is highly articulated with recessed balconies light coloured brick with a series of dark and light grey cement panelling with dark grey framed windows.

It is noted that these features and colours are subject to approval. The brick facade incorporates individual windows in a linear arrangement between floors.

In view of the foregoing, we believe that the building as originally applied for, (with the omission of 2 apartments at ground floor level, as discussed above) would be an appropriate development for this site and would be consistent with the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

If however the Board were to be of a view that the building is overly scaled, it can easily be further amended by condition, so as to present a reduced building, with greater set backs and greater variation in the mass of the building.

The building as originally proposed presented to the street as a 5 storey building with a 6th floor set back, not generally visible from the street. It is possible to set back that 5th floor and then to set back the 6th floor even further, see section below. This would allow a larger balcony, and spilt roof garden with plant above.

Harold's Cross Appeal May 2020

Page 17

The building would now present as a 4 storey building to the street, three floors over a ground floor active unit with two stepped set back floors. See below.

This change would result in the number of dwelling units reducing from the 43 proposed to 36 in total. The changes would be as follows.

Ground Floor – 2 apatrtments omitted. See Drawing 1806-P01 enclosed.

Fourth Floor – 2 apartments omitted. See drawing 1806-P14 enclosed Fifth Floor – 3 apartments omitted. See Drawing 1806 P15 enclosed.

A full set of drawings for the amended proposal is included with the appeal.

We would request that the Board grant permission, and either a) by condition omit the apartments suggested above with the drawings showing the changes to submitted to the Planning Authority for Approval or b) grant permission should the development being constructed in accordance with the drawings lodged with this appeal.

Harold's Cross Appeal May 2020

Page 18

Screening for Appropriate Assessment Planning applications are required to undertake a “screening” as to whether the project proposed could have significant effects on a Natura site, such that a Natura Impact Study (NIS) is required to be lodged with the application. This section addresses this issue.

Natura 2000 sites are areas of established environmental merit as described under the European Union Habitats Directive (Council Directive 92/43/EEC) and the Birds Directive (Council Directive 79/409/EEC).

There are four Natura 2000 sites that could potentially be affected by this development. These are the Dalkey Islands, the North Dublin Bay SAC, North Bull Island SPA or the South Dublin Bay and River Tolka Estuary SPA. However, the site of this application is in the Harold’s Cross area of Dublin. The site is not located within or directly adjacent to any Natura 2000 area (SAC or SPA). This part of Harold’s Cross is a built-up business and residential area zoned for development and is predominantly composed of surfaces that are sealed with tarmacadam and concrete.

Inert construction and demolition waste will be removed by a licenced contractor and disposed of in accordance with the Waste Management Act. Also, foul and surface drainage infrastructure will be separated up to the final point of entry to the municipal sewer. Combined effluent and storm water from the proposed development will be sent to the wastewater treatment plant at Ringsend in Dublin.

Therefore due to the distance involved and the nature of the development, the proposal of itself or taken together with other developments, is not likely to have any adverse impacts on a Natura site.

In relation to screening for this proposal therefore, the design, nature, limited scale, and location of the development, will ensure that the proposal will not have any significant effects on a Natura site either individually or collectively.

Due to the unlikelihood of significant ecological effects on the qualifying interests of the Natura sites downstream, it is reasonable to conclude that the screening carried out shows that the further more detailed stages of the Appropriate Assessment procedure are not required.

Harold's Cross Appeal May 2020

Page 19

Conclusion It is submitted that the proposed development is a worthy proposal and permission should be granted for the proposal as applied for. This appeal has shown that the proposal complies with planning policy, all relevant Guidelines and standards, will not injure the residential or visual amenities of the area, and will make a contribution to the enhancement of the area. Accordingly we ask that An Bord Pleanala grant permission as originally applied for.

Alternatively, the Board could decide to grant permission, subject to a condition that the two dwelling units at ground floor level be omitted from any permission, so as to permit the lodgement of a new application to provide a more active frontage at street level.

In addition, if the Board is concerned in regard to the massing of the building, a permission could be granted conditioning that the two upper floors be set back as shown on the enclosed plans. This would reduce the number of dwellings approved to 36.

In the context of the shortage in Housing supply in the Dublin region, it is requested that, if the Board have concerns in this regard, they condition a suitable permission rather than require a resubmission, with the time delay that would involve.

In conclusion it is submitted that the proposal is consistent with the provisions of the Dublin City Development Plan, is an appropriate design response to such a well located site and it is consistent with the proper planning and sustainable development of the area. Accordingly, it is requested that An Bord Pleanala proceed to grant permission for this worthy and much needed development.

We look forward to a Decision in due course.

Manahan Planners

Harold's Cross Appeal May 2020

Page 20