Architects and other consultants involved in the huge development proposal for Spencer Dock in Dublin are working long hours to provide the city planners with detailed additional information on the £1 billion project.
Dublin Corporation is seeking substantial further information before it can properly assess the planning application and environmental impact statement (EIS), lodged on March 3rd by a development consortium headed by Treasury Holdings.
This follows an exhaustive examination of the scheme, including some 2,400 drawings supplied by the renowned Irish-born architect, Mr Kevin Roche, and his office in Hamden, Connecticut, and consideration of a large number of letters objecting to the scheme.
A 53-page report by Mr John Martin, deputy chief planning officer, identifies the bulk and height of the buildings, which rise to 95 metres (313 feet), and the traffic implications of providing 7,300 on-site parking spaces as the most significant adverse impacts.
It says the corporation's traffic division has major concerns about the approach of the developers' environmental impact statement and it wants the scheme phased in tandem with developing public transport.
The corporation's drainage division has warned that the sewage loading of the development, which would provide a total of six million square feet of space, including the National Conference Centre, would produce flows equivalent to a population of 23,000.
In addition to technical advice from other departments, the corporation's planners have also taken on board reservations expressed by other statutory bodies, such as the Dublin Docklands Development Authority, and by 24 third parties.
Most of these submissions concentrated on the bulk and height of the £1 billion development, which is the largest ever proposed in Ireland.
Mr Martin's report notes that reference was made in the developers' EIS to more than 30 design concepts and layouts for the scheme. No descriptions had been submitted, but it was likely that none of them involved any appreciable reduction in the size of the scheme.
Referring to the developers' stated objective that some of the larger units among the 3,000 high-rise apartments proposed would be attractive to families, he asked: if so, how are the open space and other special needs of families addressed in the design and layout?
The planners are also seeking a large number of additional drawings to show the scheme in the context of surrounding streets, as well as full colour photo-montages of what it would look like seen from such strategic vantage points as Howth or Dunsink Observatory.
To amplify the vague assessment in the EIS of the shadow it would cast on adjoining properties, the planners want further detailed shadow studies. They are also seeking an assessment of its micro-climatic effects, especially the wind turbulence associated with high buildings.
Mr Martin's report makes it clear that the planners have serious doubts about the validity of some of the assumptions underlying the traffic impact assessment.
It points out that no specific provision for social or affordable housing has been included, despite a 20 per cent requirement in Docklands. There was also no demonstrable basis "for a claim in the EIS that the scheme would probably mop up" unemployment in the area.
The corporation has also requested the developers to submit a retail impact statement, given that the amount of shopping proposed for the Spencer Dock site - at 18,000 sq metres (193,750 sq feet) - would be larger than some existing suburban shopping centres.
Taking up a point made by the millionaire financier, Mr Dermot Desmond, the planners are also seeking further information on the implications for Dublin's office market of concentrating 204,380 sq metres (2.2 million sq feet) of office space on the Spencer Dock site.
Among the objectors to the overall development are the North Wall Community Association, the North Port Dwellers Association, Royal Canal Cruisers, the Ecological Design Association and the East Wall Community Development Council.
