BORD PLEANALA DECISION:AN BORD Pleanála has refused permission for developer Seán Dunne's high-rise scheme for Ballsbridge, saying it constitutes a "gross overdevelopment" of the Dublin 4 site.
In a strongly-worded report the board overturned the permission granted to Mr Dunne by Dublin City Council last March, and said the plans were in conflict with the council’s own Dublin City Development Plan.
Mr Dunne had sought to build a €1.5 billion residential, retail and office development, including a 37-storey tower, on the seven-acre site of the former Jurys and Berkeley Court hotels in Ballsbridge which he bought for €450 million almost four years ago.
The council granted permission for the bulk of the development, including an 18-storey apartment building on Shelbourne Road, but rejected the 37-storey tower.
Mr Dunne appealed this rejection to An Bord Pleanála, while 36 other appellants objected to the development going ahead.
The board agreed with its inspector Tom Rabbette, who conducted a month-long public hearing on the development last September, that the scheme was too tall, too intensive, would have a bad impact on the existing area and would contravene the development plan in bringing excessive retail and office development to the site.
However, the board went further than its inspector, who concentrated on the effect of the development on the surrounding area, and said it was not satisfied that the apartments would be a pleasant place to live.
In relation to wind turbulence, availability of daylight and penetration of sunlight, “the board is not satisfied that the proposed development would bring about a high-quality environment for future occupants”. The board did not refer to the 37-story building in its reasons for refusal, but said the “scale, massing and height” of the development as a whole would constitute “gross over-development and over-intensification of use of the site”. While the board acknowledged the high quality of the architecture of the individual buildings, the scheme as a whole would be “highly-obtrusive and seriously injure the visual amenity of the area”.
In the context of the existing site it was an “inappropriate design response” which would make a “radical change in the urban form of the area, at odds with the established character of Ballsbridge”.
The board noted that such change was not supported by the city development plan, and was contrary to proper planning and the sustainable development of the area.
In addition to the height of the scheme, a large number of objectors had submitted that the large retail element at more than 27,000sq m and the office development at 42,000sq m, including an embassy block, contravened the land zoning in the development plan.
This view was expressed by Mr Rabbette and confirmed by the board, which said the retail element was “excessive” and would divert retail investment from the city centre and the office use was “neither permitted nor open for consideration” on the site.
The siting of the development in Ballsbridge was a major consideration in its refusal. The board noted the many protected structures in the area on which the development would have a “significant adverse impact”.
It also cited the loss of “mature vegetation” which would have been removed. The inspector specifically mentions the Pepper Canister Church on Mount Street as a protected structure that would be affected by the development, but this is not referred to in the board’s report.
