The wife of businessman Dermot Desmond has failed to stop major work, including basement bedrooms, going ahead at her next-door neighbour’s house on Ailesbury Road in Dublin 4.
An Bord Pleanála has dismissed an appeal lodged by Pat Desmond against Dublin City Council’s decision to grant planning permission to Karen Reihill for a 153sq m (1,650sq ft) basement project.
Ms Reihill and her husband Shane purchased their house, St Peter’s, on Ailesbury Road last year for €2.9 million.
Last October the Reihills sought to substantially increase the size of their new home and lodged plans for a basement comprising two en-suite bedrooms, a playroom and a plant room accessed via a lift. The plans also includes the demolition of an existing two-storey extension above ground and its replacement.
The proposal would increase the floor space of the house to 697sq m (7,502 sq ft) – about five times the size of many family houses.
After Dublin City Council gave the plan the go-ahead last December, Mrs Desmond retained planning consultant Simon Clear to lodge an appeal with An Bord Pleanála against the decision.
Ailesbury Road Residents, as observers, also lodged a submission with the appeals board, concurring with Mrs Desmond’s grounds of appeal.
Displacement of flooding
In a comprehensive appeal lodged on behalf of Mrs Desmond, Mr Clear contended the development should be refused permission.
He argued “the basement is likely to penetrate the ground- water level and displacement of flooding will occur into adjoining properties”.
He stated: “Given these circumstances, worst-case scenarios should be assessed before any decision to grant permission is made. As has been seen throughout the country in December 2015, it is too late to react after planning permission has been granted and put into effect. Therefore, the precautionary principle should apply.”
Mr Clear added: “Particularly, a residential basement should not be tolerated under any circumstances and no basements should be allowed in residential conservation areas or near protected structures.”
In the appeal, Mr Clear stated “the proposed development is unacceptable in the absence of a revised flood risk assessment; a site-specific flood risk assessment . . . and protocols to protect my client’s property during and after construction. Due to the absence of this information, planning permission should be refused.”
Sustainable development
However, in its formal order, the appeals board found the Reihills’ plan would not seriously injure the visual or residential amenities of the area and would be in accordance with proper planning and sustainable development.
The board made its decision having regard to the policies and provisions of the Dublin City Development Plan 2011– 2017; the planning history of the site; the nature and scale of the proposed development; and the established character and pattern of development in the vicinity of the site.
At appeal stage the Reihills’ consultants carried out site investigations and confirmed there was no stream underneath the site and that displaced ground water would flow to the river Dodder. They also found that any increase in the ground-water level would be negligible.
Consultants acting for Mrs Desmond said the site investigations carried out at appeal stage bore out her contention that insufficient information was available at the application stage.
The inspector in the case, Hugh Morrison, recommended that planning permission be granted after concluding the proposed basement would be compatible with the stability of Mrs Desmond’s home next door.
Mr Morrison stated the proposal would not be subject to any appreciable flood risk and it would be capable of being constructed and retained in a manner that would not prejudice the stability of adjacent foundations.
