Sean Dunne loses the Battle for Ballsbridge

Reasons for refusal:

DECISION:

REFUSE permission for the above proposed development based on the reasons
and considerations set out below.

MATTERS CONSIDERED:

In making its decision, the Board had regard to those matters to which, by virtue of
the Planning and Development Acts and Regulations made thereunder, it was required
to have regard. Such matters included any submissions and observations received by it
in accordance with statutory provisions.

REASONS AND CONSIDERATIONS:

1. Having regard to the provisions of the Dublin City Development Plan, 2005-2011 and to the existing pattern of development in the area, it is considered that the proposed development, by reason of its scale, massing and height (notwithstanding the high quality of the architectural treatment of the individual buildings), would constitute gross overdevelopment and over-intensification of use of the site, would be highly obtrusive, would seriously injure the visual amenity of the area and would constitute an inappropriate design response to the existing context of the site, making a radical change in the urban form of the area, at odds with the established character of Ballsbridge. Such change is not supported by any local or strategic objective in the development plan. The proposed development would, therefore, be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

2. Having regard to the established scale and pattern of development in the environs
of the site, it is considered that the proposed buildings, by reason of scale, massing, height, proximity to the site boundaries and loss of mature vegetation,
would have a significant adverse impact on the streetscape and on the setting and amenity of existing buildings in the vicinity, which include many protected structures. The proposed development would, therefore, seriously injure the amenities of the area and of property in the vicinity and be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

3. The site of the proposed development is designated with the land use zoning
objective ‘Z1’ – to protect, provide and improve residential amenities – in the
Dublin City Development Plan, 2005-2011. It is considered that the quantum of
retail development contained in the proposed development is excessive and would
thereby militate against achievement of the residential land use zoning objective
and would divert retail investment and activity away from areas designated for
such use (including the city centre). The proposed development would, therefore,
materially contravene the land use zoning objective of the development plan and
be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

4. The site of the proposed development is located in the Ballsbridge area of
Dublin on land designated with the zoning objective ‘Z1’ – to protect, provide
and improve residential amenities – in the Dublin City Development Plan,
2005-2011. Under the provisions of the development plan, large scale office
use is neither permitted nor open for consideration on such lands and it is the
policy of the planning authority to facilitate such development in other areas,
with appropriate land use zoning designation. It is considered that the
proposed large scale office development, including the building described as
“embassy”, would militate against this policy, would materially contravene the
land use zoning objective of the development plan and be contrary to the
proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

5. Having regard to the scale, massing and layout of the proposed buildings, to the prevailing climate and latitude of the Dublin area and to the submissions
made in connection with the planning application and the appeal, including the
environmental impact statement and associated documentation, the Board is
not satisfied that the proposed development would bring about a high quality
environment for future occupants, having regard to considerations of microclimate,
including wind turbulence, availability of daylight and penetration of
sunlight. The proposed development would, therefore, be contrary to the
proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

www.buckplanning.ie