FORMER MINISTER for the environment Dick Roche rejected a strong recommendation from his department's heritage officers that it should object to plans for the redevelopment of Dublin's Clarence Hotel.
Documents released to The Irish Times show that Mr Roche decided that the department should not recommend a refusal by Dublin City Council, on the basis that the scheme by Foster + Partners would "represent a significant addition" to the city's architecture.
In a handwritten note, he said: "As a layman, the architectural proposals seem to me to have great merit" - even though they would involve demolishing all but the Wellington Quay facades of the hotel and adjoining buildings, all of which are protected structures.
A new eight-storey hotel containing 140 bedrooms - topped by an elliptical flying saucer-style roof - would rise up behind the retained façades. Only some elements of the interior would be salvaged, principally the Clarence's oak-panelled Octagon Bar.
Mr Roche dismissed the recommendation that an objection should be made on the basis that the proposed development would adversely affect historic buildings and views along the Liffey Quays, writing: "Surely what the dept is suggesting is a formula for stasis."
In an e-mail dated February 28th, 2007, Marc Ritchie of the department's architectural advisory unit wrote that "every aspect of the application is wrong" and he did not believe there was "any way in which the impact of the proposed design can be mitigated".
Documentation submitted by the Clarence Hotel Partnership (Bono and the Edge of U2 along with developer Paddy McKillen and financier Derek Quinlan) contained a "substantial amount of padding and waffle" about a "great new design" that would in time be seen as "iconic".
However Mr Ritchie warned Anne Marie Caulfield of the department's planning division that if a commercial development of the type proposed was granted on this basis, "it would provide a carte blanche for developers to demolish any protected structure" in the city.
His draft letter of objection described the proposal as "completely unacceptable in that it shows scant regard for the special interest of the individual protected structures on the site and utterly fails to recognise the historic and visual importance" of their setting.
"The application is for a development which is totally at odds with good conservation practice and will result in a new building that will completely overwhelm the surviving fragments of the protected structures and have a domineering presence" on the Liffey quays.
However, Mr Richie was forced to tone down this strong language in subsequent drafts - all of which still recommended refusal - after discussions with Ms Caulfield and Mary Moylan, then assistant secretary in charge of the department's planning division.
As the deadline for lodging an objection came and went, and the draft was further amended to the point where it became almost anodyne, Mr Ritchie sent an e-mail saying: "I am not able to stand over the report on the proposed Clarence Hotel redevelopment as redrafted" . He added: "I am disappointed that my report and recommendations as issued to DAU [development applications unit] and the minister's office on March 1st will not be issued and that so many of its recommendations and comments have been removed."
Three days after the deadline had passed, Mr Ritchie expressed concern about "the continuing delay by the department in submitting its recommendations to Dublin City Council". Colleague Freddie O'Dwyer agreed that this "should be done as a matter of urgency".
By then, the case had gone to the minister's office and according to a March 8th memo from his policy co-ordinator, Feargal Ó Coigligh, Mr Roche "carefully considered" the proposed development and decided that the department should not recommend a refusal.
"He accepts that the minimal intervention philosophy [in the department's architectural heritage guidelines] should be adhered to except in exceptional circumstances but that this high-quality, landmark proposal meets the criteria for departing from that view."
Just over a year later, when the department was requested by An Bord Pleanála to give its view, the architectural heritage unit was finally permitted to express its objections in a seven-page letter.
By then, John Gormley had taken over from Dick Roche. He approved the letter and also permitted Mr Ritchie to attend the oral hearing.
Last July, however, An Bord Pleanála granted permission.
The Irish Times
www.buckplanning.ie
Showing posts with label planing and development. Show all posts
Showing posts with label planing and development. Show all posts
Tuesday, 4 November 2008
Sunday, 2 November 2008
Cement manufacturer announces plans to begin waste incineration
BUILDING-materials giant CRH looks set to start burning waste including bonemeal, tyres and plastic at the country's largest cement factory at Platin, Co Meath, less than 5km from Drogheda.
The factory is just 100 metres from the site of the country's first municipal incinerator, which is currently under construction, sparking environmental fears. It is also 40km away from a proposed bonemeal incinerator at Nobber, Co Meath.
Although the company has said the move is designed to reduce the plant's carbon emissions and its use of fossil fuels, the Sunday Tribune has learned that its management view it primarily as a cost-cutting measure.
In a statement released to selected local media, Barry Leonard, the plant's works manager, said that "not only are we achieving environmental benefits with these measures, but by improving competitiveness, we are helping to guarantee the jobs here at Platin".
Over the past year, demand for cement has collapsed by 25% due to the slowdown, and it is expected that the CRH subsidiary that runs the plant, Irish Cement, will announce a voluntary redundancy package in the near future.
Local environmentalist Pat O'Brien, who led the campaign against the incinerator, said he was very concerned about the move, particularly as "the jury is still out on whether bonemeal is a safe fuel".
Although the use of tyres and bonemeal reduces carbon dioxide emissions from cement plants, it increases their emissions of heavy metals such as mercury, lead and zinc into the atmosphere.
An Irish Cement spokeswoman said the move was an environmental initiative, not a cost-cutting measure. She said that tyres, bonemeal and other "alternative fuels" had been used by the cement industry in Europe for over 30 years.
Sunday Tribune
www.buckplanning.ie
The factory is just 100 metres from the site of the country's first municipal incinerator, which is currently under construction, sparking environmental fears. It is also 40km away from a proposed bonemeal incinerator at Nobber, Co Meath.
Although the company has said the move is designed to reduce the plant's carbon emissions and its use of fossil fuels, the Sunday Tribune has learned that its management view it primarily as a cost-cutting measure.
In a statement released to selected local media, Barry Leonard, the plant's works manager, said that "not only are we achieving environmental benefits with these measures, but by improving competitiveness, we are helping to guarantee the jobs here at Platin".
Over the past year, demand for cement has collapsed by 25% due to the slowdown, and it is expected that the CRH subsidiary that runs the plant, Irish Cement, will announce a voluntary redundancy package in the near future.
Local environmentalist Pat O'Brien, who led the campaign against the incinerator, said he was very concerned about the move, particularly as "the jury is still out on whether bonemeal is a safe fuel".
Although the use of tyres and bonemeal reduces carbon dioxide emissions from cement plants, it increases their emissions of heavy metals such as mercury, lead and zinc into the atmosphere.
An Irish Cement spokeswoman said the move was an environmental initiative, not a cost-cutting measure. She said that tyres, bonemeal and other "alternative fuels" had been used by the cement industry in Europe for over 30 years.
Sunday Tribune
www.buckplanning.ie
Wednesday, 10 September 2008
Planners in ‘legal minefield’ over shebeen case
FRANCIE KELLY’S shebeen in Southill has cast planners at Limerick City Council into a legal minefield.
Such is the complexity of the case, officials may have to hire a top senior counsel to help with certain definitions within the Planning and Development Act 2000.
Gardaí at Roxboro sent a file to the DPP after four raids, but still have received no instructions on further action.
The council served a letter of warning to Mr Kelly earlier in the summer and now have six weeks in which to decide whether to proceed with an enforcement notice demanding closure of the shebeen for breach of planning.
The shebeen has been operating in a big shed at the back of his mother’s house in Lilac Court since April.
A senior city hall source said yesterday that such is the complexity of the case no decision will be take until consultations have taken place with city manager Tom Mackey, directorship of planning John Field, senior planner Dick Tobin, senior executive planner, Kieran Reeves and technical planner Sean Moran.
At present, the planning department is trawling through decisions by An Bord Pleanála and statute law for precedents to help unravel one question central to Mr Kelly’s shebeen, known locally as Mother Kellys.
The source said: “The question we have to answer is whether the structure, the shebeen is ancillary to Mr Kelly’s enjoyment of his dwelling house or that it needs planning for change of use. We have to trawl through precedents to see what constitutes ancillary use of a dwelling house. We have to satisfy ourselves that there is a breach of the planning law and be fully clear with that if we are to stand that up and serve an enforcement order as that is a very serious matter and cannot be taken on a knee-jerk reaction basis.
“If we go to court we have to be reasonably satisfied that we would get the right result. The planning and licensing laws don’t necessarily correlate.”
If the council decide to go to the Circuit Court and win, Mr Kelly could face a fine of up to €10,000 and or a prison term of up to two years. Continued use would result in a fine of up to €10,000 a day.
Mr Kelly — who insists he entertains friends at the shebeen for no financial gain — says he intends to fight his case all the way.
He has instructed solicitor John Devane, who is seeking the return of more than €12,000 worth of drink seized during four Garda raids.
Irish Examiner
www.buckplanning.ie
Such is the complexity of the case, officials may have to hire a top senior counsel to help with certain definitions within the Planning and Development Act 2000.
Gardaí at Roxboro sent a file to the DPP after four raids, but still have received no instructions on further action.
The council served a letter of warning to Mr Kelly earlier in the summer and now have six weeks in which to decide whether to proceed with an enforcement notice demanding closure of the shebeen for breach of planning.
The shebeen has been operating in a big shed at the back of his mother’s house in Lilac Court since April.
A senior city hall source said yesterday that such is the complexity of the case no decision will be take until consultations have taken place with city manager Tom Mackey, directorship of planning John Field, senior planner Dick Tobin, senior executive planner, Kieran Reeves and technical planner Sean Moran.
At present, the planning department is trawling through decisions by An Bord Pleanála and statute law for precedents to help unravel one question central to Mr Kelly’s shebeen, known locally as Mother Kellys.
The source said: “The question we have to answer is whether the structure, the shebeen is ancillary to Mr Kelly’s enjoyment of his dwelling house or that it needs planning for change of use. We have to trawl through precedents to see what constitutes ancillary use of a dwelling house. We have to satisfy ourselves that there is a breach of the planning law and be fully clear with that if we are to stand that up and serve an enforcement order as that is a very serious matter and cannot be taken on a knee-jerk reaction basis.
“If we go to court we have to be reasonably satisfied that we would get the right result. The planning and licensing laws don’t necessarily correlate.”
If the council decide to go to the Circuit Court and win, Mr Kelly could face a fine of up to €10,000 and or a prison term of up to two years. Continued use would result in a fine of up to €10,000 a day.
Mr Kelly — who insists he entertains friends at the shebeen for no financial gain — says he intends to fight his case all the way.
He has instructed solicitor John Devane, who is seeking the return of more than €12,000 worth of drink seized during four Garda raids.
Irish Examiner
www.buckplanning.ie
Planners in ‘legal minefield’ over shebeen case
FRANCIE KELLY’S shebeen in Southill has cast planners at Limerick City Council into a legal minefield.
Such is the complexity of the case, officials may have to hire a top senior counsel to help with certain definitions within the Planning and Development Act 2000.
Gardaí at Roxboro sent a file to the DPP after four raids, but still have received no instructions on further action.
The council served a letter of warning to Mr Kelly earlier in the summer and now have six weeks in which to decide whether to proceed with an enforcement notice demanding closure of the shebeen for breach of planning.
The shebeen has been operating in a big shed at the back of his mother’s house in Lilac Court since April.
A senior city hall source said yesterday that such is the complexity of the case no decision will be take until consultations have taken place with city manager Tom Mackey, directorship of planning John Field, senior planner Dick Tobin, senior executive planner, Kieran Reeves and technical planner Sean Moran.
At present, the planning department is trawling through decisions by An Bord Pleanála and statute law for precedents to help unravel one question central to Mr Kelly’s shebeen, known locally as Mother Kellys.
The source said: “The question we have to answer is whether the structure, the shebeen is ancillary to Mr Kelly’s enjoyment of his dwelling house or that it needs planning for change of use. We have to trawl through precedents to see what constitutes ancillary use of a dwelling house. We have to satisfy ourselves that there is a breach of the planning law and be fully clear with that if we are to stand that up and serve an enforcement order as that is a very serious matter and cannot be taken on a knee-jerk reaction basis.
“If we go to court we have to be reasonably satisfied that we would get the right result. The planning and licensing laws don’t necessarily correlate.”
If the council decide to go to the Circuit Court and win, Mr Kelly could face a fine of up to €10,000 and or a prison term of up to two years. Continued use would result in a fine of up to €10,000 a day.
Mr Kelly — who insists he entertains friends at the shebeen for no financial gain — says he intends to fight his case all the way.
He has instructed solicitor John Devane, who is seeking the return of more than €12,000 worth of drink seized during four Garda raids.
Irish Examiner
www.buckplanning.ie
Such is the complexity of the case, officials may have to hire a top senior counsel to help with certain definitions within the Planning and Development Act 2000.
Gardaí at Roxboro sent a file to the DPP after four raids, but still have received no instructions on further action.
The council served a letter of warning to Mr Kelly earlier in the summer and now have six weeks in which to decide whether to proceed with an enforcement notice demanding closure of the shebeen for breach of planning.
The shebeen has been operating in a big shed at the back of his mother’s house in Lilac Court since April.
A senior city hall source said yesterday that such is the complexity of the case no decision will be take until consultations have taken place with city manager Tom Mackey, directorship of planning John Field, senior planner Dick Tobin, senior executive planner, Kieran Reeves and technical planner Sean Moran.
At present, the planning department is trawling through decisions by An Bord Pleanála and statute law for precedents to help unravel one question central to Mr Kelly’s shebeen, known locally as Mother Kellys.
The source said: “The question we have to answer is whether the structure, the shebeen is ancillary to Mr Kelly’s enjoyment of his dwelling house or that it needs planning for change of use. We have to trawl through precedents to see what constitutes ancillary use of a dwelling house. We have to satisfy ourselves that there is a breach of the planning law and be fully clear with that if we are to stand that up and serve an enforcement order as that is a very serious matter and cannot be taken on a knee-jerk reaction basis.
“If we go to court we have to be reasonably satisfied that we would get the right result. The planning and licensing laws don’t necessarily correlate.”
If the council decide to go to the Circuit Court and win, Mr Kelly could face a fine of up to €10,000 and or a prison term of up to two years. Continued use would result in a fine of up to €10,000 a day.
Mr Kelly — who insists he entertains friends at the shebeen for no financial gain — says he intends to fight his case all the way.
He has instructed solicitor John Devane, who is seeking the return of more than €12,000 worth of drink seized during four Garda raids.
Irish Examiner
www.buckplanning.ie
Sunday, 27 July 2008
The Clarence Hotel revamp will cost city dear
Saint Bono and The Edge have been granted permission to knock the Clarence hotel and the adjacent 18th-century buildings on the quays in Dublin into the middle of the 21st century -- for no better reason, it seems to the outside observer, than the fact that the Clarence hotel, which they own, is losing money. And the pair may be canonised philanthropists saving the world and giving away trillions at the drop of a hat ... (What? They're not? They even moved their tax operations abroad so they could cock a snook at the rest of us idiot Irish taxpayers? Oops.)
The Edge told the planning appeal that the only way the Clarence could make money was for them to be allowed to raze it to the ground, along with the nearly 300 years of history the adjacent buildings represent. And they won. Nobody even suggested that they should employ people to run the hotel in a way that it could make money rather than lose it. Or even accept that they'd made a bad investment, and put up with the loss. After all, even they shouldn't be able to trample over lesser people in order to make money. Or should they?
As it happens, I don't think the Clarence facade or interior would be much of a loss to Dublin. Art Deco architecture and decor are quite stunning when they're good: lofty, simple, elegant and welcoming; cool and sophisticated but never austere. And the Clarence was never any of those: before its U2 facelift it was bleak and dreary. Post facelift, it was cold and characterless, its public rooms disproportionately high with no sense of comfort or intimacy. In other words, it was, and is, bad design of its type.
The other buildings they have been given permission to demolish, however, are quite another pile of bricks. Like most of the Georgian architecture of Dublin that has survived the vandalism of money-grabbing development, they are fit for purpose, elegant, and a testament to their environment. They may well need some money spent on them, but it would be very well spent: properly and sensitively restored, they'd survive triumphantly for another 300 years, part of the fabric of Dublin in its heyday as the "second city of the Empire", as used to be proudly said.
And while knocking the Clarence might be no great loss, replacing it with something even more alien to the 18th-century quayside street- scape would be appalling. Indeed, it will be appalling, because Bono and The Edge have permission for a development that is totally alien, however good it may be objectively. The uniformity of the quays will be gone, which is one of the hallmarks of 18th-Century thinking.
Right opposite the proposed Clarence, on Ormond Quay on the north side of the river, there is a gem of Georgian restoration which proves it can be done if there is will and sensitivity. It is a private house, known simply as Number 10, but can be hired for parties. In other words, it is run as a business. The owner has restored it meticulously and lovingly, and you walk into "a gentleman's residence of the 1780s". The furnishings and art are unsurpassed in Dublin, and although there is electricity, nothing breaks the atmosphere.
When the current owner bought it, the house was in serious disrepair, far worse repair than the buildings Bono and The Edge are to be allowed to demolish. Now Number 10 is one of the gems of Dublin.
Why am I writing this? Just to show that it can be done: you don't have to tear down buildings to make progress, or indeed to make money, as The Edge's comments to the Planning Appeals hearing would seem to suggest.
On a much smaller scale, my neighbours and I were involved in a planning objection recently. We live in a nest of small-scale Victorian terraces, and there was a planning application for "a six- storey mixed use development" on a corner that would literally cast us into shadow. We won. (Sometimes the little people do win.)
Maybe there's a glimmer of hope.
- EMER O'KELLY
The Edge told the planning appeal that the only way the Clarence could make money was for them to be allowed to raze it to the ground, along with the nearly 300 years of history the adjacent buildings represent. And they won. Nobody even suggested that they should employ people to run the hotel in a way that it could make money rather than lose it. Or even accept that they'd made a bad investment, and put up with the loss. After all, even they shouldn't be able to trample over lesser people in order to make money. Or should they?
As it happens, I don't think the Clarence facade or interior would be much of a loss to Dublin. Art Deco architecture and decor are quite stunning when they're good: lofty, simple, elegant and welcoming; cool and sophisticated but never austere. And the Clarence was never any of those: before its U2 facelift it was bleak and dreary. Post facelift, it was cold and characterless, its public rooms disproportionately high with no sense of comfort or intimacy. In other words, it was, and is, bad design of its type.
The other buildings they have been given permission to demolish, however, are quite another pile of bricks. Like most of the Georgian architecture of Dublin that has survived the vandalism of money-grabbing development, they are fit for purpose, elegant, and a testament to their environment. They may well need some money spent on them, but it would be very well spent: properly and sensitively restored, they'd survive triumphantly for another 300 years, part of the fabric of Dublin in its heyday as the "second city of the Empire", as used to be proudly said.
And while knocking the Clarence might be no great loss, replacing it with something even more alien to the 18th-century quayside street- scape would be appalling. Indeed, it will be appalling, because Bono and The Edge have permission for a development that is totally alien, however good it may be objectively. The uniformity of the quays will be gone, which is one of the hallmarks of 18th-Century thinking.
Right opposite the proposed Clarence, on Ormond Quay on the north side of the river, there is a gem of Georgian restoration which proves it can be done if there is will and sensitivity. It is a private house, known simply as Number 10, but can be hired for parties. In other words, it is run as a business. The owner has restored it meticulously and lovingly, and you walk into "a gentleman's residence of the 1780s". The furnishings and art are unsurpassed in Dublin, and although there is electricity, nothing breaks the atmosphere.
When the current owner bought it, the house was in serious disrepair, far worse repair than the buildings Bono and The Edge are to be allowed to demolish. Now Number 10 is one of the gems of Dublin.
Why am I writing this? Just to show that it can be done: you don't have to tear down buildings to make progress, or indeed to make money, as The Edge's comments to the Planning Appeals hearing would seem to suggest.
On a much smaller scale, my neighbours and I were involved in a planning objection recently. We live in a nest of small-scale Victorian terraces, and there was a planning application for "a six- storey mixed use development" on a corner that would literally cast us into shadow. We won. (Sometimes the little people do win.)
Maybe there's a glimmer of hope.
- EMER O'KELLY
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)