An Bord Pleanála
Inspector’s Report
CASE REF: 29S.PA0012
Development:
Redevelopment of Tara Street Station comprising a new and enlarged concourse and a commercial air rights development over.
Tara Street Station, Tara Street, Dublin 2.
Planning application:
Planning Authority: Dublin City Council.
Applicant: Iarnrod Eireann
Type of Application: Application to Board under Section 37A of the Planning and Development 2000 as amended by the Planning and Development (Strategic Infrastructure) Act, 2006.
Submissions from Prescribed Bodies
• Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government. • Dublin Docklands Development Authority. • Rail Procurement Agency. • Railway Safety Commission. • Dublin Transportation Office. • Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources.
Submission from Obervers
• Mr. John Kennedy, Kennedy’s Taverns Ltd. • Mr. Colm Moore, Dublin Cycling Campaign (Oral Hearing only). • Mr. Damien Cassidy, National Conservation and Heritage Group
Date of Site Inspection : 28th May 2009, 04th September 2009 and 11 th September ‘09.
Inspector: Karla Mc Bride.
PL 29S .PA0012 An Bord Pleanála Page 1 of 38 1.0 BACKGROUND
1.1 Pre-Planning Consultation with An Bord Pleanala
As provided for under section 37B of the Planning and Development Act 2000, (as amended by the Planning and Development (Strategic Infrastructure) Act 2006), the applicant, Iarnrod Eireann, entered into discussions with An Bord Pleanala in relation to the proposed development (Case Ref. PC0047). Two meetings were held between An Bord Pleanala and Iarnrod Eireann on 27 th March 2008, and 25 th June 2008. The Board informed the applicant of its decision that the proposed redevelopment of Tara Street Station, Tara Street, Dublin 2 would be strategic infrastructure within the meaning of section 37A(2) (a) and (b) of the Act. The current application to An Bord Pleanala is made on foot of that decision.
Oral Hearing
An oral hearing was held in respect of this application on Tuesday 28 th July and Wednesday 29 th July and a summary of the proceedings is attached.
2.0 SITE AND DEVELOPMENT DETAILS
2.1 The site. The site is located in the Georges Quay area of Dublin City Centre, to the south of the River Liffey, to the east of O’Connell Bridge and to the south east of Butt Bridge. The site is bounded by Tara Street, Georges Quay, Luke Street, Poolbeg Street and the existing loop railway line. Liberty Hall, the Custom House and the IFSC are located on the opposite side of the River Liffey while the pyramidal Pricewaterhouse Copper and Ulster bank buildings are located to the east of the site. Kennedy’s public house, which is a protected structure, is located to the northwest of the site on the corner of Tara Street and Georges Quay. Photographs and maps in Appendix 1 serve to describe the site and location in some detail. 2.2 Proposed Development.
A 10-year planning permission is being sought to redevelop Tara Street Station:
• Demolish a number of existing structures:
o Nos. 2, 4, 6, & 8-16 Tara Street.
o Station ticket office and ancillary accommodation.
o The Sub Lounge (formerly O’Reillys) under the existing arches.
• Construct a new 20,990sq.m. 15-storey development comprising:
o A glazed triple height concourse /office entrance from Tara Street with granite flank wall to west of Kennedy’s public house (Protected Structure).
PL 29S .PA0012 An Bord Pleanála Page 2 of 38 o Increased station concourse (1,800sq.m.) with access from Tara Street and Georges Quay.
o New station ancillary accommodation.
o 342sq.m of retail floorspace for commuters.
o Escalator, lift and stair access to platform level.
o 14,990sq.m. of offices on 10 levels over the station concourse and northbound platform with an entrance from the corner of Tara Street and Poolbeg Street (16,355sq.m. inclusive of office and plant areas).
o Mechanical plant on 13 th and 14 th floors (1,365sq.m.)
o 10 disabled car parking and 150 cycle spaces for office users at basement level.
o Basement level accessed by car lift off Poolbeg Street.
o Glazed roof over platforms between Georges Quay and Poolbeg Street.
2.3 Environmental Impact Statement
The EIS submitted with the planning application was prepared in accordance with Part X of the Planning and Development Regulations. The impact of the proposed development was assessed under all the relevant headings with respect to human beings, flora and fauna, landscape and visibility, cultural heritage, soils, water, services, transportation, noise, air quality, waste management, interactions and alternatives. The content and scope of the EIS is considered to be adequate and in compliance with Planning Regulations. No likely significant adverse impacts were identified and mitigation measures were proposed where moderate impacts were identified. 2.4 Need for development
The applicant submits that the proposed development is needed to improve facilities for passengers using Tara Street Station. The station is a central station along the DART line which runs from Malahide in North Dublin to Greystones in Co. Wicklow as well as serving suburban rail. They state that this station is one of the busiest in the network, it is the closest station to the City Centre and it also serves the Docklands area which includes the IFSC on the opposite side of the River Liffey.
Iarnrod Eireann identified several objectives for the redevelopment of the station:
• To double passenger capacity of Tara Street DART by improving all station operating facilities and amenities.
• To greatly improve pedestrian spaces associated with the station at all levels, establishing views between the platforms and the street.
• To create a distinctive landmark building which will identify the new station and add to the modern cityscape of Dublin.
• To facilitate greater interchange of transport (bus/rail).
PL 29S .PA0012 An Bord Pleanála Page 3 of 38 3.0 PLANNING HISTORY
Reg. Reg. 0158/00 – PP sought for a new station concourse with a mixed use air rights development, AI request not complied with.
Reg. Ref.0948/01 – PP granted for a new station concourse with a 10-storey office development with restaurant over station concourse, decision upheld following a Third Party appeal under PL 29S 128164.
Reg. Ref. 2813/01 – PP granted for a new station entrance off Townsend Street.
4.0 NATIONAL AND REGIONAL PLANNING POLICY
Extracts of the relevant policy documents are contained in Appendix 2 to this report. 4.1 National Development Plan
The National Development Plan involves a major economic investment by the Government to invest in the infrastructure of the State in a coherent manner in line with other policy initiatives and transport infrastructure is a key element. The Plan acknowledges the economic importance of the Greater Dublin Area and envisages further development in this area “in a more compact and sustainable manner” by promoting “higher density development around a strengthened public transport grid.” It is a key objective of the Plan to radically upgrade public transport systems particularly in the Greater Dublin Area by providing increased investment in public transport expenditure which will in turn facilitate increased use of public transport.
4.2 National Spatial Strategy 2002-2020
The NSS sets out a national planning framework to co-ordinate future development and planning throughout the country in a sustainable manner and to consolidate the physical growth of Dublin while recognising its national and international importance. 4.3 Regional Planning Guidelines for the Greater Dublin Area.
The Guidelines, which provide a long term planning framework for the development of the Greater Dublin Area, seek to consolidate development, increase overall densities and facilitate the provision of improved public transport.
4.4 Dublin Transport Office – A Platform for Change 2000-2016
This strategy comprises two main elements. The first element seeks to reduce the growth in travel while maintaining economic progress which would be largely achieved by a shift from private to public transport plus greater numbers either walking or cycling. The second element involves infrastructure and service improvements including the development of Metro North, the DART Underground (Interconnector) and better public transport facilities together with better use of M50 and national routes. The strategy identifies Tara Street Station as a suitable site for an interchange between DART/suburban rail and the proposed METRO.
PL 29S .PA0012 An Bord Pleanála Page 4 of 38 4.5 Transport 21
Transport 21 is a capital investment framework under the National Development Plan through which the transport system in Ireland will be developed between 2006 and 2015. This framework will address the twin challenges of past investment backlogs and continuing growth in transport demand. The projects and programmes that make up Transport 21 will aim to:
• Increase accessibility. • Ensure sustainability. • Expand capacity. • Increase use. • Enhance quality.
Transport 21 is made up of two investment programmes – a national programme and a programme for the Greater Dublin area. The main objectives of the GDA programme are which are of relevant to the proposed development are set out below:
• To develop Metro North and Metro West. • To construct the Suburban Rail Interconnector providing a tunnelled link between Heuston Station and the Docklands, via St. Stephen’s Green and linking with the Northern line. • To extend the LUAS network to the Docklands, Citywest, Bray and construct a new line from St Stephen's Green to Liffey Junction (joining the two existing LUAS lines), and construct a new line from Lucan to the City Centre. • To develop the bus network to create a meshed network of services and reorient it to take account of the rail developments described above. • To create a network of interchange points across the network to allow users transfer easily.
4.6 Architectural Heritage Protection Guidelines – 2004
The Guidelines provide a guide in relation to Part IV of the 2000 Planning Act which deals with the protection of architectural heritage in respect of the Record of Protected Structure, Architectural Conservation Areas, Declarations and Places of Worship as well as advice and detailed guidance notes on conservation principles and development within the curtilage and attendant grounds of Protected Structures.
5.0 LOCAL PLANNING POLICY
Extracts of the relevant policy documents are contained in Appendix 2 to this report.
5.1 Dublin City Development Plan 2005-2011
Zoning objective:
The site is located within an area zoned with the objective “Z5” which seeks “To consolidate and facilitate the development of the central area, and to identify, reinforce, strengthen and protect its civic design, character and dignity” in the 2005- 2011 City Development Plan.
PL 29S .PA0012 An Bord Pleanála Page 5 of 38 Heritage:
Archaeology : The site lies within the Zone of Archaeological Potential for the historic City of Dublin (Recorded Monument DU0 18 020), there are six recorded monuments in the vicinity and the site also lies within the Council’s Zone of Archaeological Interest.
Conservation Areas: Georges Quay lies within the River Liffey Conservation Area which covers approximately one third of the northern part of the site.
Protected Structures: Kennedy’s public house is adjacent at no. 10 Georges Quay and the Customs House is located diagonally opposite site.
Policy H13 : states that it is the policy of Dublin City Council to protect and enhance the character and historic fabric of conservation areas in the control of development.
Policy H15 : states that it is the policy of Dublin City Council that new buildings in conservation areas should complement the character of existing architecture in design, materials and scale.
Policy H16 : states that it is policy to protect and reinforce the important civic design character of Dublin’s quays, which are a designated conservation area and infill development should complement the character of the quays in terms of context, scale and design.
Policy H33 : states that it is Council policy that sites within Zones of Archaeological Interest are subject to an archaeological assessment. Rail transportation:
Paragraph 7.4.0 states that the Council supports the measures currently being implemented or proposed by the RPA, Iarnrod Eireann, DTO and other agencies to enhance capacity on existing lines/services and provide new infrastructure, including:
• Station capacity upgrades at Heuston Station and Tara Street as well as interchange facilities e.g. Hueston and Connolly.
Policy T4 seeks to co-operate with Iarnrod Eireann, the RPA and other relevant transportation agencies, in order to increase passenger capacity and increase rail efficiency. Building height:
Section 15.6.0 of the Development Plan deals with building heights . The definition of an appropriate building in context is relative and relates not only to the prevailing or dominant heights, but also the grain and its consistency or diversity within an existing character area. Dublin has many different character areas which will require different approaches in relation to the issue of building height. There is a recognised need to protect conservation areas and the architectural character of existing buildings, streets and spaces of artistic, civic or historic importance. It is Council policy to allow for the development of high buildings in appropriate locations in order to promote investment, vitality and identity.
PL 29S .PA0012 An Bord Pleanála Page 6 of 38 Section 15.6.0 also incorporates Managing Intensification and Change: A strategy for Dublin Building Height (DEGW 2000) into the Development Plan and it is Council policy to continue to protect the skyline of the inner city, while having due regard to the criteria regarding building heights set out in the DEGW Study. Managing Intensification and Change: A strategy for Dublin Building Height (DEGW 2000)
This Strategy identified character areas and locations within the city that would allow large scale growth and innovation in building form. The DEGW Strategy defines buildings in the European Context between 4 and 12-15 stories (15-50m high) as mid- rise and buildings between 15-40 stories (50-150m) as high rise. The potential for siting higher buildings close to or within the city will be planned using the principles and criteria set out in the study.
The Strategy states in its Preface that high buildings, those significantly higher than their surroundings, should be the exception rather than the rule, and used to identify significant locations, form new activity nodes and provide amenity for the city.
• The Ten Point Strategy for Dublin seeks to stimulate the development of new activity clusters at proposed transport nodes, which have available development sites (No.4).
Section 3.2 deals with potential locations for intensification.
• Connolly and Tara Street Stations are located within an area identified as a future potential inner city transport interchange node (Page 22).
• Tara Street Station is identified as part of the proposed rail network in Dublin with a possible inter-connection to the proposed DART underground (Tallaght to Bolton Street) and the proposed Metro (Page 23).
Section 5.3 deals with the issues surrounding individual high buildings versus high clusters versus high city cores.
• Individual high buildings should be located according to landmark/gateway potential to act as a prominent skyline feature or to signify unction and place.
• High clusters need high accessibility (nodal or transport interchange points), should be primarily for office use to maximise the use of public transport infrastructure, have potential for comprehensive redesign and development.
Section 5.4 deals with potential locations for high buildings in Dublin.
• The study identifies a set of criteria for the appropriate location and form of high buildings for specific locations.
• Proposed locations need to be collectively evaluated and a limited number of appropriate locations recommended within a high rise building policy.
PL 29S .PA0012 An Bord Pleanála Page 7 of 38 • The criteria for each high rise development varies in relation to their attributes and relationship to the infrastructure network.
• Individual high buildings:
o Key focal or converging points within the city’s road structure.
o Primary public transport nodes - gateways for arrival to the city.
o Locations which capture continuous, long distance views across city- wide corridors (e.g. the Liffey and the view down Mountjoy Square along Gardener Street to the Customs House).
o Exhibit 5 indicates potential landmark locations for individual high buildings; sites are dependent on emerging transport proposals, on detailed study of land availability and the surrounding context.
o Exhibit 5 identifies Tara Street Station area as a termination point of long distance view along the river corridor.
o Exhibit 5 also identifies four primary transport nodes around Connolly, Hueston, Pearse Street and Spencer Dock stations.
o The landmark value of such buildings relies on their uniqueness in addition to their form and height and a broad set of generic criteria is recommended:
The footprint of the buildings in relation to height should result in a slender tower form. Any limitation in height should relate to minimum more than maximum heights. Design and use should reflect the urban design opportunities of such a landmark building. The total number of landmark buildings is critical in preserving their landmark character and intensity of city skyline.
• High Clusters:
The potential for intensification in the form of clusters of buildings higher than their context relies on the need for high accessibility which suggests a different set of criteria for identifying potential locations based on:
o Direct access to public transport from regional and city-wide networks.
o Availability of large brown field sites to support the scale and extent of such a development.
o Relative distance of new high activity places from established activity nodes within existing areas to ensure they are not compromised.
PL 29S .PA0012 An Bord Pleanála Page 8 of 38 o Based on these criteria, within the Dublin City Development Plan and indicative transport plans, there are three potential locations for the clustering of high buildings around primary public transport nodes/interchanges which are identified in Exhibit 6 as Connolly, Hueston and Pearse Street stations.
o Exhibit 6 identifies Tara Street Station as being located on the outer perimeter the 1km radius of Pearse Street Stations.
o The number of high buildings in a cluster will relate to the scale of development, market potential and good design practice.
Section 6.4 sets out an approach to high rise clusters and landmark buildings:
• High clusters : a more detailed level of site specific briefing is required based on a qualitative assessment of aspects such as plot ratio, building height thresholds, mix of uses together with detail guidance n the building type and organisation of ground floor in relation to open space.
• Landmark locations : the assessment needs to be considered at both a site specific level and in the city-wide context in relation to:
o Environmental impact. o Impact on Dublin skyline. o Impact on key strategic views and protected set pieces. o Appropriateness of location. o Location in relation to public transport.
Section 7.3 sets out recommendations for buildings higher than their context.
• Recognise the intrinsic quality of Dublin as a low to mid rise, up to 50m high, European city, significantly higher buildings should be the exception rather than the rule.
• Selectively allow for high rise at key transport nodes, which have available land to provide for mixed use centres.
• Focus on developing clusters rather than single signature towers.
Section 7.4 out recommendations for development control:
• A more flexible and quick response will be more appropriate, current advisory rather than statutory tools provide this framework (non statutory briefs, site specific briefs and joint preparation of area plans etc.)
PL 29S .PA0012 An Bord Pleanála Page 9 of 38 5.2 Dublin Docklands Masterplan 2008.
The aim of the Masterplan is to guide the durable social, economic and physical development of the Docklands Area. The Docklands Area is made up of five residential communities, one of which is the City Quay/Westland Row area in which Tara Street Station is located. Office and commercial uses are compatible with the objectives for this area and the Masterplan states that the DDDA will provide for the expansion initially of high quality office building zones from the existing central businesses district and locate new office areas around major transport nodes.
Section 5 identifies Tara Street Station as a public transport interchange in Figure 5.3 and states that the DDDA will seek to facilitate efficient interchange between modes of transport and support the continued operation of Connolly Station and the development of Pearse and Docklands Stations as major interchanges.
Section 6 sets out the urban design framework in relation to building height which is informed by the 2000 DEGW Strategy. The Masterplan states:
• Landmark buildings shall be considered where they are truly emblematic of the community’s location at the heart of Dublin, on the River Liffey corridor and at the mouth of Dublin harbour.
• In appropriate areas, where development may substantially benefit from public transport or connections to the wider city, or vice versa, clusters of high density and tall buildings may be considered appropriate.
• Consideration of the height and scale of buildings shall be dependent on the provision of high quality architectural design, public realm, open space and connectivity to public transport.
o Policy UD20 seeks to consider high buildings proposals in the light of criteria set for such buildings in the Dublin City Development Plan 2005-2011 and subsequent plans and approved Planning Schemes and in particular to locate tall buildings and clusters strategically as markers and in accordance with Policy LU3.
o Policy LU3 states that higher density development, taller buildings and intensification will be dependent on the provision of high quality architectural design, public realm, open space, community gain, the proper planning of sustainable neighbourhoods, connectivity to public transport, aequate services and flood protection infrastructure.
5.3 City Quay & Westland Row Area Action Plan 2008.
The AAP was commissioned to provide a more detailed framework upon which the DDDA can base the proper planning and development of the area within the context of the Docklands Area Masterplan in order to give a detailed guidance to the DDDA, landowners, developers and interested parties. Tara Street Station is listed as one of the key development sites for high buildings and the AAP recommends that the site should be developed to provide significant office space and active ground floor uses while maintaining and improving pedestrian access to the station and that the site has the potential for creating a landmark building.
PL 29S .PA0012 An Bord Pleanála Page 10 of 38 5.4 Draft Georges Quay Plan 2008.
In light of the 2000 DEGW Strategy and its incorporation into the Dublin City Development Plan 2005-2011 by way of Section 15.6.0, the City Council commissioned a study for the Georges Quay area to provide a co-ordinated urban design strategy for the future development of the area and to ensure that a new development interacts positively with its local and city wide environment, while promoting an environmentally and socially sustainable city quarter.
The Draft Plan has not yet been approved by the Council however it was the subject of public consultation and a report is being prepared for the local Area Committee.
The Draft Plan recommends that the western part of the Tara Street Station site is suitable for tall buildings. Figure 4.10 shows a general building height of up to 8-12 storey range over most of the site with two tall buildings at its transport node up to 22 storeys overlooking the River Liffey.
Paragraph 4.3.1 sets out the following guidelines for the future development of the Tara Street Station site:
• The concourse should seek to foster a relationship with the surrounding public realm, subject to normal ticketing requirements, and that provision be made for north-south movements at ground level.
• Permeability along the eastern elevation and around the corner to Poolbeg Street, future desire lines between Tara Street and Moss Street along the Poolbeg axis and beside the lower concourse of the DART line as it moves south should be facilitated.
• Mixed range of uses including rail operations, retail and commercial offices at lower levels and commercial offices (including HQ offices) at the mid to upper levels.
• Primary use of the ground floor level should be as a concourse which is well connected to the public realm.
• A dynamic relationship should be fostered between Tara Street and Georges Quay through the establishment of active street facades and in particular:
• The Strategy proposes a series of heights for the site:
o A new concourse at the lower levels, with large office space to the mid levels, juxtaposed by two towers at the upper levels, rising to 14 (mid- rise) and 22 (high rise 75-80m).
o The lower levels could rise to 6 levels along Georges Quay, to remain consistent with the overall built form of the mid to upper quays.
o The heights at the SW corner could rise to 8-10 levels consistent with the balance of development envisaged along Tara Street.
• The proposed twin tower design seeks to provide for a distinctive landmark building for a primary transport node within the wider city landscape and to enable a taller building with minimal visual impact on the wider environment, including the historic quarters.
PL 29S .PA0012 An Bord Pleanála Page 11 of 38 6.0 SUBMISSIONS 6.1 The Planning Authority.
The Planning Authority’s submission was received by the Board on 21/05/09. Interdepartmental reports:
The Transportation Department had no objection to the proposed development subject to compliance with conditions including the submission of a Mobility Management Plan and a Project Traffic Management Plan, compliance with Development Plan bicycle parking standards, improvements to the public footpath, on-street cycle parking and minimum footpath widths of 2m. The Drainage Department had no objection to the proposed development subject to compliance with conditions. The Water Services Department had no objection to the proposed development subject to compliance with conditions.
The City Archaeologist requested that the site be subjected to archaeological pre- testing and an archaeological impact assessment.
The City Conservation Architect raised concerns about the height and monolithic nature of the proposed office block located opposite the Custom House which is architecturally the City’s most significant neo-classical public building. Negative impact on the setting of the Custom House (PS), the Liffey Quays conservation area and Kennedy’s Public House (PS). Any further buildings in the area should at least be confined to the parameters used in the adjoining pyramid topped development.
The City Architect welcomed the principle of a significant tall building located at the important transport node but not the proposed form of the building and they prefer a form with more vertical emphasis as per the Draft Georges Quay Plan. They raised serous concerns in relation to: • Urban design and the design of the public realm:
o Poor public access from surrounding streets.
o Lack of permeability through the site.
o Poor response to existing pedestrian routes in the adjoining George Quay development.
o Poor quality design of public realm.
o Pedestrian connections to Luke Street and Poolbeg Street are under exploited.
o Poor quality relationship between the blank 2 to 3-storey windowless facades and the streetscape.
o Lack of variety of uses in the concourse which does not contribute to it being a new urban meeting space.
o Poor contribution to the public realm of the surrounding streets.
PL 29S .PA0012 An Bord Pleanála Page 12 of 38 • Quality architectural design:
o Insufficient information to assess whether the building will achieve the necessary quality of architectural detailing.
o Need for a visual lightness of individual elements and a high degree of transparency to prevent the proposed form appearing overbearing in the streetscape and skyline.
o Treatment of the gable Kennedy’s public house needs to be reconsidered.
o Pavement line to Tara Street does not need to be widened all the way to the corner and there is an opportunity to improve the relationship with the protected structure. • Architectural conservation:
o Appropriateness of scale in the context of the historic city.
o Poor quality architectural assessment of Kennedy’s public house (PS). o Insufficient details to assess architectural impact on Kennedy’s (PS).
• Environmental sustainability of construction .
o Principle of a high density development located at public transport nodes is in itself an environmentally sustainable strategy.
o High standard of architectural design and sustainable building construction required.
o No attempt to achieve high standards of sustainable building construction.
o No commitment to achieving anything higher than a “B” rating.
o No renewable sources of energy proposed. o No examination of the feasibility of removing demolition waste by barge along the River Liffey. Planning Authority conclusions:
• Supportive of the need to enlarge station and improve passenger facilities.
• Proposal for a comprehensive commercial redevelopment of the site is considered compatible with Development Plan policy given the significance of the station within the rail network and its location in the city.
• The principle of a landmark taller structure at Tara Street is also accepted, subject to an appropriate architectural and urban design solution.
• The proposed form of the building is not appropriate for the sensitive location and will not deliver a high quality landmark building.
PL 29S .PA0012 An Bord Pleanála Page 13 of 38 • The scale and massing will result in a large slab form sitting poorly in the skyline of the area rather than a slender vertical form, which would act as a distinctive landmark for this key city centre transport node yet with minimal visual impact on the wider environment.
• Given the fundamental problems with the proposed design, it is not considered possible to amend it either by condition or by seeking further information. Planning Authority recommendation:
• If the Board are minded to seek additional information then the following matters should be addressed:
o Improved ground level treatment along Luke Street and Poolbeg Street.
o Reconsider the provision of connections between the street and the proposed retail units.
o The proposed new urban meeting space does not contain a mix of uses associated with such spaces beyond the normal activities of a train station concourse and most shops are behind the ticket barrier.
o Proposals for the improvement of the public realm. o Further information on materials and architectural details.
o Reconsider the gable treatment of Kennedy’s public house. o Details of proposals to achieve a “B” rating or higher, alternative or more efficient means of ventilation and details for renewable sources of energy.
• Request attachment of conditions in respect of the S.48 development contribution scheme, S.49 Metro North development contribution scheme and a refundable cash bond.
6.2 Prescribed Bodies
The application was circulated to the following Prescribed Bodies:
• Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government. • Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources. • Dublin Docklands Development Authority. • Rail Procurement Agency. • Railway Safety Commission. • Dublin Transportation Office. • Dublin Cycling Campaign. • An Taisce. • The Heritage Council. • The National Conservation and Heritage Group. • An Chomhairle Ealaion. • Failte Ireland. • Irish Aviation Authority.
PL 29S .PA0012 An Bord Pleanála Page 14 of 38 Submissions were received form the following Prescribed Bodies:
• Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government. • Dublin Docklands Development Authority. • Dublin Transportation Office. • Rail Procurement Agency. • Railway Safety Commission. • Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources.
The Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government : raised issues related to archaeology, architecture and nature conservation.
Archaeological heritage :
• Proposal located with Zone of Archaeological Potential established around the Historic City of Dublin DU018-020) and the site should be pre-tested.
Architectural heritage :
• Supportive of a high density, landmark historic building at this location.
• Concerns in relation to scale, shape, height, bulk and potential adverse impact on the built heritage in this part of the city.
• Scale and massing not complementary to the existing built heritage.
• Potential adverse impact n a number of significant protected structures and adjacent area, including the Custom House and the historic Liffey Quays.
• Significant impact on the setting and special interest of Kennedy’s Pub.
• Inconsistency between drawings:
o Figure 3.3-Photomontage of proposed exterior from Beresford Place shows the new development with Kennedy’s sitting at its base on the corner of Georges Quay and Tara Street. o Figure 3.7- Photomontage of proposed exterior – close range view from NW – shows the development but does not include Kennedy’s.
• The large scale CIE signage on the western gable end of Kennedy’s is too large, it masks the gable end of a PS and it should be amended or omitted.
• Insufficient information to assess the physical and visual impacts on Kennedy’s PS and revised drawings should be requested by way of AI.
Nature conservation :
• Nesting platform suitable for use by peregrine falcons should be installed close to the top of building.
PL 29S .PA0012 An Bord Pleanála Page 15 of 38 The Dublin Docklands Development Authority : raised issues in relation to interchange, access and egress, station platform level and the public realm.
Interchange:
• Tara Street station is a pivotal gateway to the city centre and east city environs including the Docklands area, wlcome the redevelopment proposal for the concourse and public areas.
• The station is a multimodal public transport interchange that accommodates rail, LUAS (proposed Hawkins Street line), Metro North (proposed), bus, cycle and pedestrian movement.
• A holistic strategy required that would allocate priority space for all modes, cycle parking, efficient bus transfer and comfortable pedestrian movement.
• Issue of modal interchange not addressed, no provision for bicycle parking or sufficient public space to facilitate comfortable pedestrian movement between the concourse and the public street.
• Recommend the following:
o Prepare a public space plan. o Investigate the possibility of transforming Poolbeg Street into a public plaza integrated with the station concourse. o Bicycle storage and interchange between bus/taxi and rail transfer.
Access and egress points :
• Relocation of the main entrance to Tara Street is noted however the public pavement is too narrow to accommodate overspill and this interface with the street would not facilitate comfortable pedestrian movement at peak hours.
• The access/egress point at Townsend Street appears to have been neglected, d a second main entrance should be provided with a ticket hall at this location in order to facilitate passenger choice and to pro-actively manage passenger movement by diverting southward bound passengers to a southern entrance.
Station platform level :
• Proposals for the platform appear incomplete on the drawings.
• The platform roof or glazed cover is isolated to that part of the site bound by Georges Quay and Poolbeg Street with the exclusion of the platform from Poolbeg Street to Townsend Street.
• A holistic design solution to the station platform is needed.
PL 29S .PA0012 An Bord Pleanála Page 16 of 38 Public realm improvement :
• The quality of the public realm is poor at the interface of the station and the public street and general vicinity.
• Preparation of a public realm improvement plan for the station environs in co- ordination with a public space strategy to reduce pedestrian congestion.
• This plan should include the material finish of the public pavement, street furniture and traffic light sequencing.
The Dublin Transportation Office : welcomed the proposed development given its accessible proximity to the City Centre to public transport infrastructure and raised the following concerns:
Pedestrian environment:
• The redevelopment should provide for an improved pedestrian environment however there is no evidence that the applicant has identified measures for improved pedestrian access beyond the immediate station environs, recommend that attention be focused on the identification of measures which provide for an improvement in access to and from the station taking into account:
o The likely increase in passenger numbers associated with service level improvements. o The potential for interchange with other modes within the local walking catchment (bus, Metro and Luas). o Higher concentration of employment in the environs.
Cycle parking :
• Insufficient details in relation to 150 employee cycle parking spaces. • Don’t agree that cycle parking for station users should not be provided. • Provision for interchange between cycle and rail should be provided. • Dept. of Transport’s “National Cycle policy framework” and DCC Dev. Plan entourages cycle parking at rail stations with no distinction between central and suburban stations.
Provision for buses and taxis :
• Bus and taxi infrastructure should be provided.
Car parking :
• Support provision of 10 mobility impaired spaces.
PL 29S .PA0012 An Bord Pleanála Page 17 of 38 Mobility Management Plan :
• Should be prepared and include a pedestrian and cycling survey which should identify:
o Existing barriers to movement. o Key city centre locations served by the station. o Existing or potential desire lines relating to the station and the development. o Measures aimed at improving the walking and cycling environment within and in the vicinity of the site. o No evidence to supports applicant’s claim that the greatest pedestrian flows to and from the station will be in a N, W and S direction.
The Rail Procurement Agency stated that the proposed development falls within the catchment area set out in the Metro North Levy Scheme and an appropriate condition should be attached.
The Railway Safety Commission : stated that appropriate safety measures should be incorporated into the overall design.
The Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources : had no objection to the proposal provided that appropriate measures and methods of operation were adopted to ensure the protection of the River Liffey from accidental spillages. Procedures should be put in place in the event of any major accidental pollution spillage including the immediate notification of the Fisheries Board.
6.3 Observers
One letter of objection received from Mr. John Kennedy, the owner of Kennedy’s Public house on the neighbouring site.
• No objection in principle to the proposed development.
• Does not make sense to consider the development of this area without incorporating the existing public house into the final design and no meaningful outcome from discussions with CIE.
• Public house has been occupied by the Kennedy family since 1922 and it is now proposed to upgrade the residential area.
• The existing building would be hemmed in to the east, west and south by the proposed 45-60m high building with extensive basement and foundations.
• Visual impact of a modern c.60m high structure surrounding a lone 4-storey building, no architectural relationship between the old and new.
• Medium term disruption to business during construction phase. • Long term negative impacts on residential amenity in relation to loss of sunlight, privacy and noise.
PL 29S .PA0012 An Bord Pleanála Page 18 of 38 • Structural integrity of the property which has been constructed on infill ground within an area where the water table fluctuates.
• The EIS refers to the impact of dewatering (sands and gravels) within the site and the knock-on effect outside the site boundary on the foundations of adjoining properties as result of settlement.
• The conditions attached to the previous planning permission granted by the Board under PL 29S 128164 required:
o Redesign of access located beside Georges Quay frontage at ground floor level to the east of Kennedy’s so as to avoid the environmental problems that can result from left over space (no.2e).
o The omission of the media wall to Tara Street (no.2g).
o Measures including the use of obscure glazing, design detailing and internal screening up to and including seventh floor level to prevent overlooking and loss of privacy at Kennedy’s (no.2h)
o Measures to ensure retention of clear and unobstructed access to Kennedy’s during construction (no.2i).
o Submission of detailed construction methodology to include measures to ensure the long term stability and protection of Kennedy’s (no.13)
• Request the removal of the 3-storey element to the west of Kennedy’s and the media wall which would restore some light to the premises.
• No public toilets included in the plans.
6.4 Additional observer submissions at the Oral Hearing
The Dublin Cycling Campaign:
Mr. Colm Moore raised concerns in relation to:
• Access arrangements to basement car parking spaces for office workers.
• Absence of bicycle parking spaces for rail users and the provision of additional spaces at Connolly and Pearse stations is an unacceptable proposal.
• Anti-social behaviour in the vicinity.
• Inadequate public consultations, illegible site notices and problems with the web site.
• Mr. Moore requested that difficulties with the site notices and web pages be brought to the Board’s attention.
National Conservation and Heritage Group
Mr. Damien Cassidy raised general concerns in relation to the overall planning of the City, and the treatment of the Georges Quay area in particular.
PL 29S .PA0012 An Bord Pleanála Page 19 of 38 Applicant’s response:
The Applicant objected to the acceptance of submissions from the above mentioned observer and this objection was noted for the Board’s attention.
7.0 ASSESSMENT
The main issues arising in this case are:
1. Background.
2. Need for the development/justification.
3. Principle of development.
4. Design/height/visual impact.
5. Protected Structures/Conservation Areas.
6. Public realm/permeability.
7. Movement: traffic/car parking/cycle parking/pedestrians.
8. Other issues:
• Residential amenity.
• Overlooking/overshadowing.
• Structural stability of Kennedy’s.
• Media wall.
• Archaeology.
• Nature conservation.
• Environmental services.
• Sustainable development.
9. Development Contributions. 7.1 Background
The applicant is seeking planning permission to redevelop Tara Street Station with a new concourse and passenger facilities with an office building over. Planning permission was previously granted for an almost identical development in 2002 by the Planning Authority and by An Bord Pleanala following four Third Party appeals. The applicants state that they did not implement this permission because of difficulties related to keeping the station operational during construction works. This permission subsequently expired at the end of the appropriate period. A new entrance has since been provided off Townsend Street which will ensure that the station can remain open during any future construction works.
PL 29S .PA0012 An Bord Pleanála Page 20 of 38 The proposed development is essentially a re-application for the same previously permitted development albeit under the terms of the Strategic Infrastructure Act, 2006. Given that the proposed development was originally designed and assessed in 2001-2002 and that the resultant planning permission has since expired it is important that the proposal should be assessed in relation to current transport and planning policies and proposals for the site and surrounding area.
The most relevant changes since 2002 are summarised below:
• National Development Plan, 2007-2013. • Regional Planning Guidelines for the GDA 2004-1016. • Transport 21 (2006 to 2015).
• Dublin City Development Plan 2005-2011. • Adoption of Managing Intensification and Change – A Strategy for Dublin Building Height, DEGW, 2000 into section 15.6.0 of the Dublin City Development Plan 2005-2011. • Variation No.22 (energy policy) of the Dublin City Development Plan. • Draft Georges Quay Plan 2008.
• Dublin Docklands Area Master Plan 2008.
• DoEH&LG Architectural Heritage Protection Guidelines for Planning Authorities, 2004.
• Proposals to interconnect Tara Street Station with the proposed Dart underground superseded by proposed interconnection at Pearse Street Station. • Proposals to interconnect Tara Street Station with the proposed Metro North superseded by proposed O’Connell Bridge station. • Increase in number of bus routes along Georges Quay.
The impact of any of the above changes on the proposed development will be addressed in the following sections of this report. 7.2 Need for the development
Tara Street Station has been described by the applicants as one of the busiest stations in the rail network. The station serves both the DART and suburban rail, the platforms have recently been lengthened and a new entrance opened off Townsend Street. The existing station can become overcrowded at peaks times and the current access arrangements via the main entrance at Georges Quay can be haphazard and dangerous for pedestrians. The applicant’s submit that the number of passengers using the station is projected to significantly increase in the near future because of the stations proximity to the City Centre and Docklands and the Government’s transport policies which seek to encourage a modal shift for private to public transport.
The applicants submit that the existing station needs to be redeveloped to cater for future demand, to provide for improved passenger facilities, protect revenue and to ensure compliance with Government transport policies. It is intended that the revenue derived from the proposed 15-storey office building will fund the proposed redevelopment of the station concourse which is not listed for funding in the National Development Plan. The applicants submit that the proposed concourse will have the
PL 29S .PA0012 An Bord Pleanála Page 21 of 38 capacity to cater for approximately 14,500 passengers at peak times. However, it should be noted that although the existing station is very busy during the AM and PM peak, based on my various visits to the station I am satisfied that the station is relatively quite for the remaining part of the day.
The proposed development is almost identical to the scheme previously granted planning permission by the Board under PL29S 128164 in September 2002. The main difference is that Tara Street Station will no longer integrate with a high capacity underground rail system which is part of the Government’s public transportation strategy for the Greater Dublin Area, as was the case at the time the previous Tara Street proposal was determined. It is now proposed to locate a Metro station at O’Connell Bridge and the proposed DART underground (Interconnector) will link the proposed Docklands Station to Hueston Station via a proposed Metro station at St. Stephen’s Green with a DART/suburban rail interchange at Pearse Street Station.
The proposed Metro North is currently being considered under Board Reference 06F NA0003.
The proposed DART Underground (Interconnector) is the subject of a pre-application consultation under Board Reference NC0006. It should be noted that the proposed routes and proposed stations have been through a series of public consultation information events which took place between July 2007 and April 2009. Although the pre-application procedure is confidential the proposed routes and stations are in the public domain.
Notwithstanding the above mentioned change in circumstances, both the previous and current station designs will have the capacity to accommodate c.14, 500 passengers per hour at peak time according to the applicant, which equates to approximately 242 passengers per minute or 4 per second. No substantive changes have been proposed to the floorspace, dimensions or design of the proposed office building, the scale of which, the applicant submits, is necessary to fund the redevelopment of the station.
During the assessment of the previous proposal a number of Third Party appellants raised concerns in relation to the height, design and scale of the proposed station redevelopment and 15-storey office building and its impact on nearby historic buildings including the Customs House and Trinity College as well as the Liffey Quays and the neighbouring protected structure at Kennedy’s public house.
The Inspector who assessed the previous proposal recommended that planning permission be refused for three reasons which are summarised below:
• The height and bulk of the proposal would materially contravene polices in the Development Plan and take insufficient account of the Docklands Area Masterplan 1997 and the City Quay and Westland Row AAP 2001.
• The height, scale and bulk of the proposal would have a detrimental affect on the historic precincts of the Custom House, Trinity College and the Liffey Quays, adversely affect the setting of the protected structure at Kennedy’s public house and seriously injure the amenities of property in the vicinity.
PL 29S .PA0012 An Bord Pleanála Page 22 of 38 • The siting, height and bulk of the proposal would seriously injure the amenities of residential properties in the vicinity (upper floors of Kennedy’s public house) by reason of visual appearance and loss of light.
The Board decided to grant planning permission for the proposed development and in coming to this decision the Board had regard to the following considerations:
(a) the provisions of the current Development Plan for the area, (b) the Dublin Docklands Masterplan, (c) Managing Intensification and Change: A Strategy for Dublin Building Height 2000, (d) the City Quay and Westland Row Area Action Plan, (e) the Governments proposals in relation to the improvement of public transport, (f) the location of the site at a key transport node and at a pivotal location, and (g) the pattern of multi-storey buildings in the vicinity,
The Board’s decision went on to state:
It is considered that the proposed development would be an appropriate and sustainable form of development at this location, would provide a landmark building and, together with the buildings on the adjoining George’s Quay site, would form a high building cluster in this area at the edge of the historic city of Dublin. Furthermore it is considered that the proposed development would not detrimentally affect the historic precincts of the Custom House or Trinity College and, subject to compliance with the conditions set out in the Second Schedule, would not seriously injure the amenities of the area or of property in the vicinity, would be acceptable in terms of traffic safety and convenience and would be in accordance with the proper planning and development of the area.
The Board’s decision to grant planning permission for the previous proposal was subject to 15 fairly standard conditions. However I would like to draw the Boards attention to condition no.7 which is set out below:
Prior to the commencement of development, details including drawings of the proposed foundation system and design and construction of the development shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the planning authority. This shall indicate the measures to incorporate and facilitate the construction of an underground rail system and its full integration into the development, including provision for passenger movements between the underground rail system and DART/Suburban Rail stations. Reason : In the interest of orderly development and to ensure that the proposed development does not prejudice an integrated public transport network at Tara Street Station.
PL 29S .PA0012 An Bord Pleanála Page 23 of 38 Public transport policy and proposals c.2002
I would now like to draw the Boards attention to items (c), (e) and (f) of their list of considerations in respect of their previous decision under PL 29S 128164.
• Managing Intensification and Change: A Strategy for Dublin Building Height 2000 (DEGW Strategy). • The Governments proposals in relation to the improvement of public transport. • The location of the site at a key transport node and at a pivotal location.
At the time the previous proposal was assessed Government policy in relation to the improvement of public transport in the Greater Dublin Area was set out in the 2001 report of the Dublin Transportation Office “A Platform for Change” while the DEGW 2000 Strategy provided guidance on potential locations for high buildings in the City, some of which were determined in relation to their proximity to major public transport nodes and interchanges
A Platform for Change: DTO Strategy 2000-2016.
Phase 5 of Chapter 4 of “A Platform for Change” developed several transportation strategies based on the DTO Transportation Model for Dublin. Phase 5 developed three theme tests based on the Metro, DART/Heavy Rail and LUAS options. All three themes included an interchange arrangement at Tara Street Station between the existing DART/Heavy Rail and the proposed Metro.
Phase 6 of Chapter 4 identified a preferred strategy (Strategy 4) which followed on from the three theme tests and the Strategic Bus and Rail studies. A total of eleven conclusions were reached in developing Strategy 4, the sixth of which stated:
The north/south city centre tunnel allows for an interchange with DART/suburban rail at Tara Street, providing high capacity to high capacity interchange and relieving pressures on LUAS Line A.
Chapter 5 of A Platform for Change set out the preferred DTO Strategy (No.4) which sought to transform the transportation system of the Greater Dublin Area with extensive, high quality, fully accessible, integrated networks for DART/suburban rail, LUAS, METRO, bus, roads, cycling and walking.
The section of Chapter 5 which deals with Metro (page 57) stated the section between Broadstone and Ranelagh will be in tunnel and will interchange with the DART at Tara Street Station.
The section of Chapter 5 which deals with Integration (page 58) stated that a series of public transport nodes will be designed to facilitate interchange where public transport services converge. This section listed 8 public transport nodes in the Greater Dublin Area including Tara Street Station where the DART/suburban rail, METRO and QBUs will be integrated.
PL 29S .PA0012 An Bord Pleanála Page 24 of 38 Managing Intensification and Change: A Strategy for Dublin Building Height 2000 (DEGW Strategy).
This 2000 Strategy identified character areas and locations within the city that would allow large scale growth and innovation in building form. The Strategy was adopted into the 2005-2011 Dublin City Development Plan by way of paragraph 15.6. Those aspects of the Strategy that deal with Tara Street Station are based on similar transport interchange assumptions as contained in A Platform for Change.
One of the items in the Ten Point Strategy for Dublin seeks to stimulate the development of new activity clusters at proposed transport nodes, which have available development sites.
Section 3.2 identified Connolly and Tara Street Stations as potential locations for intensification related to their potential as inner city transport interchange nodes. Tara Street Station was identified as part of the proposed rail network in Dublin with a possible inter-connection to the proposed DART underground and the proposed Metro.
Section 5.3 deals with the issues surrounding individual high buildings versus high clusters. The Tara Street Station site was identified as a potentially suitable location for an individual high landmark building as well as being located on the edge of a high intensity cluster radiating out from Pearse Station.
The Strategy stated that individual high buildings should be located according to landmark/gateway potential to act as a prominent skyline feature or to signify function and place while high clusters need high accessibility (nodal or transport interchange points), should be primarily for office use to maximise the use of public transport infrastructure, have potential for comprehensive redesign and development.
Exhibit 5 indicates potential landmark locations for individual high buildings and the sites are dependent on emerging transport proposals. Tara Street Station was also identified as a termination point of a long distance view along the river corridor. The landmark value of such buildings relies on their uniqueness in addition to their form and height and a broad set of generic criteria is set out which includes a recommendation that the footprint of such buildings in relation to their height should result in a slender tower form.
Exhibit 5 also identified four primary transport nodes at Connolly, Hueston, Pearse Street and Spencer Dock stations where high intensity clusters may be considered within a 1km radius of the transport node. Tara Street Station is located on the edge of the Pearse Street radius. The Strategy states that the potential for intensification in the form of clusters of buildings higher than their context relies on the need for high accessibility including direct access to public transport from regional and city-wide networks and the availability of large brown field sites to support the scale and extent of such a development.
PL 29S .PA0012 An Bord Pleanála Page 25 of 38 Current public transport policies and proposals.
Transport 21 modified the transportation strategy and polices for the Greater Dublin Area which were set out in A Platform for Change up to 2015. Two of the reports main objectives are to construct a Metro rail link between St. Stephen’s Green and Lissenhall in Swords which will run underground via O’Connell Street and to construct the Suburban Rail Interconnector providing a tunnelled link between Hueston Station and the Docklands via St. Stephen’s Green.
The proposed public transport infrastructure framework for the Greater Dublin Area has changed substantially since the publication of A Platform for Change and the adoption of the DEGW Strategy into the Dublin City Development Plan 2005-2011 by way of paragraph 15.6. Tara Street Station no longer occupies the dominant or pivotal position in the public transport hierarchy that it held when the previous proposal for its redevelopment was determined. Several of the more significant changes since the publication of the above reports and since the Board made its decision on the previous proposal for Tara Street Station are summarised below.
The proposed METRO will run from St. Stephen’s Green to Lissenhall/Swords via O’Connell Street with a station at O’Connell Bridge with the following significant proposed interchanges along the way:
• DART/suburban rail (Maynooth line) at Drumcondra. • DART underground and LUAS at St. Stephen’s Green.
o The proposed Metro interchange with DART/suburban (Maynooth line) at Drumcondra will offer the most convenient route to the airport and the City Centre (north and south).
o The proposed Metro interchange with LUAS and DART underground at St. Stephen’s Green will offer the most convenient route to the south and west sides of the GDA.
o It should be noted that the Metro will not interchange with Tara Street Station as originally proposed in A Platform for Change and it is not proposed to provide an interchange facility between the two stations.)
The proposed DART Underground (Interconnector) will link Malahide in north County Dublin to Hazelhatch in County Kildare via Ossary Road, Docklands Station, Pearse, St. Stephen’s Green and Hueston stations with the following significant interchanges proposed along the way:
• LUAS at proposed Docklands station. • DART/suburban rail (southern coastal line) at Pearse Street station. • Metro and LUAS at St. Stephen’s Green. • Mainline rail and LUAS at Hueston station.
o The proposed DART underground and LUAS interchange at Docklands will offer the most convenient route into the Docklands and the north City Centre.
PL 29S .PA0012 An Bord Pleanála Page 26 of 38 o The proposed DART underground and DART/suburban rail interchange at Pearse Street Station will offer the most convenient route to the Docklands area as well as a link to the Metro and LUAS stations at St. Stephen’s Green and Hueston station.
Assessment and conclusion:
Having regard to the above, Tara Street Station no longer offers the potential for a high capacity to high capacity interchange between DART/suburban rail and the Metro as was envisioned in A Platform for Change. Although the applicant submits that the short walk between the proposed Metro station at O’Connell Bridge and Tara Street Station will result in a lot of passengers interchanging between the two stations I am not convinced that this will be the case. Furthermore the introduction of additional bus routes along Georges Quay is unlikely to make a substantive contribution to the number of passengers using Tara Street Station. In my view the role of Tara Street Station in the transport hierarchy will be downgraded to that of a local commuter station with a corresponding fall in the number of passengers using the station.
It should be noted that paragraph 3.4 and paragraph 9.2 of the Application Report which accompanied the planning application referred to the potential for direct interchange at Drumcondra station between the DART/suburban rail and Metro and that the proposed DART underground will eventually relieve capacity constraints at Connelly and Tara Street stations.
The public transport infrastructure proposals for the Greater Dublin Area and in particular the City Centre and Tara Street Station have changed significantly since the publication of A Platform for Change and the DEGW Strategy and since the previous proposal for Tara Street Station was determined. The level of importance previously attached to the location of the Tara Street Station site at a key transport node at a pivotal location has lessened which in my view constitutes a substantive change in circumstances. This change in circumstances in turn raises serious questions in relation to the justification for such a large scale redevelopment of Tara Street Station given that the capacity figure of c.14,500 passengers per hour remains unaltered between the previous and current proposals.
The Board should note that although I raised the absence of an interchange arrangement at Tara Street Station as an issue during the Oral Hearing, I raised it in tandem with my concerns that the recommendations of the DEGW Strategy might not be as relevant given that the status of the station had changed, the confined nature of the site and the lack of availability of brown field land. I also raised the question as to whether the other option for Tara Street Station which was put forward in the DEGW Strategy (i.e. a tall slender landmark building which terminates a view along the River Liffey) would now be the most appropriate option for the site.
In response, the applicant referred to a variety of transportation studies that were conducted over the past 20 years which identified the importance and dominance of Tara Street Station in the rail hierarchy. Details were also provided in relation to the increase in the number of bus routes along Georges Quay whose passengers would have access to the station. However the bulk of the applicant’s response involved a
PL 29S .PA0012 An Bord Pleanála Page 27 of 38 robust and lengthy defence of the proposed development on the basis of the Board’s 2002 decision to grant planning permission for the previous proposal under PL 29S 128164. They also quoted heavily from the DEGW Strategy which identified Tara Street Station as being suitable for a tall building on the basis of its nodal/pivotal location within the strategic rail hierarchy, its location on the edge of a high intensity cluster around Pearse Station and as a termination point for a long distance view along the river.
However it should be noted that a lengthy debate on the changed circumstances in respect to the absence of an interchange at Tara Street Station did not take place. Although I am satisfied that the role of Tara Street Station in the public transport hierarchy has been effectively downgraded as a result of current proposals for Metro and DART Underground, the Board may wish to consider requesting the applicant to submit further information in relation to this issue.
Notwithstanding the above concern and having regard to the changes in public transport policy and proposals which have taken place over the past several years in relation to the Greater Dublin Area in general and the City Centre and Tara Street Station in particular, in my view the scale of the proposed development of Tara Street Station, which has not altered since the previous proposal under PL29S 128164, would constitute an overdevelopment of a confined urban site and give rise to an unsustainable form of development. 7.3 Principle of development.
The proposed development would be located within an area zoned “Z5” in the 2005- 2011 Dublin City Development Plan which seeks “To consolidate and facilitate the development of the central area, and to identify, reinforce, strengthen and protect its civic design, character and dignity.” The proposed development and the proposed range of commercial uses would be compatible with this objective.
The proposed development would also be broadly compatible with the Council’s policies in respect of the suitability of the Tara Street Station site as a potential location for high buildings. These policies are set out in paragraph 15.6.0 of the current Development Plan which incorporates the recommendations of the DEGW Strategy, 2000. The proposed development would also be broadly compatible with the Council’s general policies and objectives in relation to public transport.
However, several aspects of the proposed development would be incompatible with the Planning Authority’s vision for Georges Quay area as set out in their Draft Georges Quay Plan, December 2008. The Planning Authority has particular concerns in relation to the level of permeability within the station concourse, the station’s relationship to the public realm and the overall design, scale and bulk of the proposed office building. The proposed design now varies significantly from their emerging vision which incorporates two tall slender towers rising to 14 and 22 stories, with the taller tower located in the north west sector of the site in the vicinity of Georges Quay/Tara Street. The Planning Authority submitted at the oral hearing that the Draft Plan represents a different interpretation of the recommendations contained in the DEGW Strategy of 2000 in relation to Tara Street Station.
PL 29S .PA0012 An Bord Pleanála Page 28 of 38 It should be noted that although the Draft Plan has been the subject of a public consultation exercise, the report of this exercise has not yet being considered by the Council and that the finalised Plan will not have the status of a statutory local area plan. However, in my opinion, a certain amount of weight should be attached to the Planning Authority’s remerging vision for the area particularly when account is taken of the changed circumstances surrounding Tara Street Station in relation to the absence of an interchange facility with any other high capacity rail option. This issue was assessed in some detaile in section 7.2 above.
The proposed development would also be broadly compatible with the policies and objectives of the Docklands Area Masterplan 2008 in relation to high buildings and public transport. However a number of aspects of the proposed development would be at variance with the Docklands Masterplan 2008 in relation to the public realm, open space and permeability.
7.4 Design/height/visual impact.
The proposed development, which comprises a 3-storey glazed station concourse and a 15-storey glazed office building in a contemporary design, is almost identical to the building that was granted planning permission by the Planning Authority and the Board in 2002 following a number of third party appeals.
Concerns were raised by the third parties and the Inspector who assessed the case in relation to the height, scale and design of the proposed building and its impact on historic buildings, protected structures and the Liffey Quays. The Board had regard to these concerns, but decided, on balance, that the proposed development was appropriate for the location having regard to a number of considerations, including the recommendations of the 2000 DEGW Strategy, government proposals in relation to the improvement of public transport, the location of the site at a key transport node at a pivotal location and the pattern of multi-storey buildings in the vicinity.
The Planning Authority has now raised serious concerns in relation to the design, scale and bulk of the proposed building which they consider does not accord with their emerging vision for the area as set out in Draft Georges Quay Plan, 2008. The Planning Authority is of the view that their concerns are so fundamental that the proposed development could not be amended by way of further information or by way of planning condition.
The Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government also raised concerns in relation to the design of the proposed building and use of materials, including the extensive use of glass and the visibility of the plant equipment on the top floors. However, the Department considered that their concerns could be addressed by way of a request for further information.
Given that the Board already considered that the height, design, scale and bulk of the proposed development was acceptable for the location I do not intend to revisit this issue in any great detail in terms of design and layout.
The Board should note that the 2000 DEGW Strategy contained two recommendations for the site which included a cluster of high buildings located within a 1km radius of Pearse Street Station and a tall slender landmark building which would mark the end of a long distant view along the River Liffey.
PL 29S .PA0012 An Bord Pleanála Page 29 of 38 In my view the 15-storey building that was previously permitted under PL 29S 128164 would accord with the 2000 DEGW recommendation in relation to a high intensity cluster while the Planning Authority’s emerging vision for the area as set out in the Draft Georges Quay would be more in line with the other recommendation in relation to a tall slender landmark building.
In my opinion, the change in circumstances related to current public transport polices and proposals, the absence of a high capacity to high capacity rail interchange at Tara Street Station and the reduced status of the station in the rail hierarchy taken in conjunction with the Planning Authority’s emerging vision for the area, offer the Board the justification and opportunity to reconsider the options for the Tara Street Station, which occupies a prominent and strategically important waterfront location on the interface between the old and new city.
In the event that the Board do not concur with my assessment then Condition no.2, no.3, no.4 and no.5 of the previous permission granted under PL 29S 128164, or a variation of same, should be attached to any grant of planning permission.
7.5 Protected Structures/Conservation Areas
The proposed development would be located along the Liffey Quays, in close proximity to historic buildings including the Custom House and adjacent to a protected structure at Kennedy’s public house. It would be visible from the Trinity College complex, particularly from the Moyne Institute, the top of Gardner Street in the vicinity of Mountjoy Square, the junction of O’Connell Street with Bachelor’s Walk and from along the river.
However for the reasons set out in section 7.4 above I do not intend to revisit this issue in any great detail other than to reiterate that the change in circumstances offers the Board the justification and opportunity to consider other option for on the site.
In the event that the Board decides to grant planning permission, then Condition no.12 of the previous permission should be attached in relation to the conservation of the railway arches which are to be incorporated into the proposed concourse. A further condition should be attached requiring the submission of detailed design amendments to reduce the impact of the north western corner of the proposed development on the adjacent protected structure at Kennedy’s public house. This issue is addressed again in section 7.8 below.
7.6 Public realm/permeability
The proposed development would provide for a new concourse, escalators, ticket barriers and machines, improved passenger and staff facilities, a café and shops as well as a new main entrance off Tara Street and a redesigned entrance off Georges Quay. All of the above proposals are a welcome improvement on the current situation and the Tara Street entrance should relieve congestion at the Georges Quay entrance.
Both the Planning Authority and the Dublin Docklands Development Area have raised serious concerns in relation to the contribution the proposed concourse would make to the public realm which is an objective of the current Docklands Masterplan and the Draft Georges Quay Plan 2008. The Planning Authority also raised serious concerns in relation to the lack of permeability through the proposed concourse for the general public and the creation of pedestrian links to Poolbeg Street and Luke Street.
PL 29S .PA0012 An Bord Pleanála Page 30 of 38 The Applicant attempted to address some of these issues during the Oral Hearing. They submitted that the location of the escalators was determined by relevant design standards, that the purpose of the ticket barriers was to protect revenue and that it would not be practical to provide an entrance off Luke Street to the east because of railway and platform constraints. They did however suggest allowing access to the proposed shops from Poolbeg Street but not the station concourse, however there was a general consensus that this proposal would be unsustainable.
The Planning Authority cited Grand Central Stations in New York and St. Pancras Station in London as railway stations that had successfully embraced the concept of the public realm into their internal layout and external links. However, it should be noted that these stations are significantly larger than Tara Street Station which occupies a very constrained site.
Having regard to its constrained site area and the functional requirements of the station, I am not convinced that Tara Street Station could make a substantive contribution to the public realm and permeability under the current design which seeks to cater for a projected capacity of c.14, 500 passengers per hour. However in the light of the change in circumstances related to current public transport polices and proposals, the absence of a high capacity to high capacity rail interchange at Tara Street Station and the reduced status of the station in the rail hierarchy, an opportunity could arise in any future redesign of the station to incorporate the Planning Authority’s emerging vision for the area in the event that passenger capacity projections are revised downwards.
Notwithstanding the long list of improvements in passenger facilities, the proposal would not contain any toilet facilities for passengers. However this omission could be addressed by way of planning condition requiring the provision of such facilities on the passenger only side of the ticket barriers in the interest of safety and security.
7.7 Movement: traffic/car parking/cycle parking/pedestrian.
The proposed car parking arrangements are considered acceptable having regard to the proximity of the proposed development to the pubic transport.
The proposed vehicular access arrangements to the basement car park off Poolbeg Street via a car lift are considered acceptable and the proposed development would not give rise to a traffic hazard or endanger the safety of other road users.
The proposed basement car park would provide 150 bicycle parking spaces for the proposed office development which is acceptable although concerns were raised in relation to access. The applicant does not propose to provide bicycle parking for rail users within the site although it is proposed to provide additional spaces at Connolly and Pearse stations. The applicant is also exploring the possibility of providing additional spaces in the vicinity of the station on neighbouring sites.
Although there was a lengthy debate on both these issues during the Oral Hearing the matters were not entirely resolved. The first issue in relation to accessing the basement bicycle park could be addressed by way of a planning condition which would require the applicant to submit details to the Planning Authority for their written agreement. In relation to the second issue, the applicant should be requested to submit details of proposed bicycle parking in the vicinity of the station which would be the subject of a future planning application, with the number of spaces to be firstly agreed with the Planning Authority by way of a planning condition.
PL 29S .PA0012 An Bord Pleanála Page 31 of 38 The proposed development would provide for widened footpaths in the vicinity of the station with station entrances off Tara Street and Georges Quay which are welcome improvements. Concerns were raised in the written submission and during the Oral Hearing into the wider area of pedestrian movement, bus passenger integration and pedestrian safety. Given the constrained nature of the site, the proximity of the proposed entrances to Georges Quay, Tara Street and the junction with Butt Bridge combined with the projected capacity of c.14, 500 passenger per peak hour, which equates to c.240 passenger per minute, I would share these concerns in relation to pedestrian and traffic safety in the vicinity of the station. However these issues could be addressed by way of a planning condition requiring the submission of a pedestrian movement strategy to the Planning Authority for their written agreement.
7.8 Other issues
Residential amenity: The proposed 15-storey structure would effectively wrap around the existing 4-storey building at Kennedy’s public house. Concerns were raised in relation to the impact of the proposal on the amenities of the upper floors of Kennedy’s’ which are still in use residential use although currently vacant. During the Oral Hearing the applicant proposed modifications to the north west section of the proposal which would help reduce the impact of the proposal on Kennedy’s. However, the precise nature of the modifications should be addressed by way of a planning condition requiring the submission of details to the Planning Authority for their written agreement.
Structural stability of Kennedy’s: The Georges Quay area is located over reclaimed land and the water table is high in the vicinity given the proximity of the River Liffey. Concerns were raised in relation to the impact of the basement construction works and associated dewatering on the structural stability of Kennedy’s public house which is a protected structure adjacent to the site. An existing crack in the eastern gable wall of Kennedy’s is the subject of regular monitoring. This issue was addressed by way of condition no.13 under PL 29S 128164 which required that prior to construction works, a detailed construction methodology statement be submitted to and agreed by the Planning Authority which should indicate the measures proposed to ensure the long term stability and protection of the protected structure. A similar condition could be attached to any grant of planning permission by the Board.
Overlooking/overshadowing: The proposal would give rise to additional overshadowing in the area having regard to the height, scale and bulk of the proposed 15 storey building. However, having regard to the City Centre location of the proposed development and the existing built up character of the surrounding area the proposal would not adversely affect the amenities of the area to any additional extent.
Media wall: The applicant confirmed during the Oral Hearing that the proposed media wall located parallel to the western gable of Kennedy’s public house will be omitted and possibly replaced by a granite or living (nature) wall. Details of any replacement feature should be addressed by way of a planning condition which would require the applicant to seek the written agreement for the Planning Authority.
Archaeology: The concerns of the DoEH&LG are noted in relation to the location of the proposed development within a Zone of Archaeological Potential and an pre- testing appropriate condition should be attached.
PL 29S .PA0012 An Bord Pleanála Page 32 of 38 Nature Conservation: The request by the DoEH&LG to have nesting platforms for peregrine falcons located on the top of the building is considered acceptable and could be addressed by way of a planning condition.
Environmental services: The proposed arrangements are considered acceptable subject to compliance with conditions.
Sustainable development: The proposal is almost identical to the scheme permitted under PL 29S 128164 several years ago and as such certain aspects do not entirely comply with current standards in relation to sustainable development and energy ratings. Although the applicant proposed some improvements during the Oral Hearing this issue could be more fully addressed by way of a planning condition which requires compliance with current standards including Variation no.22 of the Development Plan, for eh written agreement of the Planning Authority.
5.9 Development contributions/bonds
The Planning Authority requested that conditions be attached to any grant of planning permission in respect of the S.48 development contribution scheme, the S.49 Metro North supplementary development contribution scheme and a refundable cash bond. The Rail Procurement Agency also requested that a S.49 condition be attached in respect of Metro North.
Appropriate conditions in relation to the S.48 development contribution and a refundable bond should be attached.
The Applicants submits that it would not be appropriate to attach a S.49 contribution in respect of the Metro North as the office floorspace would be intrinsically linked to the funding of the station infrastructure.
The Rail Procurement Agency submits that a S.49 condition would be appropriate.
The Supplementary Development Contribution Scheme:
The most relevant aspects of the scheme are summarised below and a full copy of the scheme is contained in Appendix 2 to this report.
Paragraph 1 defines the Metro North project as set out in the Government's capital framework for transport for the period 2006 to 2015 - Transport 21.
Paragraphs 2 and 3 sets out the legal and policy framework for the scheme.
Paragraph 4 deals with the detailed implementation of a Section 49 scheme is subject to an agreement between the Planning Authority and the provider of the public infrastructure service or project, in this case the Railway Procurement Agency.
Paragraph 6 defines a band of c.1 km either side of the rail line.
Paragraph 10 deals with the rates of levy which are set out below:
Residential: €2,540 per unit Commercial: €22.35 per square metre Retail: €32.20 per square metre.
PL 29S .PA0012 An Bord Pleanála Page 33 of 38 Paragraph 11 deals with exemptions which are summarised below:
(a) Development by or on behalf of a voluntary organisation (non profit). (b) Development designed or intended to be used by as a facility for persons with disabilities (non profit). (c) Social and affordable housing units. (d) Development ancillary to (a), (b) or (c) above. (e) Domestic extensions.
As the proposed development does not fall with any of the exemptions outlined in paragraph 11 (a) to (e) it would therefore be appropriate to attach a S.49 development contribution in respect of the proposed office floorspace.
8.0 RECOMMENDATION
Arising from the above I recommend that planning permission should be refused for the proposed development for the reasons and considerations set down below.
REASONS AND CONSIDERATIONS
Having regard to the Government’s current proposals in relation to the improvement of public transport infrastructure in the Greater Dublin Area and in particular the proposed location of major interchange stations along the proposed routes of DART Underground and Metro North, Tara Street Station will no longer occupy a pivotal position in the rail network which would allow for a high capacity to high capacity rail interchange at Tara Street within the public transport network. Having regard to the changed circumstances at Tara Street Station in respect of the Government’s proposals for public transport, it is considered that the passenger capacity projections for Tara Street Station, which have not changed since the previous development proposal was determined under PL29S 128164, are not realistic or achievable. Therefore the justification for such a large scale redevelopment of Tara Street Station is without substance and the proposed development would constitute an overdevelopment of a constrained urban site which would in turn give rise to an unsustainable form of development. The proposed development would, therefore, be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
Karla Mc Bride
Senior Inspector
11th September 2009
PL 29S .PA0012 An Bord Pleanála Page 34 of 38 OUTLINE REPORT OF THE ORAL HEARING
Application Ref.: 29S.PA0012.
Development Proposal:
Redevelopment of Tara Street Station comprising a new and enlarged concourse with air rights development over.
Tara Street Station, Tara Street, Dublin 2.
Venue: Conference Room, An Bord Pleanála, Marlborough Street, Dublin 1.
Dates: 28 th and 29 th July 2009.
PL 29S .PA0012 An Bord Pleanála Page 35 of 38 In Attendance:
APPLICANT: Iarnrod Eireann.
Conleth Bradley. Jerry Barnes. Tom Devoy. Kate Brown Tim Richards. Richard Clancy. Derry O Leary. Richard Cronn Liam Boyce. Kate Hockley. David Jansen. David Hughes. Richard Mansfield. Barry Kenny. Carey Doyle. Sheila Lane Fergal McCabe. Scott Rainsford. David Slattery. Stephen Reid. Bill Hastings. Sheila Lane.
PLANNING AUTHORITY
Niall Mc Donnell. Cait Ryan. Owen O Doherty. Owen Madden.
PRESCRIBED BODIES
Dr. Frederick O’Dwyer, DoEH&LG. Jennifer Noctor, RPA Ian Thomson, RPA. Owen Shinkwin, DTO.
OBSERVERS
Tom Kennedy, Kennedy’s Taverns, Ltd. Colm Moore, Dublin Cycling Campaign. Damian Cassidy, the National Conservation and Heritage Group.
NOTE 1: All of the proceedings of the Oral Hearing were recorded by a stenographer and the transcripts are attached to my report.
NOTE 2: The assessment in my main report makes reference to details submitted in evidence at the Oral Hearing.
NOTE 3: For a list of prepared texts and other submissions given to the Inspector at the Hearing see the end of this brief outline. These submissions have been numbered and references to same in the outline below directly relate.
PL 29S .PA0012 An Bord Pleanála Page 36 of 38 ORDER OF PROCEEDINGS
Re: Case Ref: 29S.PA0012
Order of proceedings at the Oral Hearing.
1. Applicant /Iarnrod Eireann .
The applicant made a detailed submission to the hearing followed by questions.
2. Planning Authority
The Planning Authority shall make a detailed submission to the hearing followed by questions.
3. Prescribed Bodies .
The Prescribed Bodies made submissions to the hearing followed by questions.
a. Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government. b. Rail Procurement Agency. c. Dublin Transportation Office.
4. Observers.
The Observers made submissions to the hearing followed by questions.
a. Mr. John Kennedy, Kennedy’s Taverns Ltd. b. Mr. John Moore, Dublin Cycling Campaign. c. Mr. Damien Cassidy, National Conservation and Heritage Group.
5. Closing Submissions.
Closing submissions were made in the following order:
a. Observers. b. Prescribed Bodies. c. Planning Authority. d. Applicant.
PL 29S .PA0012 An Bord Pleanála Page 37 of 38 Opening of Hearing:
At the outset of the hearing I outlined details of the proposal and set out the Order of Proceedings.
Details of submissions:
A record of the proceedings is contained in the transcripts.
Documents submitted at the hearing :
A complete list of all of the documents submitted at the Hearing is contained attached file of the same name.
Closing of hearing:
I concluded the hearing by informing the parties that each will be informed of the Board's decision in writing.
Karla Mc Bride Senior Planning Inspector 11th September 2009
PL 29S .PA0012 An Bord Pleanála Page 38 of 38