An Bord Pleanála

Inspector’s Report

Development: Mixed development including 220 bedroom apart-hotel, 102 residential units, retail, office, restaurant, café, library and health centre at Kennelsfort Road Lower, Palmerstown, Dublin 20.

Planning Application

Planning Authority: South Dublin County Council

Planning Authority Reg. Ref.: SD09A/0021

Applicant: Monti Ltd.

Type of Application: Permission

Planning Authority Decision: Grant permission

Planning Appeal

Appellants: 1. William Lavelle 2. Raymond Williams and Lorna Byrne 3. Frances Fitzgerald 4. Annette O’Connor and others 5. Guss O’Connell, Eamon Tuffy, Derek Keating 6. Monti Limited 7. Palmerstown Community Council 8. Dan Kennedy

PL06S.234178 An Bord Pleanála Page 1 of 36 Types of Appeal: Third Party and First Party against conditions of decision to grant, only.

Observers: 1. Gerard O’Connor 2. The Green Party 3. Lucan Planning Council Limited 4. Ladgrove Limited 5. Luke Moriarty

Date of Site Inspection: 7th October 2009

Inspector: Andrew Boyle.

PL06S.234178 An Bord Pleanála Page 2 of 36 1.0 THE SITE

1.1 The site is located in an established suburban area at the junction of Kennelsfort Road Lower and the N4 new Lucan Road. It also has limited road frontage on the Old Lucan Road. The site is irregular, but, in general, it may be described as L-shaped. It has an area of 1.62 hectares. On its south side it has a frontage of almost 200 metres onto the N4 Lucan Road dual carriageway. At the western end of this frontage it steps back by 38 metres behind an existing filling station and then continues in a northerly direction for 113 metres to reach the old Lucan Road, on which it has a frontage of 33 metres. The site is made up from of an amalgamation of several landholdings. The greater part of the site, taking up about 115 metres of the N4 road frontage was formerly occupied by Vincent Byrne, builders providers, and is now in multiple use, including two furniture outlets – Comfort-N-Style and the Irish Trading Company, two open air motor sales outlets – Autopoint and N4 Car Sales and a small hairdressing shop - Paul’s Barbers. This part of the site consists, predominantly, of a yard area. Buildings on the site include a two- storey at the front and single storey at the rear building facing onto Kennelsfort Road Lower occupied by Comfort-N-Style, two semi-detached warehouse-type buildings about midway along the northern boundary of the site and three adjoining and very large warehouse-type buildings at the western boundary of this part of the site. To the west of these former builders providers is a separate site occupied by Palmerstown Motors, taking up the remaining road frontage on the N4, but accessed from the Old Lucan Road. To the rear (north) of this premises is an open yard area occupied by Prestige Car and Van Rentals. The remaining part of this site, i.e. the spur running north to the Old Lucan Road, is occupied by the two-storey equivalent premises of Printworld.

1.2 On its south side, the site adjoins the N4. On its west side, the site adjoins a filling station, a series of purpose-built small industrial units with two-storey offices at the front and finally, on this side, a stonecutter’s premises with access off the Old Lucan Road. On its north side part of the site fronts onto the Old Lucan Road, on the opposite side of which is St. Philomena’s Church and a detached house. The remainder of the northern boundary of the site adjoins that of Kennedy Steel, which is occupied by a number of recently constructed warehouse type buildings, and, finally, the back gardens of houses on Old Lucan Road. On its east side, the site has limited frontage, (about 34 metres) onto Kennelsfort Road Lower, on the opposite side of which is the spiral of a pedestrian ramp leading to an overbridge across the N4.

1.3 The site currently has two road accesses. The main part of the site i.e. that formerly occupied by the builders providers, has an entrance onto Kennelsfort Road Lower, just at its junction with the N4. The remainder of the site, i.e. that occupied by Printworld, Palmerstown Motors and Prestige Car and Van Rentals is accessed off the Old Lucan Road.

PL06S.234178 An Bord Pleanála Page 3 of 36

2.0 THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

2.1 It is proposed to demolish and clear all existing structures on the site.

2.2 The proposed development was substantially modified and readvertised in response to a request for further information from the planning authority. As modified, the main part of the site (excluding the northern spur) would consist of the following:-

Basement (level -1) at this level there would be 338 car parking spaces and 270 bicycle spaces. 105 of the car parking spaces would be reserved for the residents of the apartments.

Ground floor level (level 0) A new entrance (only) would be opened at the northern extremity of the lower Kennelsfort Road frontage of the site. This would lead into a spine road which would run approximately east – west, gradually diverging northwards to come close to the northern boundary of the site where it adjoins that of Kennedy Steel. The spine road would turn northwards to a second entrance and exit at the Old Lucan Road. The spine road would also provide access to the existing series of industrial units to the west of the site. The spine road would pass through two adjoining plazas at distances of about 30 metres and 70 metres, from the entrance off Lower Kennelsfort Road. The more westerly and larger plaza would have 15 surface car parking spaces on either side of the spine road for disabled and set down parking. At a distance of about 110 metres from the Kennelsfort Road entrance, separate one-way ramps would link the basement car parking with the spine road. On entering the site from Kennelsfort Road, there would be a series of retail units on either side of the spine road and pedestrian areas/plazas. At a distance of about 150 metres from the Kennelsfort Road entrance there would be an anchor store on the south side of the spine road with a net floor area of 1,185 square metres. Opposite this anchor store on the other side of the spine road there would be a further large store with a floor area of 867 square metres gross. Beyond the retail anchor store there would be a restaurant with a net floor area of 400 square metres and a bar of the same net floor area. Opposite the restaurant there would be a combined heat and power plant with a floor area of 230 square metres.

First floor (level 1) At this level there would be the upper floors of two retail units on the north side of the spine road, offices over the retail units on the south side of the spine road, followed by a restaurant. There would be a 559 square metre medical centre above five of the retail units on the north side of the spine road. There would be voids over the two main retail units, the restaurant and bar. There would also be a library and a public garden over the anchor retail unit and part of the restaurant at ground level. A plant room would be located above the combined heat and power plant.

PL06S.234178 An Bord Pleanála Page 4 of 36 Second Floor (Level 2) At this level, much of the building at ground and first floor levels would be roofed off to become amenity open space. Unlike the buildings at ground and first floor levels with their predominant east-west orientation, a series of five blocks would commence at second floor level separated by the areas of rooftop amenity spaces. With the exception of the block at the western end of the main part of the site, which would be at right angles to the N4, the four remaining blocks would be at about 80 degrees to the road line, i.e. about north-north-east to south-south-west. The four easterly blocks would bridge over the spine road and plaza beneath. In addition, on the main part of the site, there would be a block orientated east - west at its western end. The three eastern blocks would consist of apartments. The two western blocks and the east - west block would form the lowest level of an apart-hotel. These three blocks would enclose a central rooftop communal open space. Some of the open space between the apartments and between the apartments and the apart- hotel would be allotment gardens. There would also be northeast and northwest facing winter gardens at the northern end of one of the apartment blocks and one of the wings of the apart-hotel.

Third Floor (Level 3) This floor would largely be a repeat of the second floor with the exception of the roof top amenity areas and a shortening of the three easterly blocks, B, C and D, away from the northern boundary to provide a semi-private roof garden and mono-pitched planted roofs.

Fourth Floor (Level 4) This, again, would be largely a repetition of the floor below, with the exception that two of the blocks would be further shortened to give a greater clearance from the northern boundary of the site, the resulting space, again, being used as planted roofs.

Fifth Floor (Level 5) This would consist of a further shortening of the apartment blocks away from the northern boundary leaving little more than the road frontage portions of the blocks.

2.3 On the northern spur of the site, currently occupied by Printworld, there would be a four-storey block, rectangular in plan, measuring 75.57 metres by 18.569 metres, with its long axis running north - south. At ground level there would be 78 surface car parking spaces, 26 of which would be beneath the upper floors of the building, which would be in offices. There would be a crèche at the front facing towards the Old Lucan Road and a café at the rear at this level.

2.4 Architecturally, the proposed development would be of an overtly modern design. Apart from shop windows at ground floor level, the elevation towards the N4 would be unusually devoid of fenestration. There would be a small number of vertical glazed panels, effectively slits, at second, third, fourth and fifth floor levels on the road elevation. The remainder of this elevation would have a highly unusual treatment in consisting of a green planted wall on pre- cast concrete panels. Above second floor level, the glazing of the blocks at an

PL06S.234178 An Bord Pleanála Page 5 of 36 angle to the road would be visible as they would recede from the viewer. The northern elevation, towards the houses on the Old Lucan Road, would be similar in its treatment, except in this instance, the roofs of the individual blocks above second floor level would slope away from the viewer and would consist of “intensive green roofs”. The eastern and western elevations of the apartment and apart-hotel blocks as well as the northern and southern elevations of the east - west apart-hotel wing would consist of a mixture of timber cladding panels, powder coated aluminium panels and glazed panels. These panels would have a strong vertical emphasis, giving these elevations a vertically striped effect.

2.5 The office block on the northern spur of the site, currently occupied by Printworld would be of a simpler design consisting of alternating panels of self finish render and aluminium windows, again with a vertical emphasis. On the east elevation, these alternating panels would be hidden behind a metal mesh green screen. The building would be given a strong horizontal emphasis by the inclusion of 800 millimetre bands in self-finish render at each floor level and at parapet level.

2.6 There would be 76 apartments consisting of 15 one-bedroom units, 52 two- bedroom units and nine three-bedroom units.

2.7 There would be 168 apartments in the apart-hotel.

3.0 THE PLANNING AUTHORITY’S DECISION

3.1 On 8 th June 2009, South Dublin County Council decided to grant permission for this development, subject to 33 conditions.

3.2 Condition 1 of the planning authority’s decision requires that the proposed development should be carried out in accordance with the documentation originally lodged with the planning authority as subsequently modified by the further information received on 8 th June 2009.

3.3 Condition 2 of the planning authority’s decision stipulates detailed requirements in relation to planting and in particular in relation to the design of the green walls on the northern and southern facades. Details are to be submitted of suitable plants grown into a planting mat of capillary material/growing medium with the underlying structural layers including damp proof membranes, and the plants species and numbers proposed and the associated automatic nutrient and irrigation system (hydroponics). Ventilation to the basement along the north elevation is to be redesigned or relocated to ensure that the green wall growth is not impeded and to allow climbers to be planted into the ground at the base of the wall, where necessary.

3.4 Condition 4 of the planning authority’s decision requires that details regarding the type and design of green roof construction and how it will offer the maximum benefit to biodiversity enhancement are to be submitted to and

PL06S.234178 An Bord Pleanála Page 6 of 36 agreed in writing with the planning authority prior to the commencement of any works on the development.

3.5 Condition 5 of the planning authority’s decision requires that no retail or commercial units should be sub-divided and/or amalgamated without a prior grant of planning permission. No additional mezzanine floors are to be constructed.

3.6 Condition 14 of the planning authority’s decision requires that detailed drawings of the proposed realignment of the Kennelsfort Road Upper/N4 junction (including lane widths, construction depths, etc.) be submitted to and agreed with the planning authority prior to commencement of development.

4.0 RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY OF THE SITE

4.1 Under PL06S.229753, the planning authority’s decision, under its Reg. Ref. SD07A/0927 to grant permission for retention of change of use from builders providers to motor sales, from an office to a barber shop and from builders providers to the sale of log cabins, was upheld on appeal. This permission was granted on 28 th January 2009, and, like the decision of the planning authority, the permission was for a period of three years.

5.0 DEVELOPMENT PLAN PROVISIONS

5.1 The site lies in the functional area of South Dublin County Council. It is thus affected by the provisions of the South Dublin County Development Plan, 2004-2010. Under this development plan, the site is located in an area zoned Objective LC, “to protect and provide for Local Centre Facilities”. Under this zoning objective amongst the use classes which are permitted in principle are advertisements and advertising structures, crèches/nursery schools, doctor/dentist, etc., health centre, offices of less than 100 square metres, public houses, residential, restaurants and shops, including discount food stores, local shops and neighbourhood shops. Open for consideration are hotels/motels and offices between 100 square metres and 1,000 square metres.

5.2 Chapter 2 of the development plan is on enterprise and employment. It includes Policy EEC7 on office development, whereby the planning authority will facilitate and encourage office development in town, district and local centres and in enterprise and employment zones.

5.3 Chapter 3 of the development plan is on housing.

5.4 At Section 3.3.2, Policy H2, on residential density, is to encourage higher residential densities at suitable locations, particularly close to existing or proposed major public transport corridors and nodes and in proximity to major centres of activity such as town and district centres. At Section 3.3.3, Policy H3, on high quality design, is to promote a high quality design and layout in new residential development. At Section 3.3.4, Policy H4 is to protect and

PL06S.234178 An Bord Pleanála Page 7 of 36 improve residential amenity in existing residential areas. In addition to the above mentioned sections, Chapter 3 includes Sections 3.1.4 on the planning authority’s Housing Strategy 2004-2010, Section 3.3.1 on Policy H 1 – the Sustainable Place Making Model, Section 3.3.11, on Policy H 11 on Social and Affordable Housing and Section 3.3.12 on Policy H 12 on mix of house types and sizes. These sections are copied at the end of the report.

5.5 Chapter 4 of the development plan is on social inclusion, community facilities and recreation. At Section 4.4.4, Policy SCR 9 is to encourage, promote and facilitate the provision of childcare facilities and to seek to improve the quality of childcare services for the community in accordance with national policy and with the Guidelines on Childcare Facilities. At Section 4.4.5, Policy SCR10 is to facilitate the location of larger scale medical practices within town, district and local/neighbourhood centres and small scale medical practices within local/neighbourhood centres or housing areas. At Section 4.4.6, Policy SCR 11 is to provide a progressive, community based public library service to all who live, work or study in the county. Section 4.5, on policy in relation to recreation, includes Section 4.5.2.i whereby it is policy to require the provision of good quality, well located and functional open space in new residential developments. It also includes Section 4.5.13 relating to policy SCR 26 which is to facilitate the further development of allotments through the identification of appropriate sites.

5.6 Chapter 5 of the development plan is on town, district and local centres. It is the aim to develop a hierarchy of high quality, vibrant urban centres and to enhance and develop the urban fabric of existing and developing centres in accordance with the principles of urban design and sustainable development. Section 5.2 of the development plans sets out the planning authority’s strategy in relation to town, district and local centres and Section 5.3 sets out policy. The relevant parts of these sections are copied at the end of this report. Section 5.3.9 sets out Policy TDL 90 on local centres. Section 5.3.9.ii notes that the function of local centres is to provide a range of convenient and easily accessible retail outlets and services within convenient walking distance for the local population. Their proximity to the surrounding residential area means that certain developments within shopping centres may have an adverse impact on the residential amenity of adjoining occupiers which must be taken into consideration when evaluating development proposals.

5.7 Chapter 6 of the development plan is on retailing. It is the aim to facilitate the development of a strong retailing sector and to support the future vitality and viability of the existing retail centres in the county. Section 6.1.1 on retail hierarchy notes that the Retail Planning Strategy for the Greater Dublin Area proposes a five tier hierarchy of retail centres in the Dublin region, based on the Retail Planning Guidelines. Within this hierarchy, local centres are at Level 4. At Section 6.3.3, Policy S3, on the scale and location of retail development, is that the provision of additional retail floor space should relate to the hierarchy contained in the Retail Planning Strategy, should be of a scale and character compatible with the function of the centres and should maintain the vitality and viability of existing, permitted or proposed centres, while protecting and/or improving the amenities of surrounding areas. At Section

PL06S.234178 An Bord Pleanála Page 8 of 36 6.3.8, Policy S8 is to seek to maintain and strengthen the existing local centres within neighbourhoods and to designate and facilitate the development of new local centres, where appropriate. Local centres are noted to typically comprise a parade of convenience stores, the occasional lower order comparison outlet and a limited range of service outlets. Their primary purpose is to provide a range of convenient retail outlets and services for the local population. These centres are noted to provide an essential and sustainable amenity for residential areas and it is important that they should be maintained and strengthened, where necessary.

5.8 Chapter 7 of the development plan is on infrastructure. It includes Section 7.24.5, which relates to policy on energy efficiency, whereby the planning authority seeks to promote energy efficiency and conservation in the design and development of all new buildings in the county and in residential schemes, in particular.

5.9 Chapter 11 of the development plan is on urban design. It includes sections on key principles, overall design considerations, the Sustainable Place Making Model, density considerations, public open space and recreation considerations, local facilities considerations, detailed design considerations, mix of dwelling types, layout/orientation, building height, overshadowing and overlooking, privacy, internal areas and private amenity open space. The relevant parts of these sections are copied at the end of this report.

5.10 Chapter 12 of the development plan is on development control. Section 12.2.4, on high buildings, is copied at the end of this report. Section 12.2.6 on childcare/crèche facilities notes, under the heading, “ Childcare Facilities in Residential Areas”, that in new development areas, purpose-built childcare facilities are the preferred solution and there is no requirement for a residential element. In the case of shopping centres, consideration should be given to the need for drop-in childcare facilities for shoppers. As a separate issue, the childcare requirements of staff should be considered. Such facilities should preferably be located at ground floor level. Section 12.5, on retailing, is copied at the end of this report. The relevant parts of Section 12.6, on shop front design and advertising, are copied at the end of this report. Section 12.7, on transportation, is primarily concerned with parking provision and this section is copied at the end of this report. Section 12.9.3, on noise, notes that in considering planning applications for residential development in areas adjoining major roads, the planning authority will have regard to any noise maps and noise action plans relating to the site location in accordance with the EU Directive on Assessment and Management of Environmental Noise.

5.11 Chapter 14 of the development plan sets out specific local objectives. Amongst these are Specific Local Objective 9, which is to prepare a Local Planning Study for the Palmerstown area and Specific Local Objective 13 which is to divert unnecessary heavy commercial traffic out of Kennelsfort Road and adjoining residential areas and to construct either a flyover or a traffic roundabout at the junction of Kennelsfort Road/Galway Road junction to accommodate local traffic between Palmerstown Village and the Greater Palmerstown residential area.

PL06S.234178 An Bord Pleanála Page 9 of 36 6.0 THE RETAIL GUIDELINES FOR PLANNING AUTHORITIES

6.1 These guidelines published by the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government in December 2005, confirmed the role of the town centre as the focus for a range of commercial and community activities, which results in a mix of, often interdependent, land uses which contribute to a sense of place and identity. Shopping provision is noted to be a key component of town centres and to make a major contribution to their vitality and viability. It is important, therefore, that they retain retailing as a core function. Planning policy should seek to sustain and enhance the role of town centres, including new retail developments and other key uses. Section 38 of the guidelines recommends that a Retail Strategy for the Greater Dublin Area should be prepared jointly by the Dublin local authorities and by the Kildare, Meath and Wicklow county councils.

6.2 Section 71 of the guidelines relates to district centres. Purpose-built district shopping centres are normally provided within the built-up areas of major conurbations or in the suburbs of large towns. They are usually anchored by a large food store and contain a range of unit shops and non-retail service outlets (such as banks, post office or hairdressers). They are noted to perform an important retail function for the local community living within a 15 – 20 minute drive time of the site. There is no clear size threshold for a district centre, although, depending on the density of population in the catchment area, they are likely to comprise about 10,000 square metres in or adjacent to the main towns and up to 20,000 square metres within some parts of Dublin.

6.3 Annex 1 of the guidelines consists of a glossary of terms. Supermarkets are defined as single level, self-service stores selling mainly food, with a net sales area of less than 2,500 square metres, often with adjacent car parking. A local centre or neighbourhood centre is defined as a small group of shops, typically comprising a newsagent, small supermarkets/general grocery store, sub-post office and other small shops of a local nature serving a small localised catchment population.

7.0 THE RETAIL STRATEGY FOR THE GREATER DUBLIN AREA 2008-2016

7.1 This strategy was prepared by the Dublin and Mid-East Regional Authorities in conjunction with the local authorities for Dublin, Meath County Council, Kildare County Council and Wicklow County Council. It succeeds the Retail Planning Strategy for the Greater Dublin Area, which covered the period 2001-2011.

7.2 The central key objective of the strategy is to promote the vitality and viability of town centres by

• Planning for the growth and development of existing centres;

PL06S.234178 An Bord Pleanála Page 10 of 36 • promoting and enhancing existing centres by focussing development in such centres and encouraging a wide range of services in good environments which are accessible to all;

• integrating the provision of high quality retail with mixed use in towns and centres to create attractive, active places;

• supporting the role of town centres as places to visit that have strong community and civic functions and roles to the surrounding population.

At Section 6.4 of the Strategy, other key objectives are noted to include

• enhancing consumer choice by making provision for a range of shopping, leisure and local services, which generally allow choice, to meet the needs of the entire community, including partially excluded groups and new areas of population growth;

• supporting high quality, well designed, efficient, competitive and innovative retail in town centres as an overarching objective in local/town plans, mixed with leisure, tourism, culture, business and other sectors; and

• improving accessibility, ensuring that existing and new development is, or will be, accessible and well served by a choice of means of transport and, where possible, within walking distance.

7.3 Table 5.7 of the strategy gives a gross lettable floor space for convenience goods by council area. For South Dublin, there is a need for 47,318 square metres of gross lettable floor space. On top of this figure, it recommends the building in of a 20-25% flexibility factor to reflect the extent of non-retail uses in retail developments, the loss of existing retail through changes of use/demolition and the provision, in large schemes, for delivery of some of the floor space post-2016.

7.4 Section 6.33 of the strategy consists of council specific policy recommendations. For South Dublin County Council, it recommends, inter alia, that it should aim to develop and consolidate a hierarchy of high quality, vibrant urban centres, supported by the development of a strong retailing sector that serves to enhance and develop the urban fabric of existing and developing centres in accordance with the principles of good urban design and sustainable development.

7.5 Under the heading “Retail Impact Assessment” , Section 6.61 recommends that Retail Impact Assessments should normally accompany an application where a development is located within a Level 3 or other centre or outside a centre, where the scheme, if completed would result in an increase of over 2,500 square metres gross floor area.

7.6 Table 6.1 of the strategy sets out a retail hierarchy for the Greater Dublin Area. This is broken down into five levels ranging from Level 1 – the

PL06S.234178 An Bord Pleanála Page 11 of 36 metropolitan centre, i.e. Dublin City Centre, down to Level 5 referring to corner shops/small villages. At Level 3 are town and/or district centres and sub-county town centres. In south Dublin, this level includes Adamstown, Crumlin (Ashleaf), Clonburris/Balgaddy, Clondalkin, Fortunestown, Kilnamanagh, Lucan and Rathfarnham. Level 4 consists of neighbourhood centres, local centres, small towns and villages. Table 6.2 sets out appropriate retail formats for each hierarchy level. At the neighbourhood centre level are lower order comparison shops and supermarkets. The lower order comparison shops should be limited to a small number of shops meeting local needs. In relation to Level 4 neighbourhood/local centres, the strategy recommends that planning authorities should seek to protect existing facilities which provide for people’s day to day shopping needs and seek to remedy deficiencies to avoid social exclusion and isolation. Encouragement should therefore be given to uses which support the community and help solidify the role of the village/small town as an important local centre, such as medical clinics, social services, pharmacies, cafés and post offices.

8.0 SUSTAINABLE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN URBAN AREAS

8.1 These guidelines for planning authorities were published by the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government in 2009.

8.2 Chapter 3 of the guidelines is on the role of design. Section 3.12 notes that the design criteria set out in the Urban Design Manual also provide a framework for the systematic appraisal of applications for residential development. High standards of design should be encouraged by planning authorities. Section 3.18 of the guidelines is on types of street. It advises that frontage free streets (such as distributor roads) are not recommended, as they can be unsafe for pedestrians (especially after dark) and can result in a hostile environment.

8.3 Chapter 5 of the guidelines is on cities and larger towns. Sections 5.1 – 5.3 cover design safeguards. The guidelines advise that firm emphasis should be placed by planning authorities on the importance of qualitative standards in relation to design and layout, in order to achieve the highest quality of residential environment. Six criteria are listed for higher density residential development. These are

• Acceptable building heights • Avoidance of overlooking and overshadowing • Provision of adequate private and public open space, including landscaping, where appropriate, and safe play spaces • Adequate internal space standards in apartments • Suitable parking provision close to dwellings and • Provision of ancillary facilities, including childcare.

8.4 It is pointed out that particular sensitivity is required in relation to the design and location of apartment blocks which are higher than existing adjacent residential development. As a general rule, where taller buildings are

PL06S.234178 An Bord Pleanála Page 12 of 36 acceptable in principle, building heights should generally taper down towards the boundaries of the site within an established residential area. At Section 5.4, the guidelines advise that, in general, increased densities should be encouraged on residentially zoned lands and particularly in four specified types of locations. Amongst these are public transport corridors. Section 5.8 notes the very substantial investment in public transport under the Transport 21 programme. Land use planning should underpin the efficiency of public transport services by sustainable settlement patterns, including higher densities on lands within existing or planned transport corridors. It is recommended that increased densities should be promoted within 500 metres walking distance of a bus stop. In general, minimum net densities of 50 dwellings per hectare, subject to appropriate design and amenity standards should be applied within public transport corridors.

8.5 Section 5.9 of the guidelines relates to inner suburban/infill. Potential sites for infill residential development are noted to range from small gap infill, unused or derelict land and backland areas, up to larger residual sites or sites assembled from a multiplicity of ownerships. It advises that in residential areas whose character is established by their density or architectural form, a balance has to be struck between the reasonable protection of the amenities and privacy of adjoining dwellings, the protection of established character and the need to provide residential infill. The design approach should be based on the recognition of the need to protect the amenities of directly adjoining neighbours and the general character of the area and its amenities, i.e. views, architectural quality, civic design, etc.

8.6 Chapter 5 of the guidelines ends with a three point checklist. It asks “Are residential densities sufficiently high at locations which are, or will be, served by public transport? Have proposals for higher densities been accompanied in all cases by high qualitative standards of design and layout? Does the design and location of new apartment blocks respect the amenities of existing adjacent housing in terms of sunlight and overlooking?”

9.0 THE URBAN DESIGN MANUAL – A BEST PRACTICE GUIDE

9.1 This companion document to the guidelines on Sustainable Residential Development in Urban Areas was published by the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, in 2009. It identifies twelve test criteria for best practice design. These are quoted in the Sustainable Residential Development in Urban Areas Guidelines and are copied at the end of this report.

10.0 QUALITY HOUSING FOR SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES

10.1 These guidelines were published by the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government in 2007. Chapter 5 of these guidelines is on dwelling design. In relation to apartments, it advises that these should be designed to provide good quality permanent and sustainable living

PL06S.234178 An Bord Pleanála Page 13 of 36 accommodation. The design approach should not be predicated on the assumption that apartment living is a transient phase in the life of people who will eventually move to a house. It lists the factors which should be taken into consideration in the design of individual apartments. This part of the guidelines is copied at the end of this report.

11.0 SUSTAINABLE URBAN HOUSING – DESIGN STANDARDS FOR NEW APARTMENTS

11.1 These guidelines were published by the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government in September 2007. They provide recommended minimum standards for floor areas for different types of apartments, storage spaces, sizes for apartment balconies/patios and room dimensions for certain rooms. These are summarised in an appendix which is copied at the end of this report.

12.0 THE APPEALS

12.1 There are six third party appeals against the planning authority’s decision to grant permission for this development. In addition, there is a first party appeal against conditions of the planning authority’s decision, only. The third party appeals are from Annette O’Connor and fifty named parties in an attached appendix, all of them local residents, from Councillor William Lavelle, from Senator Frances Fitzgerald, from Councillors Guss O’Connell, Eamon Tuffy and Derek Keating, from Raymond Williams and Lorna Byrne, the owners of the adjoining stoneworks to the west of the appeal site where it fronts onto the Old Lucan Road and from Dan Kennedy, the owner of the steelworks on the adjoining site to the north, who also resides on this adjoining site.

12.2 The third party appeals are wide ranging. They variously cover a number of topics which are summarised under the side headings which follow.

12.3 Excessive Height and Scale

It is claimed that the proposed development would be out of context with the existing village and would be totally alien and detrimental to the existing townscape. It would fail to comply with one of the key principles set out in the development plan in relation to urban design namely, integration, as set out at Section 11.2.iv(5) of the development plan. It would cause a diminution in the sense of community and ruin the village atmosphere. It is claimed that Palmerstown is a suburban village and not an urban environment. The latter is claimed to start at Islandbridge. The proposed development would be visible from all points in the village. It could well undermine the existing village, as has happened in Tallaght and Clondalkin.

PL06S.234178 An Bord Pleanála Page 14 of 36 12.4 Excessive Retail Provision

The proposed development would include an over large supermarket which should probably be regarded as a “major sales outlet” as defined in the county development plan. Its size and the fact that its catchment would be within a 15 minute drive time means that it would be more appropriate to a Level 3 centre, rather than a Level 4 local centre. This would be contrary to the zoning objective. It is claimed that undue emphasis has been placed on the proximity of the site to the quality bus corridor. This would be unable to cope with the demand based on its current level of funding.

12.5 Lack of Demand

It is claimed that there is no demand for a public house, shops or apart-hotel. There are already vacant shops in the vicinity including the newly-built units at the front of the Aldi store. There is 40% vacancy in the Liffey Valley Centre offices. The apart-hotel would be superfluous having regard to the proximity of the Clarion and West County hotels and also the Spa Hotel, Lucan and the Springfield Hotel, Leixlip. Concern is expressed that the pub and restaurant would ultimately become a nightclub and that the shopping could lead to further vacancies in the Liffey Valley Centre.

12.6 Traffic

At the weekend peak hour of 1300-1400, there would be 691 extra car trips or 11-12 cars per minute which would require well over 16 metres of road length, if queuing. Doubt is expressed that this number could be accommodated on Kennelsfort Road Upper, especially with the traffic lights now proposed at the junction of this road and the Old Lucan Road. The proposed right turning lane onto the N4 would be just three PCUs in length. The proposed development would be premature pending the upgrading of the N4 junction. It is unacceptable that the details at this junction should be agreed with the planning authority at a later date, as required by a condition of the planning authority’s decision. This would deprive local residents of any input. The traffic predictions are based on out of date traffic data collected in 2007, prior to the completion of the N4 upgrade. Condition 10 of the planning authority’s decision would be difficult to enforce and it is likely that the parking spaces would be used for park and ride. The traffic lights proposed at the junction with the old Lucan Road would be likely to give rise to congestion at the church just to the west of this position.

12.7 Lack of Shadow Diagram

Concern is expressed that no shadow diagram showing the impact of the proposed development on adjoining property was submitted for either spring or summer.

PL06S.234178 An Bord Pleanála Page 15 of 36 12.8 Viability of the Green Wall

Scepticism is expressed in relation to the viability of the green wall and its long-term maintenance. It is submitted that a bond should have been required to ensure the long-term maintenance of this wall.

12.9 Risk of Flooding

It is alleged that prior to the hard surfacing of the site by the former occupants, Vincent Byrne, builders providers, it was predominantly wetlands, having formerly been a quarry. It is submitted that the planning authority should not allow any development on the site without a more detailed analysis of the drainage history of the area.

12.10 Precedent

It is claimed that if permission is granted for this development it would be difficult to resist a similar proposal on the site on the opposite side of Kennelsfort Road Lower.

12.11 Planning Authority Procedure

It is claimed that the planning authority has exceeded its powers in granting permission for this development. It has failed to follow through on the analysis at Page 25 of its further information request. It should have refused the development in the first instance, rather than seeking further information and then accepting a much modified scheme which should, properly, have been regarded as a new development. It is claimed that the planning authority was unduly influenced by the developer’s argument in relation to proximity to public transport. The basis of a refusal was contained in the planning authority’s letter of 3 rd May 2009. An environmental impact statement should have been sought in respect of this development. The grant of permission for this development is in stark contrast with the refusal on the other side of Kennelsfort Road Lower under the planning authority’s Reg. Ref. SD04A/0982. A material contravention procedure should have been adopted in order to grant such a large anchor store.

In addition to raising some of the general concerns expressed in the other appeals, the two immediately adjoining appellants, the owners of the stoneworks, Raymond Williams and Lorna Byrne, and the owner of the steelworks, Dan Kennedy have more immediate concerns. The former raise the issue of the adequacy of the junction with the Old Lucan Road and the lack of detail in relation to this junction. There would be trespass across their property at the Old Lucan Road access. There would be unacceptable intensification at this entrance and their existing entrance would be immediately at the proposed traffic lights. They would suffer from a loss of on-street parking directly outside their premises and it is claimed that the proposed development would be prejudicial to the development potential of their site.

PL06S.234178 An Bord Pleanála Page 16 of 36 The owner of the steelworks expresses concern about the diversion of a drain on the appeal site which also serves his premises. Issues in relation to the right of way to Kennelsfort Road have been ignored. The occasional noise which arises from the adjoining steel works has been ignored in the proposed development and no realistic noise insulation measures have been proposed for the adjoining apartments and crèche. It is inappropriate to site residential development overlooking an existing steelworks. The appellant expresses fear that his long-standing operation might suffer from vexatious complaints from future residents. He has not given his consent to any working on the appeal site from his adjoining site. He expresses concern in relation to the impact of the proposed development on an existing telecommunications mast and antenna.

13.0 THE FIRST PARTY APPEAL

13.1 The applicant has appealed against conditions 1(c), 2(a), 4(b), 5(e), and 6(a) of the planning authority’s decision, only. Prior to disputing the appealed conditions, the applicant notes the guidance in the Development Management Guidelines, 2007 which advise that before imposing a condition, it should be established that it is necessary, relevant to planning, relevant to the development to be permitted, enforceable, precise and reasonable.

13.2 In relation to condition 1(c), requiring the omission of four bedrooms, one on each floor, and their replacement with a relocated stair core to the rear/north of the terrace to the northwestern corner of the apart-hotel to ensure adequate setback from the northern site boundary, it is stated that this setback was central to the additional information request and the response of the applicant was tailored to ensure that this was maintained. An adequate setback from the residential properties to the northeast was ensured by introducing a sloping structure housing a winter garden. However, the removal of the rooms would have no impact on the mass of the building as granted. A revised drawing is submitted to illustrate this point. Furthermore, it should be noted that the properties directly to the north of this section of the proposed development are, in fact, commercial properties and their amenities would not be negatively affected by retaining the four apart-hotel rooms.

13.3 In relation to condition 2(a), requiring the redesign of the green wall on the southern facade fronting the N4/Lucan Road through the provision of planting mats of capillary material/growing medium, suitably planted, the applicant requests that this condition be amended to allow for maximum flexibility on the type of green wall used in the proposed development. The green wall, as originally proposed, evolved following extensive consultations between the applicant’s landscape architects and various suppliers of green wall systems. A wire rope and trained climber system is favoured, utilising hardy plants suitable to the particular conditions of the site, i.e. exposure to wind and pollution. Plants, matured off site, would be introduced to the constructed wire system to give an immediate coverage. The plants would be suited to a shallow growing medium and would be comparable to the existing vegetation along the N4 corridor. While coverage would not be 100% initially, there are

PL06S.234178 An Bord Pleanála Page 17 of 36 similar types of systems around Dublin and, in particular, Georgian Dublin. The planning authority notes that the hydroponics system has been used at the Caixa Forum in Madrid. However, this would not meet the requirements of durability, easy maintenance, lack of complexity, suitability and cost, both capital and ongoing. It is not widely proven in an Irish context. The Caixa Forum in Madrid consists of a relatively small well sheltered wall in a hot climate with plant species suited to that climate. It is feared that a completely artificial system, as required by the planning authority would not work on the scale proposed on the southern elevation of this development and that a mass failure would occur. Even if it was to succeed, its life expectancy would be 20-30 years, after which it would require to be replaced in its entirety. By this time, the building could be in multiple ownership. A modified version of the applicant's proposal incorporates additional planters attached to the wall at higher levels to provide additional cover, while at the same time utilising the hardy plant species that would survive at the appeal site. The appeal asks that the Board amend condition 2(a) so as to read as follows. “The details of the proposed “green wall” on the southern elevation shall be agreed in writing with the planning authority prior to the commencement of construction. The proposed “green wall” will be carefully selected having regard to the on-site conditions. Any dispute in relation to this condition will be referred to An Bord Pleanala.”

13.4 In relation to condition 4(b), requiring a qualified ecologist, with experience in successful biodiversity enhancement projects, to be employed to oversee the integration of the flora and fauna proposals, with particular reference to the location of nest, bat and insect boxes, the appeal questions whether this condition is either enforceable or necessary. The phrase “enhanced biodiversity” is unduly vague. It is not precise, reasonable or enforceable. Moreover, condition 4(a) of the planning authority’s decision requires that details of the green roof construction and any biodiversity measures should be agreed prior to commencement of development. Condition 4(b) is, effectively, unnecessary.

13.5 In relation to condition 5(e), requiring that the commercial floor space of the proposed unit should be restricted to the uses set out under Class 2(a)(b) and Class 3 of Schedule 2, Part 1 of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, it is pointed out that the drawings submitted with the further information show the different uses being applied for, namely retail units, a bar, a restaurant, cafés, a crèche, a medical centre, offices and a library. The condition could be interpreted as ruling out the library. It is submitted that it may be inferred from the condition that at least the anchor unit is acknowledged as a Class 1 unit. However, the intention in relation to the smaller units is unclear. A strict interpretation of this condition would rule out the use of the other retail units for the uses that fall under Class 1 such as a post office, a ticket sales office or travel agency, a hairdressers, etc. This would not be in the best interest of the community at large. It is submitted that Class 1 should be inserted into condition 5(e) and that Class 2(a)(b) should be replaced simply by Class 2.

PL06S.234178 An Bord Pleanála Page 18 of 36 13.6 In relation to condition 6(a) requiring that a shop front design scheme should be submitted prior to commencement of development, the appeal states that while the applicants accept the concept of providing for a unified theme throughout the proposed development, they are concerned that the condition is overly prescriptive and restrictive. This applies in particular to the types of signage permitted and individual window display areas. It is submitted that no such restrictions apply to Palmerstown village and that there is no resulting negative impact on the overall feel of the village. It is difficult to anticipate the requirements of individual retailers in advance of any agreements on tenancy. It is thus submitted that a more appropriate timing would be prior to occupation. It is submitted that the condition should be amended to read “details of any shop fronts and signage on the individual retail units shall be agreed in writing with the planning authority prior to occupation” .

14.0 RESPONSE OF THE APPLICANT

14.1 The applicant has responded to the third party grounds of appeal. It is submitted that the appeals are not representative of the attitude of the population as a whole. There are 11,494 persons in the two electoral districts of Palmerstown Village and Palmerstown West. The Retail Impact Statement shows that the proposed development would serve an even larger population. It is pointed out that groups like the Palmerstown Community Council have no official status.

14.2 Two separate responses have been submitted on behalf of the applicant, reflecting the order of receipt of the third party appeals. The first response relates to the appeal from Councillor William Lavelle, only. The second response relates to the remaining third party appeals. The second response is set out on an issues basis, but makes reference to the first response, where there is an overlap between the issues raised in the first appeal and the remaining appeals. The categorisation and discussion of issues is as set out under the side headings which follow.

14.3 Procedure/Planning Process

The alleged right to the use of a drain through the site by the adjoining steelworks site is a prescriptive right, if any. It should not be considered to be a planning issue and the Board is reminded of the provisions of Section 34(13) of the Planning and Development Act, 2000. In any case, the use of the drain would be unaffected.

In relation to the requirement for an environmental impact statement, the response notes the provision of Article 103(1) of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001 and emphasises that it is the prerogative of the planning authority to seek an environmental impact statement where a planning application is lodged for a sub-threshold development, where it considers that the development would be likely to have significant effects on the environment. In this instance the planning authority decided that such

PL06S.234178 An Bord Pleanála Page 19 of 36 would not be the case. The response refers to the several environmentally related reports which were submitted with the application.

In relation to the revisions submitted as further information properly constituting a new application, it is pointed out that the planning authority required that the amended proposal be re-advertised, advising the public that Significant Additional Information had been submitted. It is noted that the appellant, Dan Kennedy, who expresses concern in this regard, was one of the parties who made a submission to the planning authority at this stage.

It is submitted that the appeal from Annette O’Connor and others should not have been accepted as such, but that it should have been treated as an observation. The appeal from Palmerstown Community Council should have been regarded as invalid as the address of the appellant was different from that of the original third party submission to the planning authority.

14.4 Pattern of Development in the Area

The existing pattern of development in the area is noted to be low density and car dependant. The population of the area is in decline. Retaining the existing pattern of development would be inefficient and unsustainable and contrary to the National Spatial Strategy and the Guidelines for Sustainable Development in Urban Areas. It would not be appropriate to refuse permission on the grounds that the proposed development would not be in-keeping with the pattern of development of the area, as submitted in the appeals.

14.5 Excessive Building Height

The response submits that the proposed development is “a key landmark site on the entrance to Dublin City from the West”. The proposed development would not be a tall building, but rather it would be medium rise. Buildings of similar height have been permitted on the N11, M7 and the R107 (Malahide Road). It would reinvigorate the area and would act as a catalyst for future development along the important N4 corridor. In response to the planning authority’s request for further information, the scale of the development was reduced towards the northern boundary, thereby reducing the impact on the existing houses to the north. A shadow analysis was submitted. Having regard to the length of the back gardens of these adjoining houses it is submitted that their residential amenity has been protected. A balance needs to be struck between the protection of houses and the development of a suitable landmark building, as acknowledged by the planner. The canting of the roofs lessens the impact of the proposed development on the adjoining houses. There would be no significant loss of sunlight. The response quotes the conclusion in the planner's report that the proposed development “offers an innovative architectural solution to a difficult urban problem to address the scale of a large dual carriageway at an important gateway to the city, whilst also addressing a local village setting” . The proposed development meets the five key principles set out in Section 11.2.iv of the South Dublin County Development Plan, 2004-2010. On the key principle of integration, it is stated that the proposed development provides for a new extension to the village and

PL06S.234178 An Bord Pleanála Page 20 of 36 a new vehicular and pedestrian route that forms a “circuit” around the village. The setting back from the adjoining properties protects their amenities, whilst at the same time allowing for an attractive design response.

14.6 Unsustainable Retail/Commercial Quantum

The mix and quantum of uses was selected to meet the latent demand and need. Again, the planner's report is quoted, wherein it is stated “Palmerstown Village underperforms due to its severance from its natural hinterland by the M50, the N4 and the Liffey Valley Amenity Area; the problem is increased by the nearby presence of the Liffey Valley Shopping Centre. Palmerstown Village requires development and diversity to improve its economy and equality” . Palmerstown is noted to be part of a programme for village renewal under Section 13.2.i of the development plan. The shopping is appropriate to its hinterland. The remaining commercial uses are necessary to assist in regeneration. It is claimed that local centres, particularly those that are underperforming, should not be restricted in terms of their overall development, especially where an opportunity such as that proposed arises, simply because of their perceived place in the retail hierarchy. It is claimed that the development plan provides for such opportunities. The provision of the library would be in accordance with Specific Local Objective 12 of the development plan. The claim that the proposed development would sound the death knell for the village is claimed to constitute emotive speculative language, without any quantitative evidence to back it up.

14.7 Non-Compliance with the Land Use Zoning Objective

It is noted that offices over 1,000 square metres are not permitted “except in exceptional circumstances as determined by the planning authority” . It is claimed that the planning authority has deemed the present case to constitute such exceptional circumstances. These arise from the need to redevelop Palmerstown Village as a whole, the fact that the existing uses are high employment uses, the fact that the assembled site constitutes a significant development opportunity and the fact that the majority of the office accommodation would be located on the Printworld site. The office component is vital to the success of the scheme as a whole and should not be refused. The applicant is happy for a condition to be applied limiting the amount of office space in the replacement building on the Printworld site and conditioning an alternative use for the remainder of the space. The responses deny that the 1,535 square metre supermarket constitutes a major sales outlet. It is deemed to be a neighbourhood shop and this was accepted by the planning authority. The planning authority also held that it accorded with the zoning objective and with the Retail Strategy for the Greater Dublin Area.

14.8 Unacceptable Traffic Impact (Including Parking)

The appellants provide a rudimentary queue length calculation, but disregard trip distribution. The surrounding junctions would be over capacity in 2025, even without the development, but with the improvements proposed, including the slip lane on Kennelsfort Road Upper, and the re-sequencing of the traffic

PL06S.234178 An Bord Pleanála Page 21 of 36 lights, most would operate below capacity. There would not be “severe traffic gridlock”. The second response includes a report from the applicant’s traffic consultants, Aecom (formerly Faber Maunsell). The report lists the road improvements which will be undertaken, as follows:-

1. Optimisation of the signal timings

2. The construction of a right turning lane, 18 metres (3 PCUs) long on Kennelsfort Road Upper (southern arm of the crossroads).

3. Advancing of the stop lines on both Kennelsfort Road Upper and Kennelsfort Road Lower.

4. Constructions of a left turning slip 42 metres (7 PCU) long on Kennelsfort Road Lower.

5. Removal of pedestrian crossing/phase at the stop line on Kennelsfort Road Upper.

6. Introduction of an advanced stop line for cyclists on Kennelsfort Road Upper.

7. The junction would then operate within capacity up to the future design year of 2025. The site boundary would be setback along the N4 to provide for the construction of the proposed grade separated junction between the N4 and Kennelsfort Road. Traffic signals would be introduced at the junction of Kennelsfort Road Lower and the old Lucan Road and at the entrance to the proposed development on the old Lucan Road.

In relation to the entrance onto the Old Lucan Road, there would be no requirement for a land take from the appellants Williams and Byrne. Access arrangements to the church on the opposite side of the old Lucan Road would not be compromised. The church has an access, only, opposite the proposed entrance and this would continue to be accessible during the appropriate phases of the traffic lights. Tailbacks in a westerly direction from the traffic lights are unlikely to be long and a box junction could be painted outside the exit from the church. Access and egress from the adjoining stonecutter's premises would continue to be feasible. On-street parking could continue on the south side of Old Lucan Road. There would be little temptation to use the road when dropping off children to the proposed crèche, as there would be adequate parking/set down areas within the site for this purpose.

It is submitted that the use of 2007 traffic data results in a more robust assessment than would be the case had data from 2009 been used, as it is recognised that there has been a fall-off in traffic since 2007. The survey was undertaken just prior to the ban on 5 axle HGV traffic into Dublin which has diverted a significant proportion of this traffic onto the M50. A figure of 2,487 square metres has not been assumed for the anchor tenant, but rather this figure includes the anchor retail unit, together with the other shops.

PL06S.234178 An Bord Pleanála Page 22 of 36

The development plan standards have not been ignored by the planning authority in relation to car parking. There would be dual shared use of the spaces. A reduction in car parking provision also encourages the use of public transport. The car parking provision is adequate. There would be no reserved parking for park and ride and a detailed management system would be put in place to discourage such use.

14.9 Impact on Adjoining Properties

The claim that the proposed crèche should not be located as proposed, as it would suffer noise and disturbance from the steelworks, is refuted. The location close to the Old Lucan Road has been chosen in order to allow the crèche to serve a wider community and, also, because crèches, themselves, are noise generators, it is preferable that they should not be located adjacent to residential properties. It is pointed out that the steelworks is already adjacent to existing residential properties and has not given rise to complaint.

15.0 RESPONSE OF THE PLANNING AUTHORITY

15.1 No response has been received from the planning authority in relation to this appeal.

16.0 THIRD PARTY OBSERVATIONS

16.1 Five third party observations have been received by the Board in relation to this appeal. They are from Gerard O’Connor, the owner of the guesthouse on the opposite side of Kennelsfort Road Lower, the Green Party, Lucan Planning Council Ltd., Ladgrove Ltd., who are the owners of the Palmerstown Shopping Centre and Luke Moriarty, a local resident. All of the observations amount to objections to the proposed development. They largely cover the same range of issues as the appeals. One of the letters, that from Gerard O’Connor, implies that there is inadequate sewerage capacity to cater for the proposed development on the basis that he was refused permission for a 62 bedroom hotel under the planning authority’s Reg. Ref. SD04A/0982, one of the reasons for refusal being that

“The proposed development would be prejudicial to public health because it would result in an unacceptable level of additional loading on the foul drainage network which has a lack of capacity downstream of the site”.

16.2 It is claimed the proposed development would be premature pending the upgrading of the junction of Kennelsfort Road and the N4 to either a grade separated junction or a roundabout junction – a specific local objective in the development plan. The proposed development might not leave enough room for such an upgrade.

PL06S.234178 An Bord Pleanála Page 23 of 36 16.3 The proposed development would impinge on views of the Liffey Valley when seen from the north, the maintenance of such views, being an objective of the development plan.

16.4 There would be noise nuisance arising from the hotel and bar facilities.

16.5 The shopping content would be excessive and well above that for a Level 4 centre. It would have a negative impact on the vitality and viability of Palmerstown Shopping Centre.

16.6 There would be a gross under-provision of parking for the apart-hotel and apartments.

17.0 LETTERS TO THE PLANNING AUTHORITY

17.1 A large number of letters was received by the planning authority in relation to this application. These generally took the form of objections to the proposed development. They covered a wide range of issues, including those which have now been raised in the third party appeals and observations.

18.0 ASSESSMENT

18.1 A number of issues arises in considering this planning application and appeal. These issues are evaluated under the relevant side headings which follow.

18.2 Pattern of Development in the Area

The predominant pattern of development in the immediately surrounding area is of two-storey houses, with some single-storey houses on the north side of the Old Lucan Road. In addition, there is considerable industrial development including the extensive site of the steelworks of the appellant, Dan Kennedy. In addition to extensive yard areas, this adjoining site contains five modern portal frame type industrial buildings up to three storeys equivalent height.

The site is located in an area zoned objective LC, “to protect, provide for and/or improve local centre facilities” under the South Dublin County Development Plan, 2004-2010. The non- residential uses which are permitted in principle under this zoning objective e.g. offices of less than 100 square metres, shop-discount food store, shop local and shop neighbourhood all would give rise to the expectation of a reasonably low rise, low intensity development.

Nevertheless, Chapter 11 of the development plan, on urban design has the aim to deliver sustainable communities together with a high quality built environment, through good place making, by reducing as far as possible, the need to travel, particularly by private car, by facilitating mixed use development and promoting the efficient use of land and public investment in infrastructure in order to facilitate viable local services, employment and

PL06S.234178 An Bord Pleanála Page 24 of 36 public transport. Section 11.1.2 of the development plan, on the need for change, states that the changes which have taken place in Irish society since the 1990s have rendered the suburban development model unsustainable. Consequently, the development plan sets out an alternative model for development, based on urban design principles. Five key principles are enunciated, namely, intensification, diversity, accessibility, design quality and integration. Integration is defined as the linking of new and existing development to promote inclusion, whilst safeguarding the amenities of existing buildings and uses.

As noted previously, the site, at present, is predominantly open. I estimate there is a site coverage of about 30%. The existing buildings which are, for the most part, single-storey, would achieve a plot ratio of little more than 0.3:1. The applicant claims, in relation to integration, that the proposed development would provide for a new extension to the village and a new vehicular and pedestrian route that would form a “circuit” around the village. The setting back from the adjoining properties would protect their amenities, whilst at the same time allowing for an attractive design response. While some of this may be true, I consider that the proposed development fails to integrate in terms of its scale and mass. In the proposed development, the site coverage on the main part of the site would increase to 70% over the proposed basement car parking taking up the entirety of this part of the site. On the Printworld spur, the site coverage increases to 37%, by comparison with 29% at present. The planner’s report notes that the plot ratio in the revised scheme, submitted as further information, is 1.5:1. A continuous aspirationally green wall, 9.63 metres in height, albeit with shop windows and back of house storage windows at ground level for most of its length, would extend for 180 metres along the N4. This would effectively form a visual podium for five blocks ranging in width from 13.545 metres to 30.127 metres and rising a further 14.6 metres. These blocks, reducing in height by as much as 11 metres, extend back almost the full depth of the site from the N4. In one instance, Block B, this is much as 72 metres.

While the existing site can be regarded as obsolete, I consider that this proposed development is, by a very considerable margin, inappropriately out of scale and character with the surrounding development.

18.3 Building Height

Having regard to the width of the N4 dual carriageway and its contribution towards achieving a greater intensity of development which is appropriate in close proximity to a quality bus corridor, the principle of having greatly increased height along the road frontage of the site is acceptable. The applicant notes the precedent for such development along other major arteries into Dublin City. However, to describe this site as “a key landmark site on the entrance to Dublin City from the west”, is somewhat fanciful. The proposed development is a high six storeys, owing to the extra height of the two floors of retail at ground and first floor levels, along the N4. The South Dublin County Development Plan, 2004-2010 at Section 11.11.3, is clear in relation to building height. Baseline building height should not be greater than five

PL06S.234178 An Bord Pleanála Page 25 of 36 storeys, including penthouse setbacks. Deviations are allowed only in Town and District Centres and where there is high quality public transport, i.e. Luas and Rail. I consider the proposed development to be excessively high and that this deviation from the standards set in the development plan would have merited the adoption of the material contravention process.

18.4 Impact on Residential Amenity

Much of the main part of the appeal site directly adjoins the back gardens of three terraces of two-storey houses at nos. 1 – 11 Old Lucan Road. The back gardens of these houses range in length from 35 metres to 60 metres. They are laid out in lawns, although two of the houses, nos. 1 and 3 Old Lucan Road, appear to have substantial single-storey structures at the ends of their gardens, adjoining the appeal site. Currently, a wall between 2.5 metres and 3 metres in height separates the appeal site from these adjoining houses. An exception to this is the warehouse type building to the rears of nos. 5 (part), 6, 7 and 8 (part) Old Lucan Road.

The existing wall would be retained, but behind it, at a distance of less than 2 metres, a wall, again green planted, like the front wall, would rise 10.5 metres above ground level. This wall would be surmounted by the rear elevation of Block B up to a height of 17.5 metres above ground level to the rear of nos. 1, 2 and 3 Old Lucan Road. It would be surmounted by the rear elevation of Block C up to a height of 19 metres above ground level to the rear of nos. 6 and 7 Old Lucan Road. It would be surmounted by the northern elevation of Block D, rising to 15.75 metres to the rear of nos. 10 and 11 Old Lucan Road.

The applicant refers to having produced shadow diagrams for the proposed development, but these appear to relate to the development as originally proposed to the planning authority, which was higher and more extensive along the northern boundary. Nevertheless, the shadow analysis for March 20 th and September 22 nd (GMT and BST, respectively), gives some impression of the extent of shadow which would extend over the back gardens of the houses on Old Lucan Road. Apart from the overshadowing of these back gardens, the massing of the development almost directly on the property boundary would be visually obtrusive when seen from these houses. The north facing green wall, although giving a natural finish, would be very dark. I consider that the proposed development would be seriously injurious to the amenities of these adjoining houses.

The houses on the adjoining sites to the north are located in an area zoned Objective A “to protect and/or improve residential amenity” , under the South Dublin County Development Plan, 2004-2010. The northern part of the appeal site is thus in a transitional area. Section 10.1.1 of the development plan advises that in such areas it is important to avoid abrupt transitions in scale and use in the boundary areas of adjoining land uses. Developments which would be unduly detrimental to the amenities of the more environmentally sensitive zone should be avoided. It gives the example that in zones abutting residential areas, particular attention must be paid to the use,

PL06S.234178 An Bord Pleanála Page 26 of 36 design, scale and density of development proposals in order to protect the amenities of these residential properties.

18.5 Retail

Following the original submission, the planning authority sought further information from the applicant. In its request for further information, the planning authority noted that the main anchor store was considered excessive, having regard to the Local Centre zoning of the site and the traffic that such a large supermarket would generate. The applicant was requested to submit revised structural drawings showing a reduction in the retail area of the large anchor unit. In response, the size of the anchor unit was reduced from 3,158 square metres to 1,535 square metres gross floor area. The planner’s report considered that the revised layout and reduced floor space represented a neighbourhood shop and accorded with the Local Centre zoning objective and the provisions of the Retail Strategy for the Greater Dublin Area, 2008-2016. The planner quotes the latter, which refers to neighbourhood centres as generally providing for one supermarket or discount food store ranging in size from 1,000 to 2,500 square metres… to create a focus for the local population. However, in this regard, I note that there is already a discount food store, namely, Aldi, to the west of the appeal site and somewhat off centre from the village, but nevertheless located within the same zoning objective.

The third party appellants submit that the proposed development would be more akin to a “major sales outlet” as defined in the county development plan. As set out in the Retail Strategy for the Greater Dublin Area, it is submitted that the proposed development would be more appropriate to a Level 3 centre, rather than a Level 4 local centre. Having regard to the existence of the discount food store and the fact that the proposed development would be reliant on a catchment within a 15 minute drive time, I consider that the proposed supermarket is still overlarge and inappropriate at this location.

18.6 Offices

As noted previously, only offices of less than 100 square metres are permitted in principle under the Local Centre zoning objective. Offices of 100 square metres to 1,000 square metres are open for consideration and those of more than 1,000 square metres are not permitted. Offices of over 1,000 square metres are only permitted in areas zoned Town Centre or County Town, two “steps” up from the Local Centre zoning objective, and in Enterprise and Employment zones. Although the county development plan contains the proviso at Section 10.1.4 that uses which are not permitted are, except in exceptional circumstances, as determined by the planning authority, not acceptable, I do not consider that the applicant’s interpretation that this should apply in the present case is correct. Without any further definition of exceptional circumstances, the “not permitted” category would be at risk of becoming meaningless. I consider that the office component of the proposed development, 3,630 square metres on the Printworld part of the site and 655 square metres at first floor level on the main part of the site, is greatly in

PL06S.234178 An Bord Pleanála Page 27 of 36 excess of that permitted under the Local Centre zoning objective. Again, I consider that the material contravention procedure should have been invoked, before the planning authority decided to grant permission for this element of the proposed development.

18.7 Apart-Hotel

At the western end of the main part of the site, currently occupied by Palmerstown Motors and Prestige Car and Van Rentals and the western extremity of the former Vincent Byrne site, it is intended to construct an apart- hotel at second, third, fourth and fifth floor levels. Apart from the central open space enclosed by the three wings of the apart-hotel and common rooms at each floor level, some of them doubling as lift and stairs lobbies, there would be no communal facilities to serve the apartments in this part of the development. The apartments would be of two different types, varying only in width. They would contain a double bedroom, and open plan kitchenette and a shower room and toilet. They would lack any form of private open space, in terms of a balcony. Should the residents wish to avail of a dining room or breakfast room, it would be necessary to use the restaurant or café at ground level, at least two floors below.

Some of the appellants question the need for an apart-hotel having regard to the other hotels in the general area. Should the apart-hotel prove unviable, it is not immediately obvious how it could be converted into apartments of an adequate standard. While this is a concern, it could almost equally apply to any use element of a proposed development, where the existence of a demand might be in doubt. I do not consider that a refusal on this basis would be warranted.

18.8 Traffic Impact

When this application was originally lodged with the planning authority, it received a letter from the National Roads Authority noting that the applicant’s transport assessment identified that the existing N4/Kennelsfort Road junction is currently operating at over capacity and that traffic generated by the proposed development would exacerbate this situation. While the possibility of grade separating the junction to improve capacity was discussed in the report, there was no firm commitment for its delivery by either the applicant or others. The NRA therefore considered that the development proposals were premature pending determination of road upgrade proposals for the area.

The planning authority’s Road’s Section noted that the NRA consultants, WSP, are in the process of assessing the provision of a grade separated junction between the N4 and Kennelsfort Road. The timescale for the project is uncertain. However, it noted that the setbacks of the buildings from the N4 boundary were inadequate and would compromise the provision of this grade separation. It recommended that the development needed to be setback at least 5 metres from the road boundary, particularly at the eastern end of the site, so as not to compromise the future provision of a grade separated junction. This was required as no detailed design had been done for this grade

PL06S.234178 An Bord Pleanála Page 28 of 36 separation. These requirements were reflected in the planning authority’s request for further information.

In response to the request for further information, the applicant complied with the requirement for a greater setback from the N4. This was acceptable to the planning authority’s Roads Section. A second letter was received from the National Roads Authority in which it recommended that in the event of permission being granted, that a condition should be attached requiring the implementation of the junction improvements at the N4/Kennelsfort Road signalised junction, as described in the applicant’s submission for further information.

Having regard to the foregoing, and the reductions in the proposed development at further information stage and the amended traffic assessment submitted in response to the planning authority’s request for further information, I consider that the proposed development should function satisfactorily in terms of traffic.

18.9 The One-way System

The Aecom Proposed Junction Upgrade Drawing No. 003, included in the transport assessment submitted as further information, shows an ambiguously marked no entry point about 26 metres in from the new entrance onto Kennelsfort Road Lower. The intention should be that there would be no east- bound traffic beyond that point and the implication is that to the west of that point the spine road would be two-way. Two-way traffic would conflict with the arrangement of the west-bound exit ramp from the basement car parking area. East-bound traffic would meet traffic emerging from the car park head- on and, in the event of avoiding this, would then have to negotiate a chicane which would clearly favour oncoming traffic. Should the Board be disposed to grant permission for this development, I consider that a condition should be imposed requiring that the internal spine road should be one-way, only, west- bound, up to a point in line with the eastern boundary of the filling station on the adjoining site to the southwest. (It is essential that the Printworld part of the site be two-way to discourage parents leaving children to the crèche from parking on the Old Lucan Road).

18.10 The Green Wall

Item 16 of the planning authority’s request for further information sought details regarding the proposed green living wall to the front and rear facades of the development, namely, the percentage of coverage of each section of the green wall at planting time, the anticipated time scale for 100% coverage, details of the quality of the finish behind the green wall and details of any proposals to prevent people climbing the outside grid of wires supporting the green wall, together with details of the impact on the growth of climbers if the lower level horizontal wires were to be omitted. The applicant responded that the green wall would be planted at various locations along the ground floor level and would be supported by planting at the upper podium level in addition to the roof level, from which plants would grow downwards. At the time of

PL06S.234178 An Bord Pleanála Page 29 of 36 planting about 15% of the surface would be covered. This would reach 60- 70% in 5-10 years, with 100% coverage shortly thereafter. Behind the green wall, the elevation would be finished in a textured concrete to replicate a brick cover and to provide grip for the climbers to attach themselves. The wiring system to support the climbers would be light weight and insufficient to support the weight of a human being, adult or juvenile. There would be no rigid frame for people to climb on.

The planner’s report expresses serious reservations in relation to the viability of the green wall, particularly having regard to the area available for the planting and the proposed planter boxes for the climbers. The planner considered that the 100% site coverage shortly after 10 years was highly ambitious and unrealistic. She noted the intention, shown on Drawing No. 008-PALM-7, to place planters one metre wide at 12 metre intervals along the N4 road frontage. She noted the glazing or light boxes along this frontage, which might even make this impossible. She considered that planting at 12 metre intervals would not be sufficient to create any significant coverage in an acceptable period of time. Alternatively, if the planting was located at more appropriate distances she felt it could break up the light boxes too much, giving them a disjointed and incoherent appearance. She put forward three alternative possibilities, one of which, the use of wall mounted planting mats fed through a drip irrigation system, is reflected in the second condition of the planning authority’s decision.

The first party appeal questions the suitability of this system in the Irish climate and at this exposed site. The applicant favours a wire rope and trained climber system. With the capillary matting system, there would be problems with durability, ease of maintenance, suitability and costs, both capital and ongoing. Even if successful initially, it would require total replacement in twenty to thirty years. The first party appeal acknowledges that coverage would not be 100% initially, but alleges that there are similar types of systems around Dublin and, in particular, Georgian Dublin.

I am unclear as to the relevance or veracity of the similar types of systems in Dublin. In my view, the growing of climbers on the walls of buildings in the Georgian area of Dublin, whether these buildings are Georgian or modern, is relatively unusual. They do not use a wire rope and trained climber system, but rather, the climbers attach directly to the walls. Even where the first impression is of successful wall cover, closer examination shows that this is rarely fully the case. In any case, the climber favoured in Georgian Dublin is Virginia creeper which is deciduous and provides no cover, whatsoever, for a considerable portion of the year. It appears that it is intended that the lightweight wire rope system is intended to give additional support to the climbers, as it is also intended to have a textured concrete finish beneath this wiring which would replicate a brick cover and provide grip for the climbers to attach themselves to. However, the details of the finish shown in the photograph at Figure 2.4 of the Planning Report, submitted as part of the applicant's response to the planning authority’s request for further information, shows a highly utilitarian finish. If the proposed planting system was even partly to fail, the long term exposure of this type of finish over a distance of

PL06S.234178 An Bord Pleanála Page 30 of 36 180 metres and a minimum height of 9.63 metres along the N4 Lucan Road would be a visual disaster. I consider that the proposed wall cover system is unduly experimental in its nature for such an extensive and visually prominent application.

18.11 The Allotments

It is intended that a substantial portion of the amenity open space for the proposed apartments would be in the form of allotments. These are shown between Blocks A and B at the northern end of the main part of the site, between Blocks B and C at the northern end of the main part of the site and between Blocks C and D at the southern end of the main part of the site (see second floor plan on Drawing PALM-P-102N). The Landscape Maintenance Plan, submitted as further information, notes that every plot in the allotments would be allocated to a resident and must be maintained by them. The resident would be signed to a contract, to take satisfactory care of their plot under the agreed terms and conditions. The maintenance contractor would be responsible for the general upkeep of each allotment.

While there is a growing demand for allotments in the Dublin area, this is still comes from a very small minority. Some measure of the likely interest in allotment type gardening may be taken from the houses with large garden plots immediately surrounding the appeal site. About 20 houses on Old Lucan Road and Kennelsfort Road Lower are adjacent to the appeal site, yet only one of these appears to show any interest in such gardening as indicated by the presence of a small greenhouse to the rear of No. 3 Old Lucan Road. Allotments tend to be untidy places, with contrasting and often divisive approaches on adjoining plots. The extent of the role of the maintenance contractor in the general upkeep of each allotment is unclear, e.g. would it involve intervention, mediation or disciplinary action? I am not convinced of the practicality of this aspect of the proposed development.

18.12 Other Issues

I can find nothing to substantiate the claims that the appeal site was formerly wetlands or a quarry. The 25 inch Ordnance Survey map, surveyed in 1837 and revised in 1936/37 shows a stream and pond at the location of the main part of the site. The stream was at about 10º to the southern boundary of the site, entering it at a point about in line with the boundary between the former Vincent Byrne site and Palmerstown Motors and turning northwards into the pond, which was relatively small and centred on the position of the southernmost corner of the industrial building midway along the northern boundary of the site. There is no evidence of surrounding wetlands. The 1:1,000 Ordnance Survey map, surveyed in 1978, shows the appeal site as rough pasture.

On the necessity for an environmental impact statement, despite the wide ranging impacts of the proposed development, the proposed development is well below the threshold set out in the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001. I consider that the planning authority was justified in not

PL06S.234178 An Bord Pleanála Page 31 of 36 seeking an environmental impact statement. The original submission from the applicant to the planning authority shows that this issue was also considered by the applicant and, again, it was considered that the submission of an environmental impact statement was not warranted.

On the issue of car parking, while the provision of just 24 car parking spaces for 240 residential units in the apartments and apart-hotel (see Table 3.3 of the Aecom report submitted with the further information) might seem grossly inadequate, this level of provision reflects the overlapping uses of the car parking spaces and also a 30% reduction from development plan standards having regard to the good public transport links at the site. This was accepted by the planning authority’s Roads Section, as was the total provision of 418 spaces. I consider that the car parking provision should be adequate.

I note the reason for refusal of permission for a 62 bedroom hotel on the site diagonally opposite the appeal site on Kennelsfort Road Lower on the basis, inter alia, of the lack of capacity in the foul drainage network downstream of the site. This refusal, under the planning authority’s Reg. Ref. SD04A/0982 issued on 24 th February 2005. Despite this, in the present case, the planning authority’s Environmental Services section had no fundamental objection to the proposed development.

In relation to the impact of the proposed development on the adjoining stonecutters, I accept the response on behalf of the applicant. The impact on this adjoining site, from the point of view of access and egress should be acceptable. It is difficult to see, however, that it would be possible to continue to park directly outside this site.

I consider that the concerns, raised by the owner of the adjoining steelworks, that the occasional noises which arise from the steelworks would be incompatible with the proposed crèche and residential development to be overstated. In the event that the proposed development interfered with the path of signals to and from the telecommunications structures on the steelworks site, I consider that this would be a civil matter.

18.13 The First Party Appeal

In relation to condition 1(c) of the planning authority’s decision, requiring the omission of four bedrooms in the apart-hotel, I accept the submission on behalf of the applicant that this would have no impact on the mass of the building. I also accept that the properties directly to the north of this section of the proposed development, are in fact commercial properties, namely the steelworks. I consider that this condition should be omitted.

In relation to condition 2(a) of the planning authority’s decision, requiring the redesign of the green wall on the southern facade, I have already expressed my views in relation to the risks associated with the planting of this wall. However, on balance, I consider that the amended proposal put forward by the applicant in the first party appeal has a greater chance of success and longevity in the context of the environment of the appeal site, than that required by the

PL06S.234178 An Bord Pleanála Page 32 of 36 planning authority. Should the Board decide to grant permission for this development, I consider that the amended wording suggested in the first party appeal is generally acceptable. However, I consider that the wall behind the green wall should be required to be upgraded from the textured concrete proposed. An appropriate rewording of condition 2(a) would be as follows:-

“The details of the proposed “green wall” on the southern elevation shall be agreed in writing with the planning authority, prior to commencement of construction. These details shall include the upgrading of the wall immediately behind the green wall from the textured concrete specified in the further information submission received by the planning authority on the 8 th day of June, 2009, so as to ensure that the wall would have an acceptable appearance in the event of the failure of the planting. The proposed “green wall” shall be carefully selected, having regard to the on-site conditions. Any dispute in relation to this condition shall be referred to An Bord Pleanala for determination.”

In relation to condition 4(b) of the planning authority’s decision, requiring the employment of a qualified ecologist, with experience in successful biodiversity enhancement projects, I concur generally with the views expressed in the appeal. I consider that the planning authority’s condition 4(a) is generally sufficient. However, I consider that it should be modified to include a reference to a suitably qualified ecologist acceptable to the planning authority. While this addition could be accused of suffering from the same vagueness as the terminology “enhanced biodiversity” referred to in the appeal, it would at least put the applicant on notice that the planning authority would be likely to require that the details should be prepared by a person with a proven record of achievement. I consider that condition 4(a) should be reworded as follows:-

“Details, prepared by a suitably qualified ecologist, acceptable to the planning authority, regarding the type and design of green roof construction proposed and how it would offer the maximum benefit to biodiversity enhancement measures shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the planning authority, prior to commencement of any works on the development. This shall include details of the locations, feeding, planting, maintenance and watering of the green roofs. The planting shall be of native species, as far as possible.”

The precise intention of condition 5(e) of the planning authority’s decision is unclear. Condition 5(b) which refers to “retail or commercial units” could indicate that the planning authority draws a distinction between the retail units and the other non-residential uses. However, condition 5(e) could also be taken to rule out any retail use. I consider that the uses are adequately specified in the lodged documentation and that condition 5(e) is superfluous and should be omitted.

In relation to condition 6(a) of the planning authority’s decision, requiring that a shop front design scheme should be submitted prior to commencement of

PL06S.234178 An Bord Pleanála Page 33 of 36 development, I cannot agree with the applicant that this condition is overly prescriptive. It sets parameters for the derivation of a unified theme throughout the proposed development. I consider this to be important for a development which is undertaken as a single entity, as distinct from areas, such as Palmerstown village, which develop over time on a more ad hoc basis. I consider that this condition should be retained.

19.0 CONCLUSION

19.1 In conclusion, I consider it is desirable to achieve the redevelopment of the former Vincent Byrne, builders providers site at the corner of the N4 Lucan Road and Kennelsfort Road Lower. The assembly of this site, together with the adjoining sites of Palmerstown Motors, Prestige Car and Van Rentals and the Printworld site allows the provision of a through road with an entrance, only, from Kennelsfort Road Lower, the lack of which appears to have been an issue with a previous planning application, subsequently withdrawn, on the Vincent Byrne site. The development, as proposed, particularly the part bounding the N4 Lucan Road would seem likely to achieve a high architectural standard even though certain aspects of the proposed development, in particular, the green walls and the allotments might be regarded as being somewhat experimental in nature. However, the redevelopment of these amalgamated sites should not be at any cost. In my view, the proposed development constitutes a gross overdevelopment of this site. It would be massively out of scale and character with the surrounding development and in particular, with the long standing houses and back gardens on the adjoining sites to the north.

19.2 I do not fully agree with the conclusion reached in the planner's report that the proposed development “offers an innovative architectural solution to a difficult urban problem to address the scale of a large dual carriageway road at an important gateway to the city, whilst also addressing a local village setting.” In my view, the proposed development fails to strike an appropriate balance between the dual carriageway and the local village setting. I am not convinced that this is an important gateway to the city. The planner's report goes on to note that Palmerstown Village underperforms due to its severance from its natural hinterland by the M50, the N4 and the Liffey Valley Amenity and that the problem is increased by the nearby presence of the Liffey Valley Shopping Centre. In my view, the severance of Palmerstown Village from its original hinterland is now an historic fact. The severed area consists primarily of long standing residential use, some limited industrial development in the vicinity of the appeal site, the Stewarts Hospital complex and the Waterstown Park – Liffey Valley Park. It is incorrect to attempt to redress the perceived underperformance of the village by creating a development which draws into the village unrelated car-borne customers. In my view, the centre of gravity of the former hinterland of Palmerstown Village has shifted southwards to the far side of the N4 Lucan Road.

19.3 I disagree with the contention, in the first schedule of the planning authority’s decision, that the proposed development accords with the policies and

PL06S.234178 An Bord Pleanála Page 34 of 36 objectives of the planning authority, as set out in its development plan. It appears that this site calls for a redevelopment which should be primarily residential. Architecturally, there is case for a higher building adjacent to the N4, subject to the maximum of five storeys specified in the development plan, but the redevelopment of the northern part of the Vincent Byrne site needs to be greatly reduced, taking much greater cognisance of the planning authority’s policy in relation to transitional zones. I can see little justification for the office content of the proposed development, which is seriously at variance with the maximum of 100 square metres specified in the development plan.

20.0 RECOMMENDATION

20.1 Having regard to the foregoing, I recommend that the planning authority’s decision be reversed in this instance and that permission be refused for this development for the reasons and considerations set out below.

REASONS AND CONSIDERATIONS

1. The proposed development would be located in an area zoned Objective LC – “to protect, provide for and/or improve local centre facilities”, under the South Dublin County Development Plan, 2004- 2010. This zoning objective is considered to be reasonable. Within the development plan, local centres are noted to typically comprise a parade of convenience stores, the occasional lower order comparison outlet and a limited range of service outlets. Their primary purpose is to provide a range of convenient retail outlets and services for the local population (Section 6.3.8.ii). The proposed development, by reason of its intensity and its excessive height, mass and site coverage would represent a serious overdevelopment of its site which would be out of scale and character with the surrounding development. The proposed development would, therefore, be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

2. The proposed development by reason of its excessive height in close proximity to the boundaries of the houses on Old Lucan Road, on the adjoining sites to the north, would seriously injure the amenities of these houses through overshadowing and visual obtrusiveness. The proposed development would, therefore, be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

3. The proposed development would be located in an area zoned Objective LC – “to protect, provide for and/or improve local centre facilities” under the South Dublin County Development Plan, 2004- 2010. Under this zoning objective, offices greater than 1,000 square metres are not permitted. The proposed development would, therefore, contravene materially the current development plan for the area and would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

PL06S.234178 An Bord Pleanála Page 35 of 36

4. The Board is not satisfied, on the basis of the documentation lodged with the application and the appeal, that the proposed green walls, which are an essential component of the external finish of the proposed development, would establish successfully and would provide a long term uniform treatment to those elevations of the building facing towards the N4 Lucan Road and towards the rears of the houses on Old Lucan Road, as well as the eastern elevation of the office building on the Printworld section of the site. In the event of the failure of these green walls, it is considered that the proposed development would seriously injure the visual amenities of the area.

______Andrew C. Boyle Senior Planning Inspector 27 th October, 2009 cr

PL06S.234178 An Bord Pleanála Page 36 of 36