Palmerston Park (Grianblah)

[altotude]

Work seems to have begun in earnest today; portakabins on site etc.

Passed by around 10 this morning and there were already two large piles of rubble on the flat roof to the front of the house ... all doors removed and lying outside and the sound of destruction filling the air.

[ctesiphon]

Did they actually get a confirmed planning permission yet, or was it only a decision to grant? i.e. has the period for appeals to ABP passed?
If it's only a decision ot grant rather than a confirmed grant, then they are breaking the rules by beginning work too soon. Echoes of the City West debacle (in miniature) where Jim Mansfield 'got the nod' to go ahead with the work before the 5 week appeal period was finished.
If the 5 weeks isn't up, you should tell DCC about this as the works haven't been sanctioned. That's if you wanted to appeal. If you''ve given up at this stage, then it's still illegal, and cheeky too, but to draw attention to it for the sake of it might seem petty. Still, from little acorns mighty oaks grow...

[altotude]

I have given up on it totally ... Very high hoardings have gone up around the site so it's quite difficult to tell what's going on in there. It seems that at this stage all the roof is gone anyway. Hopefully at least the replacement will be nice ... I'll keep an eye out and post some photos once the construction is getting somewhere.

Incidentally, does anyone know anything about a nearby mews house at the corner of Palmerston Lane (at the back of the last house on the flat end of P. Park)? It was completed last year, light coloured Ranelagh MD School type brick (don't know what it is exactly). Anyway, I've always been curious when passing to know what the inside is like (e.g. perhaps like Boyd Cody's Richmond Place house). Would be too much to hope for pics on the architects website maybe.

[publicrealm]

I have given up on it totally ... Very high hoardings have gone up around the site so it's quite difficult to tell what's going on in there. It seems that at this stage all the roof is gone anyway. Hopefully at least the replacement will be nice ... I'll keep an eye out and post some photos once the construction is getting somewhere.

.

I passed the site today and about 90% has been demolished.

The statutory notices referred to 'a small amount of demolition'.

I took some pics but at just under 500kb they are too big to upload. I don't think I have any software to reduce the size as I am posting from home.

I will try to resolve on Monday but, in the meantime, any views on the non-compliance with the statutory notices?

[publicrealm]

There ya go (gone!)

[phil]

Am I seeing that image correctly? Is there only a small amount of the front of the house remaining?

[ctesiphon]

Can I take it that the lovely Japanese-inspired library didn't survive the reordering?:rolleyes:

It looks like they got what they wanted - a cleared site - as I presumed they would. But can one really complain in advance to a planning authority based on a hunch? they hardly have time to deal with the enforcement cases already on their books, never mind the ones that have yet to happen.

I wonder will they now go back for another application, deciding that they don't want a family home after all but wish to apply for a 4-storey apartment building.

Sure I have views on the non-compliance with statutory notices, but what does it matter?

PS Thomond Park- in one of your earlier posts in this thread you quoted a section of the DCC Dev Plan regarding protection measures for non-Protected Structures, then you edited your message to remove the salient facts. Any chance you could re-post the info in the interests of the common good? It is particularly relevant now in the light of this wholesale demolition- surely exactly the type of case this Dev Plan policy was designed to avoid?
Thanks in advance.

[publicrealm]

Phil and Ctesiphon,

The view is of the west gable wall and through it the interior of the house.

It appears that a part of the north front remains and that all of the east and south walls are gone, along with all of the internal walls and the roof (and the library, minstrel's gallery etc).

My understanding is that planning permission derives generally from the plans and particulars lodged but that even if the plans and particulars outline works which are not covered in the statutory notices then those omitted works do not benefit from the permission.

In this case the degree of demolition appears not to be adequately covered by the phrase (from the site notice) "The proposal requires a small amount of demolition". ??

[altotude]

I see there's an email address for planning enforcement on the DCC website.

Anyone know how that procedure works? E.g. are complaints treated as anonymous by DCC and are they bound to investigate? (I note earlier comments re backlog, etc.)

[altotude]

Sorry for above newbieness - I should have just read down the page on DCC's website and seen http://www.dublincity.ie/Images/guide_tcm35-8809.pdf

[publicrealm]

'A small amount of demolition means exactly what I choose it to mean, nothing more, nothing less...

1st July 2006

[phil]

That is an absolute disgrace. Can we do something about this?

Thanks,

Phil

[publicrealm]

That is an absolute disgrace. Can we do something about this?

Thanks,

Phil

I'm not sure to be honest.

I'm afraid I have very little confidence in the enforcement section of DCC. (In fact , on reflection, 'very little' overstates the level of my confidence.)

Anyway - I will put in a call tomorrow but won't be holding my breath

[GrahamH]

That is unbelievable!
Presumably the pictured wall is coming down too?!

Remembering the initial decision:

"The proposed development, by reason of the demolition of an existing habitable house, which contributes positively to the character of this residential conservation area, would be contrary to the Z2 objective in the Dublin City Development Plan. Moreover the proposal does not accord with principles of sustainable development and policies to discourage the demolition of habitable houses (Res 5). The proposal would render it difficult to resist similar development, which would cumulatively undermine the character and legibility of the Conservation Area irrevocably. It is therefore considered that the existing dwelling should be retained in accordance with policies H13 and H27 of the Dublin City Development Plan."

What a disgrace.
Good luck with your call publicrealm - impressive how involved you'd become in this, to the point of hauling a stepladder to the site perhaps.....?


Regarding the house itself, as alluded to earlier, it would appear to have been substantially altered already in spite of its relatively uniform appearance. All of this lower principal elevation would seem to be a late 1950s extension (with slates also added):



...wrapping round the side to the rear and rising to two storeys:




Take all of this away, including the small flat-roof extension in the middle above and the imitation boiler chimney to the front, and an almost entirely different (more conventional) c.1930 house emerges.
Not that what appear to be later additions didn't offer it an added charm - alas none of this matters anymore

[phil]

Graham, I would say that the small section of wall that is left will be retained as part of the new house in an effort to give the illusion that it is still the same house with new parts added.

Publicrealm, good luck with your efforts. Unfortunately it would seem that whoever owns the house has got away with its total destruction.

[publicrealm]

Thanks for all the encouragement folks

Made the call and submitted the written complaint this am.

On following up this afternoon was advised that site was visited before lunch (!). The person I spoke to was fully au fait with my complaint and very much on the ball (a different person carried out the site visit and I was not in contact with that person).

My understanding is that appropriate action will be taken by DCC immediately. Now I AM holding my breath - perhaps I was unfair in my earlier posts about lack of enforcement?

If action is taken my confidence in the system will be much restored.

Having said all of that I'm still not sure what can be achieved at this stage - poor Manning Robertson must be spinning?

[ctesiphon]

If action is taken my confidence in the system will be much restored.

Having said all of that I'm still not sure what can be achieved at this stage - poor Manning Robertson must be spinning?

Agreed that enforcement sometimes leaves a bit to be desired (and if you think DCC can be a bit lax, look beyond the Pale for some real horror stories), but great to see this being investigated so quickly. Maybe they were reading this thread and waiting for your call?;)

As to what can be achieved, this case might be a lost cause but if the details emerge about a flagrant breach of PP and positive action by DCC, it might discourage such a cavalier attitude from taking root elsewhere. Monkey see monkey do, and all that...

Whatever the outcome, well done for trying, and thanks.

[phil]

Yeah Publicrealm, well done for getting on the case about this. I would be interested to hear the outcome. As Ctesiphon already said, it is hard to know what exactly could be done at this stage. Maybe it should be rezoned as open space The wall could be retained as a warning to anyone thinking of doing this sort of thing again in the future.

[altotude]

I emailed a complaint to DCC last week; got confirmation today and they said they would keep me informed as to the progress of the case.

[altotude]

Just received a letter from DCC Planning Enforcement regarding "unauthorised development" - an enforcement notice was issued under section 154 of the Planning and Development Act 2000.

Mind you, it doesn't seem to have slowed them down.

[phil]

Thanks for that Altotude. What was done with the rubble from this site? Was the building completely smashed up, or was any effort made to keep the building materials intact?

[altotude]

I think the rubble's gone. Foundations are down and the walls are a few feet high already.

[publicrealm]

Just received a letter from DCC Planning Enforcement regarding "unauthorised development" - an enforcement notice was issued under section 154 of the Planning and Development Act 2000.

Mind you, it doesn't seem to have slowed them down.

Thanks for that altotude - your previous complaint is obviously why I got such an 'instant' response. I got the same letter as you re the Enforcement Notice - which was issued on the 10th July. In fairness to DCC this is an incredibly fast response time.

I'm not concerned by the completion of the footings (I have photographs!).

I expect that work has now ceased and I will continue to monitor. If they have not then the applicant will be very unwise and further submissions will be required.

The next step in the sad saga is probably an application for retention (of the unauthorised demolition). A second chance for the planners perhaps?

I await it with interest.

[publicrealm]

Aargh - double post.

[jimg]

Any update on this? I live just around the corner and as I passed tonight I made the effort of reading the posted planning notice. It's dated the 27th of July 2006 and it looks like an application to do what they've already started doing even though it is in complete breach of the original application; i.e. demolish nearly all of the existing structrure and build a "modern 2 story residence" and a separate garage.

Allotude and publicrealm, I want to file an official objection; what is the process? The notice makes the point that there is only five weeks to make a submission.