Re: Re: gaiety centre

Home Forums Ireland gaiety centre Re: Re: gaiety centre


I hadn’t intended coming back into this thread, but since the first image posted above throws a different light on the original 7-storey development, I’d like to clear up some of the rubbish that was written about An Taisce & its taking of the appeal against it early in this thread.

For example these three comments posted by the Wejcherts architect:

@graham dwyer wrote:

Dublin City Council…had been consulted all the way, there was even a presentation to An Taisce!

The “presentation” he refers to was not a pre-planning discussion as is implied, but a requested meeting after the appeal had been lodged, to try’n persuade An T to withdraw its appeal.

@graham dwyer wrote:

We should have been knocking down that brown depressing brick monstrosity by now! [if An Taisce hadn’t appealed]

Actually 3 parties appealed the scheme (listed in last post by me, above),

@graham dwyer wrote:

Believe me, Dublin City Council wrote a glowing report on the scheme

The DCC planner’s report on the scheme was a joke! It said that the City Architect considers that “having regard to the sensitive location of the development adjoining the Gaiety, a protected structure, it is acknowledged that there is a difference of scale. However because of the uniqueness of the design it is considered the two could cohabit without detrimental impact on the protected structure”. So screw the protected structure legislation and the amenity and overshadowing of surrounding residents and properties because the C.A. likes the “uniqueness of the design”? – absolutely outrageous!! And granting permission for this wouldn’t be the first blunder the C.A. has made (cue kiosks, for one).
If that report is described as “glowing”, how would the An Bord Pleanala planner’s report with the decision to refuse permission be described? It said:

“much of the applicant’s submissions [by Wejcherts] relate to the quality of the design of the proposed development”, but the planner says “In my opinion the substantive issue in this appeal is not one of design…but rather that the height, bulk, scale and extent of the proposed development… on the restricted site…would constitute serious overdevelopment…and would be contrary to the density and plot ratio provisions of the Development Plan…and as such the proposed development would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area…”

As well, there are some gems of contradiction to be found quoted in the report. Like where the residents of the apartment at No 7 Chatham St in their appeal said the proposed development would present “rising blocks of blank-walled stepped buildings” to their amenity, the architects’ planning application report says “it has been assessed that a marginal reduction of access to sunlight and daylight at the rear (south facing) elevation of the dwellings is likely to arise” 😀

The full report is worth a look for anyone who made comments on this thread (ref. PL29S.205325):

Anyway, after being granted by DCC, the revised 5-storey proposal has just been appealed again (Ref. PL29S.209800) by two parties – the residents again, who say the scale of the development “remains overwhelming” – and by Wejcherts themselves (in conjunction with a planning firm), who are appealing against a condition in the grant that the 2nd floor projection in the façade shall be omitted (so much for An T delaying developments by appealing 🙂 ).

Latest News