Re: Re: Should the Clarence Hotel redevelopment get permission?
Home › Forums › Ireland › Should the Clarence Hotel redevelopment get permission? › Re: Re: Should the Clarence Hotel redevelopment get permission?
Sorry to inject a moment of levity, but word of Archiseek’s black mood has spread beyond the confines of this forum :p
Didn’t you see the name of that poster over there? The circle is smaller than you think! 😉
I’m really at a loss to understand this one. I’m sitting here – cocoa, pipe and slippers all present and correct – with the Inspector’s Report and the Board’s Decision, trying to get a handle on their reasoning, but it’s not falling into place. I don’t think the Board has been wicked, tricksy and false, I’m saying it’s made the wrong decision.
*** *** ***
The Board considered that the measures proposed for the conservation and re-use of the historic fabric of the protected structures, in particular, the design and conservation strategy in relation to all the accommodation addressing Wellington Quay, together with the unique design features visible above the historic parapet level, would ensure that the integrity of the Liffey Quays Conservation Area would not be undermined…
…having regard to the policies of the development plan, which include policies to encourage the protection of the existing use of premises listed in the Record of Protected Structures, the Board considered that the development which proposed the continuance of hotel use on the site would conserve an intrinsic aspect of the special social interest of the premises and would not materially contravene the development plan.
This is what passes for the grounds for a decision these days? It seems one aspect (use) of one category (social) is sufficient to trump the other conservation considerations. And flying saucers on the roof don’t undermine the integrity of a conservation area. Glad to have that clarified.
Also, I’m having trouble finding the relevant policy re continuance of use. Any thoughts?
Would it be H6?
Dublin City Council actively encourages uses which are compatible with the character of protected structures. In certain cases, the Planning Authority may relax site zoning restrictions in order to secure the preservation and restoration of the buildings. These restrictions, including site development standards, may be relaxed if the protected structure is being restored to the highest standard, the special interest, character and setting of the building is protected and the use and development is consistent with conservation policies and the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
Looks like an awful stretch of logic. In fact, H6 seems to say the opposite- that top drawer conservation merits a few concessions in other areas.
While I have the page of the DCDP open I may as well stick a couple more up. For balance, like.
It is the policy of Dublin City Council to protect and enhance the character and historic fabric of conservation areas in the control of development.
It is the policy of Dublin City Council that new buildings in conservation areas should complement the character of the existing architecture in design, materials and scale.
It is the policy of Dublin City Council to protect and reinforce the important civic design character of Dublin’s quays, which are designated a conservation area and infill development should complement the character of the quays in terms of context, scale and design.
Still, it’ll be a welcome shot in the arm for economy.