Re: SeÃ¡n Dunne – Hypocrite Supreme
SeÃ¡n Dunne, Hypocrite Supreme – he opposes a relatively modest scheme located for guess where, indeed – Not In My Back Yard!
Only about 1000 metres as the crow flies from his Jury’s site… C’mon SeÃ¡n get off it – are you for real, or just a total cunt?
Down with these anti-development sorts :p
For the record I hope they get theirs – and that he doesn’t get his 🙂
From Saturdays Irish Times –
Dunne letter opposes site scheme for Ballsbridge
FRANK McDONALD, Environment Editor
A MEMBER OF developer SeÃ¡n Dunne’s family has objected to plans for a housing scheme at the rear of his home on Shrewsbury Road in Ballsbridge – using some arguments similar to those made by appellants against plans for the Jurys-Berkeley Court hotel sites.
In a letter to Dublin City Council, planning consultant Feargall Kenny identifies his client as John Dunne of “Ouragh”, Shrewsbury Road. Mr Dunne has a son called John, but it was unclear yesterday whether the objection was his own or his father’s initiative.
The Dunne family was not available for comment.
SeÃ¡n Dunne, who lives in “Ouragh” which he built on a site he bought in 1999 for â‚¬3.8 million, strongly opposed previous plans by O’Malley Homes and Developments Ltd to redevelop the former Chester Beatty Library site, which it purchased in 1998 for â‚¬9 million.
Along with fellow Shrewsbury Road resident Stephen MacKenzie, he appealed three times to An Bord PleanÃ¡la and also took High Court actions against the board over its decisions to grant permission.
Last December, the court dismissed their objections.
Due to the uncertainty caused by these lengthy judicial review proceedings, the developers halted demolition of buildings on the one-acre site in 2005, having already demolished the former library. At present, only the caretaker’s lodge is still standing.
O’Malley’s latest scheme for the partly wooded site, designed by architects McCrossan O’Rourke Manning, is for seven neo-Edwardian three-storey houses in two blocks, with railed front and rear gardens, a landscaped open space and basement car parking.
In his letter on Mr Dunne’s behalf, Feargall Kenny says: “Our client and his family live adjacent to the proposed development and, accordingly, they have a particular interest in any proposals which may represent a threat to their established residential amenities.”
Although the letter makes clear that Mr Dunne “does not object to the principle of the redevelopment of this site”, he regards the latest scheme as “over-developed”, saying it would “detract from the character and quality” of a designated residential conservation area.
“Our client considers that by reason of mass, scale and density the three-storey over basement terraced housing blocks would stand out in this conservation area characterised by detached and semi-detached single-family period residential homes.”
He claims O’Malley is “pursuing a strategy to stealthily double the density of the site by submitting new planning applications (this is the seventh such application in eight years) in an effort to increase the permitted floor area from 1,564 sq metres . . . to 2,782 sq metres”.
Manahan Planners, acting for the developers, say the latest scheme proposes seven houses in lieu of seven apartments in a three-storey flat-roofed block previously permitted, while the site coverage of 20 per cent is slightly less than under the earlier (2005) plan.
Mr Kenny’s letter says Shrewsbury Road “is recognised as a unique Dublin example of Edwardian urban design and architecture. The area is an important element of Dublin’s weave and is recognised as such by its designation as a residential conservation area”.
Mr Dunne also takes exception to the applicants proposing to build closer to the rear of “Ouragh” than in a previously approved scheme.
The latest separation distance would be 28 metres (over 92 feet), which he sees as “further proof of creeping over-development”.
Noting that there are a number of other “backland sites” in the area, Mr Kenny’s letter warns: “If the current proposal is granted permission, it will set a precedent for further such developments with the eventual total destruction of the [Shrewsbury Road] conservation area.”
Another complaint is that the number of parking spaces – two for each of the seven houses and 13 for visitors, all at basement level – is inadequate. Given the “high level of car ownership in the area”, the letter says four spaces per house “may not be unreasonable”.
Michael Maughan, chairman of Shrewsbury Road Residents Association, has also objected to the scheme on behalf of the association, saying it would be “seriously injurious” to the character of an area that “reflects an era of gracious living from a bygone age”.
Mr Maughan, founder of PR group Wilson Hartnell, is – in a private capacity – among 86 appellants supporting Mr Dunne’s scheme for the Jurys-Berkeley Court sites; he believes that the entire project, including its high-rise elements, would be a “positive step” for the Ballsbridge area.
Myles O’Malley, partner in O’Malley Homes, is one of the 40 appellants against Mr Dunne’s scheme. His planning consultant, Tony Manahan, says the two proposed 10-storey office blocks would “seriously injure the amenities” of their adjoining building, Shelbourne House.
A separate appeal has been lodged by the O’Malley family – Frank, Myles and Jason O’Malley – arguing that the scheme amounts to “over-development” of the hotel sites and the proposed 18-storey block on Shelbourne Road would dominate their homes at Carlton Mews.
Most of the other appellants, including An Taisce and 14 residents’ associations, complain that the height, scale and mass of Mr Dunne’s development would have a detrimental impact on the character of Ballsbridge and adjoining residential conservation areas.
Â© 2008 The Irish Times
Chester Beatty site
SeÃ¡n Dunne: trying to stop Ballsbridge development
2000 – An Bord PleanÃ¡la refuses planning permission for a 13-unit apartment development on the former Chester Beatty Library site.
2001 – The appeals board grants permission for an apartment building on the site, but reduces the number of units from 10 to seven.
2003 – The board grants permission for a revised scheme, involving a specially designed seven-unit apartment block.
2005 – The board rejects fresh appeals by SeÃ¡n Dunne and Stephen MacKenzie and approves a further revised scheme.
2005 – Demolition work on the site is halted by O’Malley Homes after Mr Dunne and Mr MacKenzie initiate judicial review proceedings.
2006 – O’Malley Homes gets a new permission, but this is also subject to a High Court action by Mr Dunne and Mr MacKenzie.
2006 – Both Dublin City Council and the appeals board refuse permission for a revised scheme increasing the height to four storeys.
2007 – The High Court rejects the judicial review case, confirming An Bord PleanÃ¡la’s decision to grant approval for the 2005 scheme.
Â© 2008 The Irish Times