Palmerston Park (Grianblah)

There’s the most fantastic architecture round the Park (including the trees :)), but unfortunately unlike virtually every house within a squre mile of here, Grianblah (no 26) is not a Protected Structure…
How do planing authorities handle cases of architectural merit that aren’t PSs I wonder?

Have got got a picture altotude?

If it’s not a Protected Structure, or abutting a PS, then the owner can pretty much demolish at will. Have you checked the RPS of the Dublin City Council Development Plan? That should be your first port of call.
If they intend to replace a single dwelling with a single dwelling, there would be slim grounds for objection- injury to the character of the area or to the setting of a Protected Structure in the area would be one avenue, but it can difficult to prove.
Your best bet would be to engage a planning consultant if you feel very strongly, as they would be able to give you specific direction and advice. In the long run it can be worth the couple of hundred euros fee if it protects the value of your house or your area. Not knowing the particular property in question I can’t say much more than that.
You could also make an Observation on the application rather than the standard Objection- a chance to say what kind of development you’d find acceptable.
If you’re looking for info on the park, ‘Four Roads to Dublin: A History of Rathmines, Ranelagh, and Leeson Street’ by Deirdre Kelly might have something, or the local library.

EDIT: Cross post with Graham! 🙂

Good luck with it

This City needs to preserve as much early 20th century architecture of merit as possible given its scarcity based on the prevailing economic winds of the time. This proposal sounds opportunistic

The house is in the Arts and Crafts style and was (reputedly) designed by Manning Robertson, a distinguished town planner and architect who was one of the leading lights in Irish Architecture in the 20’s and 30’s and wrote several books on architecture and many articles in the journals of the time. He trained in London in the same practice as Lutyens.

The house was bought for just under 8million at auction. The planning application is accompanied by an architectural conservation report which suggests that the house has no architectural merit and is in such poor repair as to make its preservation impractical.

I visited it when it was being shown prior to auction and thought it very beautiful and well kept and it seemed to me to have a lot of architectural merit.

Money does not always equate with taste I suppose?

Do you know who prepared the conservation report, publicrealm?
However subjective taste may be, I would have thought architectural merit was a measure more objective. 😉

Yes, the report was prepared by a James O’ Connor (FRIAI).

No doubt an eminent architect and perfectly entitled to his opinion.

I do hope that the DCC planners don’t share it however and I certainly don’t. Decision will be due around mid Dec I think – but I wouldn’t be surprised if DCC asked for further info on the building to be demolished.

I have just learned that DCC has decided to refuse permission based on heritage and sustainability grounds.

Sounds like good news.
Thanks for that, publicrealm.

Hi Altotude,

They should refund your fee – the purpose of the fee is to cover the administrative costs associated with the consideration of the submission/observation. As you were out of time the PA were statutarily debarred from considering the submission/observation (art 29.3) and therefore the cost does not arise.

Regards,

Publicrealm

altotude-
publicrealm is right re the refund.
Also, I’m curious to know why you think they got the date wrong. Not that it matters as the decision suited you, but they rarely make mistakes like this in DCC. (It could matter if the applicant appeals to ABP as you’d be prevented from getting involved in the appeal process, though.)

Thomond Park-
Why the edit? Your post originally had some very useful info on the protection measures afforded to non Protected Structures and buildings not in Conservation Areas. Any chance of a reinstatement?

Grianblah hasn’t gone away you know! 🙂

Noticed a new site notice the other day – this time for an extension to original plus raising of part of the perimiter wall along the roadside.

I hope to view the file next week.

Checked the application today.

It is described as an application for extension and refurbishment.

Again stated that the house is not of architectural importance.

The proposed ‘extension’ is on all sides (n.s.e.and w.) of the existing house, which is effectively being demolished, with the interior being completely redesigned:( .

Closing date for submissions/observations April 6th.

You could concentrate your submission on your concerns as to the ‘architectural integrity of this building.

Paul any moves on DoCoMo?

Thomond Park

Yes – I do intend to do that (plus a few other things!)

I have attached a few images (at least I think I have:o ) and would be interested in views as to whether the building has any architectural merit?

Oops,

Sorry they are all sideways 😮

Architectural merit?
That double-height galleried hall is quite an unusual feature, it retains its original internal layout (has it been extended with a flat roof already?) and materials, good example of design of the period substantially intact. If the building is of sufficient quality (and as it contributes to the character of the area- the important bit of the previous determination) in the eyes of DCC to prevent demolition, then its character should be key in any new decision. Presumably a wraparound extension would detract from that?

Any pics or details of the proposed extension?

EDIT: That gallery affair looks most peculiar. In the first interior pic of the sitting room with the blue chairs you can see the shadow of stair treads / ladder rungs on the far wall- this steep stairs is just out of shot to the left in the dining room (?) pic where the gallery is visible at the top. Is there another way up? That’s hardly the only access. Or is it just an elaborate shelf- maybe formerly a library? Either way, it’s an unusual feature, as is the way the beams that support it meet each other- almost like Japanese joinery.
The whole thing is a bit Arts and Craftsy, Lutyens-ey, with a suspicion of Frank Lloyd Wright. Reminds me of a house in Fingal, near the back of the airport. And that one is a Protected Structure, afaik, though a bit bigger and with extensive formal grounds.

Could you relink the decision altotude? It doesn’t seem to be working.

I have jigged publicrealm’s pictures about – hope you don’t mind:

Almost by definition this house is quite rare, being a substantial early 20th century residence of distinctive design and character. Whether it is worthy of protection is for somebody who knows what they’re talking about to decide, but certainly it seems to have an element of architectural merit – or should that be historical merit, I’m not sure. Both it seems.

Why anybody would want to substantially alter such a time capsule of a building, of a certain architectural character if not quite distinction, let alone demolish it, I do not know.
What a shame 🙁

Sadly the proposal, although couched as an extension, is effectively a demolition.

In this regard the statutory notices were quite misleading as the claimed a small amount of demolition. In reality there is a tiny amount of retention and everything of value is being bulldozed. I was aware of this but chose not to pursue it.

I don’t blame the owner but I am genuinely astonished that his professional advisors (and architects in particular) would not point out that what he had bought was worth far more than what is proposed (although the proposal is well designed).

It is very sad. I didn’t object second time round because I felt that the new owner has certain rights and I had already alerted DCC (in an objection to the first application – with a separate copy to the Conservation Officer) of the obvious architectural and cultural significence of the structure. I had asked that it be added to the record of Protected Structures.

DCC has failed here (perhaps I have too but it is tiring and expensive to pursue these horrors).

Not a good outcome and I’m a bit depressed as I have just been reading the PVC windows thread.

Must get out more.:(

In the ‘Conservation / Restoration Report’ the architect, who seems to completely dismiss the building, says it “appears to be transitional between Edwardian and Art Deco but exhibits none of the vitues of either.” Does this dwelling fit into any particular style? I would have said it looks more ‘Arts and Crafts’ than anything else. It also reminds me of some early 20th century houses in Sussex, but I really don’ know for sure. Any professionals have any thoughts on this?

http://www.dublincity.ie/docimage/Temp/temp_doc_200605261044419531250.PDF

Agreed, Phil. My comment above (14th March) pretty much sums up my take on the merits of this (including the message header, which might have gone unnoticed- A curious fusion of the garden suburb and the prairie style).
Put it this way- Manning Robertson was a pretty knowledgeable man from what I can gather, so if there are stylistic references there they are presumably deliberate, and if there aren’t, then that would have been his design choice too.
What irks me is that the architect is dismissing this because it doesn’t fit neatly into any pre-existing categories (as he sees it). If, say, a record reviewer were to dismiss REM’s Chronic Town ep by saying ‘It falls chronologically between Talking Heads’ Fear of Music and U2’s Under a Blood Red Sky, without displaying any of the virtues of either’ they’d be laughed out of it. It reflects badly on the writer’s ability to determine merit in an objective way, in as much as such a thing is possible.
There’s a whole can of worms here about objective value vs. subjective taste, but I haven’t time to go into it. In essence, I’m not a fan of, say, nineteenth century run of the mill Gothic churches, but I can appreciate that they have an architectural heritage value that exists outside my personal preferences.

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 wrote:

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?

There ya go (gone!)

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

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.

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”. ??

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

1st July 2006

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

Thanks,

Phil

@phil wrote:

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 🙁

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 🙁

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.

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?

@publicrealm wrote:

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.

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.

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 wrote:

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.

Aargh – double post.

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.

publicrealm, excuse my ignorance regarding the planning process. But what exactly is going on here? They originally applied for permission to demolish the house and build something else but were refused. They then applied for and were granted permission to do some work which would involve a “small amount of demolition”. They went ahead and demolished practically the whole house – doing what they originally wanted to do. They did this in a sneaky way – by errecting 10 foot high hoarding around the site hoping nobody would notice. A few people (including yourself) noticed and complained to the council who must have inspected the site and judged that the demolishion did not have permission. So now they’re applying for the original permission again? If this is the case, then their actions make a complete mockery of the planning process.

@jimg wrote:

If this is the case, then their actions make a complete mockery of the planning process.

Yes, I’m afraid that is the case.

The question is what can the Planning Authority do about it?

Interestingly the argument being advanced by the applicant is that retention of the remaining walls (following the ‘small amount of demolition’) proved unsafe as they were unstable. In other words his proposal was never buildable.

If this is accepted as an argument then nothing is safe from demolition.

Anyway the Reg. Ref in DCC is 4303/06 and the last date for receipt of submissions is 30th August 06.

There is a very relevant case described in the Times today:

@http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/ireland/2006/0809/1154691538381.html wrote:

Property developer Fergal Gaughran has agreed to reconstruct a €3 million dormer bungalow that he bought in the Mount Merrion area of south Dublin and which was almost completely demolished without planning permission.

Mr Gaughran and his wife, Jane, of Holywell, Kilmacud Road Upper, Dublin, have consented in the Circuit Civil Court to “fully reconstruct the house at No 1, The Rise, Mount Merrion, Dublin, to its condition prior to the commencement of unauthorised demolition works”.

Carol O’Farrell, counsel for Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council, told Judge Jacqueline Linnane that the Gaughrans had consented to the order to reconstruct the house insofar as is practicable.

Mr Gaughran, managing director of the UK-based Gaughran Homes Ltd, bought the house at an auction in 2005 for a reported €3 million. Last March he was granted permission by An Bord Pleanála to remove a 16sq m extension to the house’s living-room at the rear of the property and enlarge the home at the front, side and rear.

In April, the council rejected a separate application to demolish the two-storey dormer dwelling and build a new five-bedroom one in its place.

In their decision they said the old structure was “in harmony” with its surroundings and added that “its demolition and replacement would neither protect nor improve the residential amenities of the area”.

Ms O’Farrell told the court that when council officials inspected the house on June 22nd they found it had been substantially demolished, leaving only one small corner section.

She told the judge that the Gaughrans had agreed to fully reconstruct the house to its condition prior to the demolition works save as to the extent of the modifications and alterations for which planning permission was granted.

© The Irish Times

Whilst I am slightly sceptical of the idea of ‘rebuilds’ I am glad to see this happen, as it shows that this sort of behaviour will not be tolerated. What do you think the process involved was? Did the council bring them to court? It seems to be a very similar situation to Grianblah, doesn’t it?

More on this in today’s Irish Times: http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/ireland/2006/0811/1154691577021.html

A builder who paid more than €7 million for a detached 1920s house in Palmerston Park and subsequently demolished most of it has sought planning permission from Dublin City Council to build a new house on the site.

The planning application was lodged by Felix Whelan, who owns Garland Homes, three weeks after he was served with an enforcement order by the council halting demolition work on the original house because it was in breach of an earlier permission.

According to a spokesman for the council, Mr Whelan had permission to build a large extension to the side and rear of the house on a half-acre site at the corner of Palmerston Park and Orchard Road.

This would have involved partial demolition of the house.

However, after local residents complained about the extent of the demolition work, planning enforcement officer Barry White inspected the site and found that only part of the ground-floor front wall was still standing.

Mr Whelan said the new house, designed by McCrossan O’Rourke Manning Architects, would be “in character” with the original house, Grianblah, which was built by Manning Robertson, a distinguished architect and town planner in Dublin during the 1920s and 1930s.

When it was put up for auction by Lisney estate agents in March 2005, the guide price was €3 million. With a floor area of 244 sq m (2,626 sq ft), the Arts and Crafts-style house was described as having a rambling layout with quirky interior details and secluded gardens.

Interesting…. cannot say I’m impressed by McCrossan O’Rourke – they must have known he didnt have permission to pull the whole thing down

there should be a mechanism that an architects registration board can smack them over the knuckles for this

similar to a rule in english football – this shoud qualify as bringing architecture practition into disrepute

why would someone want to go to the effort to demolish such a nice house ?

they were hardly going to replace it with something better…:)

Such Pessimism a Boyle… oh and at such a young age too!

This is supposed to be an architectural forum. Surely we all have enough confidence in McCrossan O’Rourke architects that it would be replaced by an even better piece of architecture.

I live in the area and I walk past this plot a few times a week. Personally I thought that the original house was already bastardised by the 1950 extensions and slates.

Pity you guys objected, I was looking forward to seeing what they’d build there!

Is that wrong????

@Jaypers wrote:

Pity you guys objected, I was looking forward to seeing what they’d build there!

Is that wrong????

It is always refreshing to see such a balanced and trusting post. Well done Jaypers.

Sadly the (most recent) application has been invalidated and you may have to wait a little while to see the new house.

I also see no reason why a new house would not be an improvement on what went before. The original building was an insipid, conservative structure. Looked like something a banker would live in. Reminiscent of the ugly mansions of Hampstead. I don’t agree with the comment that it was ‘Arts and Craftsy, Lutyens-ey, with a suspicion of Frank Lloyd Wright’. Of course the owner had no right to violate planning procedures.

Frank, I am not really sure of where you are seeing that resemblance between the building that has just been knocked the larger houses of Hampstead. Maybe there is some sort of resemblance between it and some of the Garden Suburb houses, but I don’t think it is anything like any of the larger houses in that area.

Yes, maybe it is more Hampstead Garden Suburb than Hampstead (I’m never quite sure where I am when I drive through North London). Here’s a web page with some photos from a street in HGS
http://www.hgs.org.uk/mystreet/turner%20close/index.html
I find them depressing. Middle England awful suburbia with money. They just seem so featureless and unhappy with their blank brick walls and empty surrounding lawns. No love.

Whilst I agree with you about the images you posted, I still don’t see the resemblance bar brick colouring and some stylistic commonalities. The Parmerston Park house was far more understated than any of those buildings.

DCC Decision is due tomorrow.

Interesting that they have apparently chosen not to invalidate (on the grounds that the Application effectively ‘pockets’ the gain made by virtue of the unauthorised development on site (i.e. the demolition)).

Could set an interesting legal precedent – with potential implications for Conservation Areas – but they are possible constrained by their earlier decision to sanction the demolition shown in the drawings – which did not accord with the public notices.

I believe they are wrong here – any Jesuits out there who would like to get to grips with this issue?:D

DCC has decided to grant permission.

Haven’t seen the grant so I don’t know if any conditions are attached – in any event I don’t suppose that the Applicant will worry too much about complying with them – or that DCC will bother too much either.

An interesting precedent for DCC Conservation Areas?

@publicrealm wrote:

Interesting that they have apparently chosen not to invalidate (on the grounds that the Application effectively ‘pockets’ the gain made by virtue of the unauthorised development on site (i.e. the demolition)).

Could set an interesting legal precedent – with potential implications for Conservation Areas – but they are possible constrained by their earlier decision to sanction the demolition shown in the drawings – which did not accord with the public notices.

Could you elaborate a bit, publicrealm?

Not sure I follow what you mean by ‘pocket’ re the invalidation, or what you think the implications for Cons Areas might be.

Once I understand the issues more clearly, I’ll gladly get all Jesuitical on this one.

Thanks.

@ctesiphon wrote:

Could you elaborate a bit, publicrealm?
Once I understand the issues more clearly, I’ll gladly get all Jesuitical on this one.

Thanks.

Very well my child.

Issue 1: DCC grant permission which allows works (in particular demolition) well in excess of those described in the public notices (which state ‘a small amount of demolition is required’). Question 1 – is this a valid permission? (Standard Condition 1 states “for the avoidance of doubt, this permission shall not be construed as approving any development shown on the plans, particulars and specifications, the nature and extent of which has not been adequately stated in the statutory public notices”)

Issue 2: Notwithstanding the validity of the permission the applicant then exceeded the amount of demolition permitted by demolishing most of the structure, including most of the areas he had undertaken to retain. This development was unauthorised and DCC served enforcement notice. The Applicant’s response was to apply for permission for the demolition of the remainder of the “partially demolished” structure, and to build the new house.

An application to demolish the remainder of the structure would have been in order – but in effect the application incorporated the unauthorised works (insofar as the demolition of the remainder was to be followed by the construction of the house- over the unauthorised works) without regard to the fact that they were unauthorised. S32(b) of the Act explicitly requires that permission for unauthorised development must be the subject of an application for retention (rather than an application for permission), with the appropriate (retention) application fee being paid. In other words, DCC has now granted permission for development which incorporates unauthorised development and which is the subject of enforcement action by DCC, and the applicant has made no attempt to regularise the situation. Question 2 – is the permission valid – insofar as it cannot be completed without unauthorised development.

I think a recitation of the Solemn Mysteries is called for myself.

@altotude wrote:

Anyone know what’s going on with Grianblah? Permission was granted ages ago and, despite the owner’s rush to get started the first time, nothing’s happened. Still boarded up, graffitied. Horrible eyesore on a beautiful park.

Altotude

The bizarre DCC decision was appealed by a neighbour – decision due in late April. Quite a good appeal imho.

http://www.pleanala.ie/data1/searchdetails.asp?id=7541844&caseno=220979

The decision on this is to be made tomorrow.

Probably just a hangover from the bank holiday weekend. 😉 Maybe give them a quick ring, though I’d imagine it will be any day now.

@altotude wrote:

Still not up but if you search on the Dublin City Planning records it says the appeal decision was to grant permission!!

Yes – granted – an interesting decision. http://www.pleanala.ie/REP/220/R220979.DOC

The Inspector considered the DCC permission invalid due to the unauthorised works but felt the Board had no power to refuse on this ground.

Seems to open up interesting possibilities for circumventing the planning system. Not a good precedent from ABP or DCC in my view.

Passing this corner recently, the results of this planning fiasco are plain to see.

Given the highish walls around this site, you’d hope that the impact would be minimised but there is now a very ugly blank modern “gable” overlooking the Orchard Road South wall. The new building is visible from the gate and over the wall from Palmerston Park and is horrendous. It easily matches the gombeen tastlessness of the once-off faux-Georgian piles dotting the countryside.

This is simply a shameful example of planning failure: the ignorance and arrogance of the owners – not even offering the pretence of caring about the planning procedures and the bored laziness and incompetence of the planning officials involved.

I am being bitter I know – and it is no compensation for the reality that the original distinctive and attractive period building is never coming back and the new pile-of-shite is there for the foreseeable future – but I feel a tiny flicker of satisfaction knowing that the owners’ laughable taste and ignorant behaviour is going to hurt them financially. Unlike hoping that the planning dept would actually do it’s job, I’d be more optimistic in this regard; suspect that if they ever try to sell, they’d be lucky to recover half of what they’ve spent on it; the morons have pissed away 3 or 4 million euro.

Agreed Jimg.

Such a pity really. The illegally demolished house had a trillion times more character and yet had the modesty and confidence to blend into its context.

The current pallatzo appropriates the view and jumps up and down on a bouncy castle. I suspect that the owner and the property are perfectly matched however. (Personally, I would be ashamed to be seen on the enormous balcony which dominates the view towards Palmerson Park.)

Incidentally, the modest amendment application mentioned by Altotude had a hidden element – the removal of one of the old (100 years?) tress on the pavement outside the site. This was very carefully hidden and every drawing and cgi coincidentally erred in not showing it.

Refused by DCC and currently overdue from the Board (1st Party appeal) (Reg Ref 5183/06, PL29S.220979).

QUOTE=publicrealm;
Incidentally, the modest amendment application mentioned by Altotude had a hidden element – the removal of one of the old (100 years?) trees on the pavement outside the site. This was very carefully hidden and every drawing and cgi coincidentally erred in not showing it.

QUOTE]

Sadly, I noted damage to a different tree on the footpath this am.

Caused by the contractors laying the tarmacadam driveway into the house. Tree is probably a contemporary of that proposed for removal (by the applicant – i.e. about/more than 100 years old).

I don’t know if the damage is life threatening?

I think I have attached a poorish photo taken early this morning? 😮

@jimg wrote:

Passing this corner recently, the results of this planning fiasco are plain to see.

This is simply a shameful example of planning failure: the ignorance and arrogance of the owners – not even offering the pretence of caring about the planning procedures and the bored laziness and incompetence of the planning officials involved.

I am being bitter I know – and it is no compensation for the reality that the original distinctive and attractive period building is never coming back and the new pile-of-shite is there for the foreseeable future – but I feel a tiny flicker of satisfaction knowing that the owners’ laughable taste and ignorant behaviour is going to hurt them financially. Unlike hoping that the planning dept would actually do it’s job, I’d be more optimistic in this regard; suspect that if they ever try to sell, they’d be lucky to recover half of what they’ve spent on it; the morons have pissed away 3 or 4 million euro.

Sure, the fool paid a fortune and knocked down a lovely house of charm and character and built a rotten one in its place.
Its his money squandered and his land so bully for him.
It takes all kinds and that is what freedom means. Why should you people dictate to him? If you wish to change your own house or garden why should the neighbours tell you what to do? If you create a nuisance or damage their property they can sue you for damages.

So, the developer ignores the planning permission, nobody else has any right to ‘dictate’ and it can all be ‘settled’ by allowing expensive lawyers to rip everyone off – what kind of nightmare scenario is that?
Any views of the resulting monstrosity? To demolish a perfectly decent house of character on a whim and replace it with… anything, just about, hardly seems justified. The architects must have known what was afoot and they are criminally complicit.