Palmerston Park (Grianblah)

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.

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.

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?

@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.

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.