Thomas Street & James Street, Dublin!
- This topic has 645 replies, 75 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 6 months ago by
.
- Posts
Hi Gunther, my reading of the 2000 planning act is that duration cant be extended in this way unless construction has commenced.
Any planners reading this (esp. anyone working at wood quay) want to comment?
Presumably if this is granted the decision can and should be appealed to ABP.
. . . as amended by the Planning and Development Act 2010, unfortunately.
You simply fill in a two page form, mutter something about how the economic circumstance didn’t permit the commencement of the development at the time, and you’re good to go.
The Corpo just waved one of these through in Kilmainham last month.
58 apartments, partially sited on a flood plain, the full Tiger package. No requirement for even a site notice, no mechanism to lodge comments, no right of appeal, just the errant developer[or his legal representative] and the planning officer in cosy harmony and one day soon all those lovely, index-linked, planning contributions will start to flow again.
There is a requirement for any permitted to develop to remain compliant with current local planning policy. As you say policy has changed with a new City Development Plan, and ACA and perhaps the Liberties LAP (?) in the intervening time. But who knows whether it will factor.
We found a pair of millstones set into the (?early 18th century?) cobbled street in front of No. 138 Thomas Street last week. These measured 940mm diameter with oval eye 160-220mm diameter and 120mm thick at the edges. The complete runner stone was dressed with six harps of six furrows. The pavement light in the back of the photograph is later, perhaps 19th century.
I think this property used to be a bakery, which may explain the millstones. These have been preserved in situ.
[attachment=0:3duyggw6]IMG_0961(red).JPG[/attachment:3duyggw6]
Probably just as well that the archiseek link was down for a couple of weeks, it’s given me time to cool off on the outrageous decision made by the Corpo on the extension-of-time application for the office block at 61 – 62 Thomas Street.
Just to recap on the process of Extensions-of-Time applications; Essentially, if it wasn’t profitable, in the last five years, for a developer to build a scheme that he was given planning permission for in 2009, he could apply to the Planning office, by simple letter, to seek a further period of five years to construct the development.
The concept seems to have been that since development is an economic imperative, making people go off and employ architects to design new schemes on sites which already had old planning permissions was just a waste of everyone’s time and money. Instead, at the stroke of a pen, we could change all the best-before dates and pick up again where we left off.
Furthermore, there is no mechanism in the extension-of-time application for third parties to comment on, or provide information that might be relevant to, that application.
This all sounds thoroughly illegal to me, but presumably the AG, or some other legal entity, was consulted before this process found itself on the statute book.
The development at 61 – 62 Thomas Street is a test case, not just because of the doubtful legalities of making an important planning decision without giving third parties the opportunity to submit research material that could inform on the value of the existing structures that will be demolished, it is a test case because Thomas Street in now a designated ACA, which it wasn’t when the original decision was made.
The planner’s report on the extension-of-time application [Reg. no. 4775/08×1]acknowledged that the ACA had changed the ground rules and it stated;
”Notwithstanding the alterations made [to the design during the original planning application process] the design as permitted cannot be considered to be in keeping with the objectives of the ACA.”
For that reason the planning officer’s decision was to refuse permission for the extension of time.
Somehow, that decision was overturned in the manager’s order, which granted the permission on 1 July.
This is the equivalent to the jury finding a defendant guilty on all counts and then the judge saying, ah no you’re grand you can go.
What kind of half assed planning system are we running in this City?
“The absence of Archiseek for the past few weeks was unfortunate here…that and the total absence of any thinking or interest in planning/architecture these days. Everyone has given up it seems, or more likely emigrated to quality urban environments elsewhere. I was thinking this kind of nonsense would have gained a thread of its own a few years back.
So yes, what an interesting case this has been. This S42 provision has gone under the radar somewhat and was seen at its introduction in 2010 as a logical provision to tied us over until the market recovers. So I wonder…when will it be removed? When is the market judged to have sufficiently recovered to remove the provision? I bet none of our political dodos have even thought about that – least of all the all but invisible Planning Minister Jan O’Sullivan (who now moves on to Dept Education) having missed any real chance to reform and improve the planning system in the last few years.
The planning report is worth reading. The actual planner for the area – the one who knows what’s actually going on there, is tasked with implementing the LAP and ACA, and who just might be investing her time in its improvement – gave a reasoned argument as to why the changed policy framework made this development incompatible with the ACA. Her opinion was overruled in the most perfunctory manner by a colleague with no argument to justify his view that this rather bland design, one of a number to be proposed for Thomas Street during the boom years, would ‘greatly enhance the area’.
You can read the report here:So what have we got now. Well we have a site which has lain in a state of semi-dereliction for 20 off years (I would say), with three substandard shops at its ground floor, with an ugly big hoarding stuck to its broken front …all this could potentially continue for another 5 years until the permission expires in 2019.
Maybe its just too difficult, within the flawed planning system we have, with the zero public buy-in that it has, to try and develop nuanced policies for areas like here and see them implemented.
___________________________________________________________I thought (the second part of) this article by Michael Clifford was quite illustrative of our planning predicament…if unconnected to the case above. In this instance its another planning decision made by Dublin City Council – here the Council upholding planning whereas on Thomas Street its been kind of dismissed.
The new villain of the piece in the City in the media’s eye is Owen Keegan of course…the ‘Butcher of Dun Laoghaire’ if you are to believe some. Everyone has it in for Mr Keegan, but here he appears to be simply upholding the planning and event licensing laws. Interestingly, I too noticed how quiet the GAA were about the debacle of Garth Brooks and I also wondered at the respect to them shown at the Dail Committee.
Damned if you do and damned if you dont in planning these days. You can be quite sure that the politicians who instate and maintain the planning system through legislation, couldn’t care less about it. And in this they are no different from the common populace. Planning is great in the abstract but when it affects what you want to do, then you dont want to know. All part of our love of the chaotic perhaps.
And another sorry case on Thomas Street is found at No 29. In February its new owner began gutting the interiors of the building. Rubble merrily dropping down a chute from its 1st floor window for weeks it seemed. Some people who viewed the building before its sale attested to the good (if modest) quality of the interiors. The developer found only dry rot…it all had to come out. By all accounts (viewed from the street) its interior layout has also been very significantly altered with the aim of creating 3 new flats above a shop.
Then in May its windows were removed and replaced with nice modrin sashes. The new windows aren’t a patch on the old and the new glazing in particular looks awful against the older detail of the brick.
None of the above had the benefit of planning permission. As No. 29 is not a protected structure, the interior works were deemed exempted development, the developer felt he could do as he pleased and the Planning Authority didnt seem minded to step in. Interestingly, despite details Apartment Guidelines on minimum space, storage standards, open space etc, and a crackdown by DCC on bedsit accommodation, no one felt they should assess whether the proposed 3 one-bed apartments being developed should be assessed against the guidelines. Nor was the principle of ‘intensification of use’ considered. Nor the potential change of use of the upper floors.
The windows were a slightly different story. As this is an ACA where policy dictates that exempted development provisions do not apply to external works, the develop must apply for permission in advance of works. He didn’t. Perhaps enforcement action might bring the originals back, as was luckily the case elsewhere on the street recently.
The shopfront is next up for butchering. The original is long gone but it doesn’t take that much reconstituted stone to destroy any residual charm NO 29 might have had… just look at Capel Street for examples.
There is no record of a planning application as yet.
From the Thomas Street & Environs ACA
6.2.8 New Build
Development that affects the setting of the ACA will only be permitted where it will preserve or enhance its character or appearance. The retention and adaptation of existing historic structures should be favoured over new build development. In considering the design and impact of all new development within the ACA, Dublin City Council will have regard to the following:
• Proposals to demolish Protected Structures or proposed Protected Structures may only be considered in exceptional circumstances
• Proposals to demolish buildings of architectural or streetscape merit within the ACA may be considered in exceptional circumstances only where they are supported by a
rationale related to the overall enhancement of the urban structure i.e. linkage, public space and use.
• New developments should have regard to the grain and character of the adjacent buildings, which shall include height, massing, proportions and plot width. They
could be contemporary in style while respecting the scale and character of the adjacent area. Any building to be demolished should be fully recorded.
• The amalgamation of one or more existing sites is generally discouraged and where proposed development will require sensitive planning and design treatment, to
complement the fine grain of the established streetscape.
• All new buildings should be designed to the highest standards of contemporary architectural design.
• Pastiche design proposals for infill buildings or replacement shop fronts will be discouraged.
• High quality durable materials should be used. They should include stone, brick, render, steel, glass and timber.There’s nothing wrong with the guidelines.
The guidelines in the ACA strike a careful balance between the protection of architectural heritage and the legitimate concerns to create good contemporary architecture. In the context of urban development and the protection of architectural heritage, the ACA is capable of being quite a good tool.
Like any tool, however, you need to put it in the hands of someone who at least knows which is the sharp end.
Certainly when you’re dealing with something as complex and layered as Thomas Street. It’s one thing to implement an ACA for somewhere like Dartmouth Square where all the houses are exactly same and the only thing yo have worry about is someone going off reservation with their paint colour choice. The layers of heritage behind every façade on a street like Thomas Street demand a carefully crafted approach to each redevelopment proposal . . . . as outlined in the bloody ACA. This is just a classic case of RTFM; read the f*-king manual.
How demoralizing must it be for the case officer to have her carefully detailed and well argued report set aside by one of those lets-get-the-city-moving-again-stuffed-suit-types that always seem to inhabit the loftiest pay grades in local authority land.
Like you, I’m jaded by this kind of bullshit, but I can’t let this stand. There must be an Ombudsman, or somebody, that these people are ultimately accountable to.
A little something that could have been – a lock staircase to the river from the James St Harbour
https://archiseek.com/2014/1780s-proposal-link-grand-canal-liffey-dublin/#.U86kifldVCg@StephenC wrote:
The absence of Archiseek for the past few weeks was unfortunate here…that and the total absence of any thinking or interest in planning/architecture these days. Everyone has given up it seems, or more likely emigrated to quality urban environments elsewhere. I was thinking this kind of nonsense would have gained a thread of its own a few years back.
Unfortunately, this is a sad case of a forum being killed off by its unrealiability. I imagine a lot of people who used to visit every day just got sick of it.
That canal link would have been interesting, I hadn’t seen that before.
The QBC works are entering an interesting section of the street!
It would be nice if the Glib water course turned up on the south side. There are indications that this was a open, presumably cut-stone, channel possibly along the lines of the famous open water-courses in Freiburg, but originally lead lined to guard against seepage as it was a supply system rather than a drainage system. After the Glib water course had been superseded by a piped water supply system in the early 18th century, the wardens of St Catherine’s petitioned the Corpo to take up the lead for use in repairing the valley between the two main roofs of the old St. Catherine’s, before the church was rebuilt entirely in the 1760s.
Speed shows this water course cutting across Thomas Street at John’s Lane West to run northwards down John’s Lane to a mill near Mullinahack. Leases from the early 18th century record a ‘mill-race’ at this location which would correspond to the Speed depiction. Again, it would be nice to get archaeological confirmation of this.
The location of the main gate into the Hospital of St, John the Baptist is another target. Either of the two original John’s Lanes would be the likely locations.
The stalls in front of the Glib houses, either side of Fade’s Bank, on the Frawleys side were probably insubstantial structures, but there may be some evidence of the footings to put with the descriptions we find in the leases. The stalls were largely occupied in the 18th century by an odd combination of butchers and hatters, although this is probably no stranger than the current combination of purveyors of toilet rolls and tat.
The ‘Pest Houses’ were demolished and replaced in 1782, but there may be evidence of the odd cross wall that wasn’t totally eliminated by the rebuilding which might through light of the date of construction of these intriguing structures.
Looking forward to our regular updates from Antoine.
The lock staircase from the basin to the Liffey would have been an incredible Industrial Revolution remnant to have today. Pity it wasn’t constructed – may have kept the basin open.
With all the activity along this stretch, I’ve found myself drawn to this spot lately, and began wondering… how did this get built?
I mean what’s going on with the little single bay former pub (now the off license) and could someone explain to me what the story is with the odd window arrangement of the building it’s attached to??
Could anyone tell me what year does the arch date from?
Which Arch, the Chawdicks Arch?
Dates from 1861 and was originally constructed (rather grandiosely) as the entrance to Kelly’s Timber Yard
Which Arch, the Chadwicks Arch?
Dates from 1861 and was originally constructed (rather grandiosely) as the entrance to Kelly’s Timber Yard
Work about to begin on this project – very sad to see Mother Redcaps go, along with probably all sense of intimacy and history that Back Lane still (somehow) retains
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
